Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2018/06/21 22:23:46
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Inception felt like a wanna be matrix to me. It had none of the flare or dark tones that the matrix had.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/06/21 22:32:30
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Lance845 wrote: 3) Batman doesn't kill because he makes the conscious choice to not kill. Again, Gotham by Gaslight does it really well. Batman the Animated series did it really well. There should be blood. There should be cries for help. Batman should be breaking bones and putting people in hospitals. But there is a big difference between a cracked femur and death.
I disagree. Batman does not kill because he's every bit as insane as any member of his rogue's gallery. He was traumatized by his parent's death and cannot bring himself to kill. Not even to save a life.... or hundreds of lives, in the case of the Joker.
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done.
2018/06/21 22:34:19
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
greatbigtree wrote: @ Nou: I get it. Forums are tough to gauge emotional content. No harm, no foul.
@ Mr Borden: I get that point of view, though I don't share it. I'm only pointing out some of the intellectual aspects that make Inception appealing to some viewers. I can absolutely agree that the characters feel flat in their world. And I will further agree that I was more connected to the characters in Sucker Punch. To me, I think the movie suffers from the presentation, more than the content. By making it about abused the women in "sexy" outfits fighting geeky tropes it became pandering. I think if they had avoided the sexy dames doing their own thing cliche and had made it more ordinary, or kept it stylized in one way, it would have been better. As it is, it felt to me more like trying to present One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest as a Burlesque performance. The seriousness of the subject matter is undermined by the presentation.
but isn't part of Sucker Punch's schtick that we the audience are complicit in watching the girls exactly because they are hella purty, and their oddball fantasy escapism sequences are essentially teenage / dirty old pervs sticky fetish fever dreams that 'we' think they should have further demeaning them for 'fun'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 22:36:23
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
2018/06/21 22:43:29
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Turnip Jedi wrote: but isn't part of Sucker Punch's schtick that we the audience are complicit in watching the girls exactly because they are hella purty, and their oddball fantasy escapism sequences are essentially teenage / dirty old pervs sticky fetish fever dreams that 'we' think they should have further demeaning them for 'fun'
Correct - it's no accident that the audience of men in the dream layer are sleazy and slimy AF. Snyder could have cast guys that looked like John Hamm, a father that looked like George Clooney, etc. but he chose not to. The casting choices and how they present in the various layers are very deliberate. One should assume implicit intent.
Mr Morden had pointed out that people he knew said the film was smart / clever and couldn't explain why. I was just throwing out a list of things I could remember several years after I watched it.
I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even if it hashed over familiar territory for myself. I'm more interested in philosophy, than neuroscience, but I was sloppy in my word choices, so that's totally fair.
I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to talk about the correct terms on the brain-science end of things. My interest in it is superficial, despite enjoying ADD and Anxiety. I'm always worried about something, I just can't remember what it was I was worrying about before what I'm worried about now. Just a joke, I'm fortunate in that my situation is more inconvenient than debilitating. I just need to know enough to work with it, not fully understand the underlying functions.
Which is weird, now that I think of it, because I'm almost always trying to deeply understand the mechanics behind things.
Anyhow, Inception good. Sucker Punch bad, but maybe classic in the way Weird Science is a classic. You're at the right place and time in your life when you see it. Very much why Fight Club is a classic for me. Absolutely the right time and place in my life for it to make a serious impact on me.
I understand what you are saying but for me it fundmentally fails in that I have no emotional engagement with a single character wthin the film and in addition it does not hold true to its own internal rules, that one character is introduced who has the ability to rest the dream but can not do this later because suddenly the rules change to allow the set piece action sequences to work. So when someone says its "cleveer" then I look bac and think - nope - it makes little sense within its own rules and the director either will not or can not create human characters.
Watching Sucker Punch - I felt sorry for the girls, the brutality they were undergoing in the "real world" and hence could engage.
Inception left me cold - it felt dead and lifeless and hence, to me, pointless except as a acedemic exercise or just a series of pretty set pieces.
That may just be a result of my own mind set and what I "need" to enagge fully with a narative be that film, computer game, book or other medium.
So for Me Sucker Punch: Great, Inception: Nothing.
What you write here is what I expected to read from you if you ever were to elaborate on your previous post. You are correct in feeling that Nolan characters are somewhat hollow and you cannot engage, because they are such by design. Especially in Inception, where by one interpretation everyone except Cobb and Mal are mere projections of Cobb mind's traits (Mal being a flawed model of real Mal). This is another post from you, by which I would describe you not as unable to understand Nolan's works, but simply hardwired in incompatible enough manner to care for them. Would you describe yourself rather as an empatic person than analytic?
I don't consider myself especially empathic - in fact friends and colleagues would be likely amused by the idea I was.
I don't just find it in Inception but all Nolan films that I have watched and again I do find it interesting that he seems unable to create female characters. I donot agree that this is by design, I think its a flaw with the Director that he can't create them - I don't know him or his mental state but that may have some bearing on what he can and can't do and create.
I also still say there are huge narrative issues with the film in terms of internal rules. Now this often does not matter in a film, but when people tlak about it being so clever I just see fundemental flaws in its own structure and composition whilst at the same time being cold and unengaging.
.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Mr Morden had pointed out that people he knew said the film was smart / clever and couldn't explain why. I was just throwing out a list of things I could remember several years after I watched it.
I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even if it hashed over familiar territory for myself. I'm more interested in philosophy, than neuroscience, but I was sloppy in my word choices, so that's totally fair.
I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to talk about the correct terms on the brain-science end of things. My interest in it is superficial, despite enjoying ADD and Anxiety. I'm always worried about something, I just can't remember what it was I was worrying about before what I'm worried about now. Just a joke, I'm fortunate in that my situation is more inconvenient than debilitating. I just need to know enough to work with it, not fully understand the underlying functions.
Which is weird, now that I think of it, because I'm almost always trying to deeply understand the mechanics behind things.
Anyhow, Inception good. Sucker Punch bad, but maybe classic in the way Weird Science is a classic. You're at the right place and time in your life when you see it. Very much why Fight Club is a classic for me. Absolutely the right time and place in my life for it to make a serious impact on me.
I understand what you are saying but for me it fundmentally fails in that I have no emotional engagement with a single character wthin the film and in addition it does not hold true to its own internal rules, that one character is introduced who has the ability to rest the dream but can not do this later because suddenly the rules change to allow the set piece action sequences to work. So when someone says its "cleveer" then I look bac and think - nope - it makes little sense within its own rules and the director either will not or can not create human characters.
Watching Sucker Punch - I felt sorry for the girls, the brutality they were undergoing in the "real world" and hence could engage.
Inception left me cold - it felt dead and lifeless and hence, to me, pointless except as a acedemic exercise or just a series of pretty set pieces.
That may just be a result of my own mind set and what I "need" to enagge fully with a narative be that film, computer game, book or other medium.
So for Me Sucker Punch: Great, Inception: Nothing.
What you write here is what I expected to read from you if you ever were to elaborate on your previous post. You are correct in feeling that Nolan characters are somewhat hollow and you cannot engage, because they are such by design. Especially in Inception, where by one interpretation everyone except Cobb and Mal are mere projections of Cobb mind's traits (Mal being a flawed model of real Mal). This is another post from you, by which I would describe you not as unable to understand Nolan's works, but simply hardwired in incompatible enough manner to care for them. Would you describe yourself rather as an empatic person than analytic?
I don't consider myself especially empathic - in fact friends and colleagues would be likely amused by the idea I was.
I don't just find it in Inception but all Nolan films that I have watched and again I do find it interesting that he seems unable to create female characters. I donot agree that this is by design, I think its a flaw with the Director that he can't create them - I don't know him or his mental state but that may have some bearing on what he can and can't do and create.
I also still say there are huge narrative issues with the film in terms of internal rules. Now this often does not matter in a film, but when people tlak about it being so clever I just see fundemental flaws in its own structure and composition whilst at the same time being cold and unengaging.
.
I saw that part of your previous post, but i don't really know which character and what ability you are referencing to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also completely don't get this "unable to create female characters" argument, as I know women exactly as those from Prestige. Especially Sarah is an ideal depiction of a type of woman that could fall to bipolar personality and then suffer mental breakdown from living with a bipolar husband. I literally witnessed such marriage, 1:1. Prestige is so psychiatrically accurate, that I know of only one better movie on such subject, and better only because it was made based on actual audiovisual diary - "Ostatnia rodzina" (Last Family) about Zdzisław Beksiński's (the painter) family. It is ailable on HBO GO and has english translation. I strongly recommend it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 23:18:41
2018/06/22 01:41:05
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Look, I am not arguing the merits of Sucker Punch's feminism. I was just giving you something to work with since you seemed so confused about what sort of feminist message might be present in that movie. Agree with it or not, I don't really care.
Ahah sorry it wasn't meant to be understood as me arguing against you it's just that this movie pushes my button so hard that I can't stop arguing why it's bad .
Turnip Jedi wrote: but isn't part of Sucker Punch's schtick that we the audience are complicit in watching the girls exactly because they are hella purty
It doesn't work for me. It doesn't seem like the movie is subverting the trope it's just playing it straight. It's not making you uncomfortable at the idea of you doing this. I felt incredibly uncomfortable on those scene in Thriller - A cruel picture, and apparently it wasn't even made on purpose. But in Sucker Punch, the fact that all the random non-sexual pandering (like all the anime fan bait) is there makes it hard to see it as trying to call us out on being voyeuristic or anything.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: You have me curious, though. What is a deeper, non-superficial aspect of Mecha that needs to be examined on screen? Because knee jerk reaction? That line of yours was pretty funny.
I'm not very knowledgeable about mecha, but I'm sure some anime managed to say interesting stuff about mecha pilots, about how using mecha changes the way battles are done, all that jazz.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2018/06/22 03:13:46
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Nolan is alright. For me he is very hit or miss. I only saw parts of Inception, but what I did see didnt interest me. I liked Interstellar for a cool sci fi film. Not very scientifically accurate, except for that Black Hole, but still a fun story and pretty good acting. His take on Batman was glorious, however. The only thing I hated about Bale was his Batman voice. But then I heard Batfleck and it was okay again. Keaton was good but I'll be honest, I havent seen him be bad in anything really. Just a solid actor. Every other one besides West and the animated Batman were awful. Burton amd Schumacher should be banned from superhero movies for what they put out.
Dreadwinter wrote: A Batman film without Bruce would be god awful. It would be nothing but action scenes and gruff one liners.
Also, an accurate Batman movie would be next to impossible to pull off realistically. The one reason Batman does not kill in the comics is plot armor. Some of the things he has done, people would not walk away from that. You definitely wouldn't see them standing up to get handcuffed and taken away. There would be blood, cries for help, and ambulances galore.
The way he drops people over the edge of buildings with their feet tied up? Yeah, at best you are getting a dislocated hip or knee. At worst, he ded. Batarang to the chest? Hope you like broken sternums and perforated lungs! Doctors sure don't! After he maims these guys, he just walks off and leaves them. Hoping they will be okay.
Non-killing Batman only works in the comics, cartoons, and whimsical shows with Adam West.
Disagree entirely.
1) Batman is a detective. Murder on the Orient Express was not all one liners and action scenes. A Batman movie should be a detective movie. Batman also does no gruff one liners. His enemies should be talking gak to him, and he should be terrifyingly silent and methodical.
2) Most Batman movies thus far have focused on the villains. You can use them to drive most of the plot, and you should. Batman is a reactionary force. The meat and potatoes of the film should be the villians, their psychosis, and how that effects their world view and their drives. Even when it's a murder mystery like Gotham by Gaslight you follow Batman as he uncovers layer by layer the villains thought process and motivations.
3) Batman doesn't kill because he makes the conscious choice to not kill. Again, Gotham by Gaslight does it really well. Batman the Animated series did it really well. There should be blood. There should be cries for help. Batman should be breaking bones and putting people in hospitals. But there is a big difference between a cracked femur and death.
Non killing batman would work 100% fine in the movies just like non-killing Spiderman. The vulture comes at him with murderous intent. The robbers use guns to hurt him. And he pulls his punches and tries to debilitate. Just write the movie to function like the comic. I don't need it to emulate real life. I just need to believe the world they are showing me. It's a comic book world where a man in a bat costume fights a guy in a refrigerator suit with a glass jar on his head. Not being a killer is the least crazy, most believable part of that world.
1 Batman the detective isn't really much of a detective. They play him up in the comics but a lot of what he does just relies on his supercomputer giving him quick lab work or Alfred doing some digging for him. This would be especially problematic if there was no Bruce Wayne bits. Bruce brings a whole new set of skills and possibilities to the table.
Except again, we have clear examples of Batman being a detective on film. Gotham By Gaslight has no super computer. Animated series used the computer to get a chemical analysis but it didn't put the pieces together or tell him what it means. You can say it doesn't work but we have seen it work. By Bruce Wayne do you mean Batman without the mask on? Let me clarify what I mean. Bruce Wayne is the mask. That persons real personality is Batman. He pretends to be Bruce Wayne to hide the fact that hes Batman. You can have Batman in the cave without the Mask on and it would be fine. Thats not Bruce Wayne stuff. Bruce Wayne stuff he hanging out with ladies and pretending to be on a cruise while talking to the police on the phone or whatever.
2 Batman is all about his rogues gallery, but a lot of them have one big flaw. They are obsessed with him in some way. It's not just the Joker, they all are. They really cannot help themselves. That is why the detective angle is so hard for him. Most of the time it starts with him doing his detective bit and then suddenly "Surprise! It was me all along!" The villain pops out of nowhere.
NOW. But not at first. And not all of them. Again, I want to see a long holloween. Long holloween has a a great mystery with murders and detective work and action beats and a criminal that is in no way obsessed with batman.
3 Batman can make the concious choice not to kill all he wants. But what it boils down to is the plot is saving those people. Untreated broken bones can easily kill. Blows to the head can kill. Blows to the chest can kill. These things can kill on complete accident. It happens. Hit a guy and he falls down wrong. Ded. Misjudge a batarang throw. Ded. That is Batmans problem, he does all of this stuff that can easily kill a person and their reasoning for nobody getting killed is "Oh, he doesn't kill." Then you look at your choice of Spiderman, who has killed before, and see he is actively using his powers not to kill. The death of Gwen Stacy changed Spiderman. He uses his powers to tie people up. He will gladly take a punch and soak it with his super strength. Batman does not have that luxury, so he has to get in quick and fast and rely on the plot armor to keep people alive.
Watch ANY movie where people don't die from blows that should have clearly killed them. It's most movies. Thats FINE. I don't need to know how a cloth suits protects batman from point blank gun shots or knifes. I can just accept that the batsuit is bullet proof. Trying to explain why batmans blows would kill is dumb. Whats worse is batman covering his stuff in guns and then actually shooting people. In spiderman 2 Spiderman punches doc oct in the head a LOT. and not soft little punches, he winds up and really nails him. He throws that giant sack of gold coins with a $ on it at him full speed. Doc Oct isn't a enhanced person like green goblin was. He's just a guy with prosthetic stuck to him because of a lab accident. He would be dead a dozen times over in that movie. But everyone lets it slide because it's a comic book and the action doesn't need to represent real world physics. People who die around you because of their actions are not your fault. Gwen got thrown off a bridge. Spiderman didn't throw her. Trying to save people and failing is not the same as you killing them.
Another question, how has a goon never killed another goon on accident in front of Batman? Shots get fired a lot at Batman.
Again, if one criminal shot another criminal, thats not on Batman.
1. Okay, he is a detective, I guess my issue is how they portray his detective skills. He doesnt do a lot of great detective work for the greatest detective to ever live. Gotham by Gaslight may be different but that is a wildly different setting than the modern day. Go to crime scene. Find substance. Batcomputer. Shake down thug rinse and repeat. I would argue his detective skills are put to way better use when he is Bruce Wayne. He may be a playboy, but he is a playboy involved in corporate and political intrigue and he rubs elbows with some of the wealthiest and most influential people in Gotham. Right under their noses he is gathering Intel on them amd their activities.
2. I mean, Batman has almost always been about his rogues gallery. Ask anybody and they can name at least 1. I would say the average person could name at least 3. Those are the popular ones too. He has a ridiculously large rogues gallery. They all have distinct tells and almost all of them are bad at what they do. The sad part is, only a handful have ever come close to beating him.
3. Alright, lets go at this a different way. How often do you see Batman actively saving a goons life from the beating he just gave him? It should happen. A lot. I mean hell, he probably has a full medkit on that belt. Never seen him use it on a baddie. He should be helping even if anither goon causes the injury. Because he doesn't believe in killing and murder is murder. That is why the Joker or Bane or Killer Croc are never executed. Bruce pulls strings to save them.
Lance, I'm gonna put these in spoilers so we dont disrupt the other discussions. Also I'm on my phone so my formatting might be awful.
Whew! Fixed it!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/22 03:25:15
2018/06/22 08:24:20
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Mr Morden had pointed out that people he knew said the film was smart / clever and couldn't explain why. I was just throwing out a list of things I could remember several years after I watched it.
I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even if it hashed over familiar territory for myself. I'm more interested in philosophy, than neuroscience, but I was sloppy in my word choices, so that's totally fair.
I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to talk about the correct terms on the brain-science end of things. My interest in it is superficial, despite enjoying ADD and Anxiety. I'm always worried about something, I just can't remember what it was I was worrying about before what I'm worried about now. Just a joke, I'm fortunate in that my situation is more inconvenient than debilitating. I just need to know enough to work with it, not fully understand the underlying functions.
Which is weird, now that I think of it, because I'm almost always trying to deeply understand the mechanics behind things.
Anyhow, Inception good. Sucker Punch bad, but maybe classic in the way Weird Science is a classic. You're at the right place and time in your life when you see it. Very much why Fight Club is a classic for me. Absolutely the right time and place in my life for it to make a serious impact on me.
I understand what you are saying but for me it fundmentally fails in that I have no emotional engagement with a single character wthin the film and in addition it does not hold true to its own internal rules, that one character is introduced who has the ability to rest the dream but can not do this later because suddenly the rules change to allow the set piece action sequences to work. So when someone says its "cleveer" then I look bac and think - nope - it makes little sense within its own rules and the director either will not or can not create human characters.
Watching Sucker Punch - I felt sorry for the girls, the brutality they were undergoing in the "real world" and hence could engage.
Inception left me cold - it felt dead and lifeless and hence, to me, pointless except as a acedemic exercise or just a series of pretty set pieces.
That may just be a result of my own mind set and what I "need" to enagge fully with a narative be that film, computer game, book or other medium.
So for Me Sucker Punch: Great, Inception: Nothing.
What you write here is what I expected to read from you if you ever were to elaborate on your previous post. You are correct in feeling that Nolan characters are somewhat hollow and you cannot engage, because they are such by design. Especially in Inception, where by one interpretation everyone except Cobb and Mal are mere projections of Cobb mind's traits (Mal being a flawed model of real Mal). This is another post from you, by which I would describe you not as unable to understand Nolan's works, but simply hardwired in incompatible enough manner to care for them. Would you describe yourself rather as an empatic person than analytic?
I don't consider myself especially empathic - in fact friends and colleagues would be likely amused by the idea I was.
I don't just find it in Inception but all Nolan films that I have watched and again I do find it interesting that he seems unable to create female characters. I donot agree that this is by design, I think its a flaw with the Director that he can't create them - I don't know him or his mental state but that may have some bearing on what he can and can't do and create.
I also still say there are huge narrative issues with the film in terms of internal rules. Now this often does not matter in a film, but when people tlak about it being so clever I just see fundemental flaws in its own structure and composition whilst at the same time being cold and unengaging.
.
I saw that part of your previous post, but i don't really know which character and what ability you are referencing to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also completely don't get this "unable to create female characters" argument, as I know women exactly as those from Prestige. Especially Sarah is an ideal depiction of a type of woman that could fall to bipolar personality and then suffer mental breakdown from living with a bipolar husband. I literally witnessed such marriage, 1:1. Prestige is so psychiatrically accurate, that I know of only one better movie on such subject, and better only because it was made based on actual audiovisual diary - "Ostatnia rodzina" (Last Family) about Zdzisław Beksiński's (the painter) family. It is ailable on HBO GO and has english translation. I strongly recommend it.
Looking at Wiki for names: Ariadne is the one I am referring to - When the person reacts to the presence of others in a dream she is able to reset the dream - something that she is unable to do later - because, like a number of elements - the "rules have been changed" in a narrative conceit. She is also another shell of a character - which I get that you say is intentional.
I can't recall Prestige that well - I have never felt the need to see one of his films more than once - but I don't recall anyone in them in it making any impact on me.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Dreadwinter wrote: A Batman film without Bruce would be god awful. It would be nothing but action scenes and gruff one liners.
Also, an accurate Batman movie would be next to impossible to pull off realistically. The one reason Batman does not kill in the comics is plot armor. Some of the things he has done, people would not walk away from that. You definitely wouldn't see them standing up to get handcuffed and taken away. There would be blood, cries for help, and ambulances galore.
The way he drops people over the edge of buildings with their feet tied up? Yeah, at best you are getting a dislocated hip or knee. At worst, he ded. Batarang to the chest? Hope you like broken sternums and perforated lungs! Doctors sure don't! After he maims these guys, he just walks off and leaves them. Hoping they will be okay.
Non-killing Batman only works in the comics, cartoons, and whimsical shows with Adam West.
Disagree entirely.
1) Batman is a detective. Murder on the Orient Express was not all one liners and action scenes. A Batman movie should be a detective movie. Batman also does no gruff one liners. His enemies should be talking gak to him, and he should be terrifyingly silent and methodical.
2) Most Batman movies thus far have focused on the villains. You can use them to drive most of the plot, and you should. Batman is a reactionary force. The meat and potatoes of the film should be the villians, their psychosis, and how that effects their world view and their drives. Even when it's a murder mystery like Gotham by Gaslight you follow Batman as he uncovers layer by layer the villains thought process and motivations.
3) Batman doesn't kill because he makes the conscious choice to not kill. Again, Gotham by Gaslight does it really well. Batman the Animated series did it really well. There should be blood. There should be cries for help. Batman should be breaking bones and putting people in hospitals. But there is a big difference between a cracked femur and death.
Non killing batman would work 100% fine in the movies just like non-killing Spiderman. The vulture comes at him with murderous intent. The robbers use guns to hurt him. And he pulls his punches and tries to debilitate. Just write the movie to function like the comic. I don't need it to emulate real life. I just need to believe the world they are showing me. It's a comic book world where a man in a bat costume fights a guy in a refrigerator suit with a glass jar on his head. Not being a killer is the least crazy, most believable part of that world.
1 Batman the detective isn't really much of a detective. They play him up in the comics but a lot of what he does just relies on his supercomputer giving him quick lab work or Alfred doing some digging for him. This would be especially problematic if there was no Bruce Wayne bits. Bruce brings a whole new set of skills and possibilities to the table.
Except again, we have clear examples of Batman being a detective on film. Gotham By Gaslight has no super computer. Animated series used the computer to get a chemical analysis but it didn't put the pieces together or tell him what it means. You can say it doesn't work but we have seen it work. By Bruce Wayne do you mean Batman without the mask on? Let me clarify what I mean. Bruce Wayne is the mask. That persons real personality is Batman. He pretends to be Bruce Wayne to hide the fact that hes Batman. You can have Batman in the cave without the Mask on and it would be fine. Thats not Bruce Wayne stuff. Bruce Wayne stuff he hanging out with ladies and pretending to be on a cruise while talking to the police on the phone or whatever.
2 Batman is all about his rogues gallery, but a lot of them have one big flaw. They are obsessed with him in some way. It's not just the Joker, they all are. They really cannot help themselves. That is why the detective angle is so hard for him. Most of the time it starts with him doing his detective bit and then suddenly "Surprise! It was me all along!" The villain pops out of nowhere.
NOW. But not at first. And not all of them. Again, I want to see a long holloween. Long holloween has a a great mystery with murders and detective work and action beats and a criminal that is in no way obsessed with batman.
3 Batman can make the concious choice not to kill all he wants. But what it boils down to is the plot is saving those people. Untreated broken bones can easily kill. Blows to the head can kill. Blows to the chest can kill. These things can kill on complete accident. It happens. Hit a guy and he falls down wrong. Ded. Misjudge a batarang throw. Ded. That is Batmans problem, he does all of this stuff that can easily kill a person and their reasoning for nobody getting killed is "Oh, he doesn't kill." Then you look at your choice of Spiderman, who has killed before, and see he is actively using his powers not to kill. The death of Gwen Stacy changed Spiderman. He uses his powers to tie people up. He will gladly take a punch and soak it with his super strength. Batman does not have that luxury, so he has to get in quick and fast and rely on the plot armor to keep people alive.
Watch ANY movie where people don't die from blows that should have clearly killed them. It's most movies. Thats FINE. I don't need to know how a cloth suits protects batman from point blank gun shots or knifes. I can just accept that the batsuit is bullet proof. Trying to explain why batmans blows would kill is dumb. Whats worse is batman covering his stuff in guns and then actually shooting people. In spiderman 2 Spiderman punches doc oct in the head a LOT. and not soft little punches, he winds up and really nails him. He throws that giant sack of gold coins with a $ on it at him full speed. Doc Oct isn't a enhanced person like green goblin was. He's just a guy with prosthetic stuck to him because of a lab accident. He would be dead a dozen times over in that movie. But everyone lets it slide because it's a comic book and the action doesn't need to represent real world physics. People who die around you because of their actions are not your fault. Gwen got thrown off a bridge. Spiderman didn't throw her. Trying to save people and failing is not the same as you killing them.
Another question, how has a goon never killed another goon on accident in front of Batman? Shots get fired a lot at Batman.
Again, if one criminal shot another criminal, thats not on Batman.
1. Okay, he is a detective, I guess my issue is how they portray his detective skills. He doesnt do a lot of great detective work for the greatest detective to ever live. Gotham by Gaslight may be different but that is a wildly different setting than the modern day. Go to crime scene. Find substance. Batcomputer. Shake down thug rinse and repeat. I would argue his detective skills are put to way better use when he is Bruce Wayne. He may be a playboy, but he is a playboy involved in corporate and political intrigue and he rubs elbows with some of the wealthiest and most influential people in Gotham. Right under their noses he is gathering Intel on them amd their activities.
2. I mean, Batman has almost always been about his rogues gallery. Ask anybody and they can name at least 1. I would say the average person could name at least 3. Those are the popular ones too. He has a ridiculously large rogues gallery. They all have distinct tells and almost all of them are bad at what they do. The sad part is, only a handful have ever come close to beating him.
3. Alright, lets go at this a different way. How often do you see Batman actively saving a goons life from the beating he just gave him? It should happen. A lot. I mean hell, he probably has a full medkit on that belt. Never seen him use it on a baddie. He should be helping even if anither goon causes the injury. Because he doesn't believe in killing and murder is murder. That is why the Joker or Bane or Killer Croc are never executed. Bruce pulls strings to save them.
Lance, I'm gonna put these in spoilers so we dont disrupt the other discussions. Also I'm on my phone so my formatting might be awful.
Whew! Fixed it!
Agreed! I was getting a little worried about disrupting it myself.
1) The BEST Batman stories do a good job with the detective work. A lot of the time hes just used as a guy who beats people up but it's not what it should be. If you haven't read The Long Halloween I highly suggest it. And if you haven't watch Gotham By Gaslight your doing yourself a disservice. Its the best Batman on screen. Bruce can have his place. In a story like Court of Owls it can go a long way. But then there are also good stories like Bruce Wayne Fugitive where Bruce is "convicted of murder" so Batman gives up on the Bruce Wayne persona all together and goes Batman 24/7. If we could get get a couple of good, ACTUALLY GOOD, batman movies I would love to see a Bruce Wayne Fugitive movie.
2) There are only 2 comic book characters with actual good rogues galleries. And thats Batman and Spiderman. Every other hero might have 1 or 2 good villains but for the most part it's REAL bad. That being said beating Batman mostly isn't their goal. Mr Freeze doesn't have any particular interest in Batman. Scarecrow has become obsessed with feeling fear and only Batman scares him. Prof/ Pyg and the Doll Maker would prefer to be left to their own devices. Poison Ivy is an eco terrorist. These are not villians like the Green Goblin who are actually out to get their hero as their primary goal. It's an important distinction and it can make for compelling TV/movies. It's not about the villain trying to get batman and blow up the city. It's about a serial killer who is killing his way through the city not even knowing batman is on his trail.
3) Bruce pulls strings to save is villains because he 100% believes in rehabilitation. He has to. In the killing joke there is a really good scene of Batman in Arkham talking to who he thinks is the joker. saying there has to be a chance for this to end correctly. He needs to know he did everything he could before it comes to a head and one of them ends up killing the other. That being said, I don't need to see batman stitch a cut from a batarang. I can accept that unless Batman is going to crazy extremes hes not killing. Part of his schtik is that hes good enough and disciplined enough that he knows when hes going too far. Again, Spiderman should have murdered doc otc over and over but I can suspend my disbelief and just let it ride. Its when he gets out a gun, or uses a car as a wrecking ball, or locks 2 dudes in a room with a live grenade, or sets a person on fire, or sticks a bundle of dynamite down their pants and then kicks them into a sewer, or blows up the entire building full of ninjas, when I can no longer accept that he's not a killer. What reason does that batman have to not just kill the joker first chance he gets? He's killing regular people. Why are ANY of his enemies alive?
I think Nolan is a better Whedon in that hes over rated. Nolan's movies are generally actually better then Whedon's but they are not the cinematic deep masterpieces people tend to make them out to be. I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/22 10:04:41
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2018/06/22 10:54:55
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Looking at Wiki for names: Ariadne is the one I am referring to - When the person reacts to the presence of others in a dream she is able to reset the dream - something that she is unable to do later - because, like a number of elements - the "rules have been changed" in a narrative conceit. She is also another shell of a character - which I get that you say is intentional.
I can't recall Prestige that well - I have never felt the need to see one of his films more than once - but I don't recall anyone in them in it making any impact on me.
But how exactly is Ariadne able to reset the dream? It seems like a sloppy watching on your part or I still don't know which scene exactly you are referring to - the first time Ariadne is in a dream she wakes up right after realizing she's in a dream (her dream collapses spontaneously), exactly how untrained human mind reacts to lucid dreaming - it is not an ability, it's inability to dream consciously. Then there is a brief explanatory scene in the training workshop and they go down under again. This time Ariadne is able to stay in the dream consciously, but messes up with realism so Cobb's projections become aware of the dreamer, Mal shows up and stabs her, Ariadne dies, dream ends. The only time the rules change is introducing sedative, which makes waking up without a kick impossible without falling into limbo, but it is nearly the whole rest of the movie. Conscious self-waking without a kick or shared dreaming machine time out is never introduced in the film.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
It's a movie about how bipolar disorder (Bale) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (Jackman) destroy the lives of people suffering from those and people around them, told via the story of rivaling magicians with a cloning machine in it. But of course you can miss the whole perfect depiction of psychiatric disorders if you don't know anything about those... And I can very much imagine, that the original script started with Nolan's idea on how to show bipolar disorder on the big screen via the Professor persona and the rest of the story was built around that core.
While characters in Nolan's original films may be one dimensional and built only for single purpose, entire films never are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/22 11:06:20
2018/06/22 11:11:11
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Lance845 wrote: I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
It's a movie about how bipolar disorder (Bale) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (Jackman) destroy the lives of people suffering from those and people around them, told via the story of rivaling magicians with a cloning machine in it. But of course you can miss the whole perfect depiction of psychiatric disorders if you don't know anything about those... And I can very much imagine, that the original script started with Nolan's idea on how to show bipolar disorder on the big screen via the Professor persona and the rest of the story was built around that core.
While characters in Nolan's original films may be one dimensional and built only for single purpose, entire films never are.
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/22 11:12:59
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2018/06/22 11:24:41
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Lance845 wrote: I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
It's a movie about how bipolar disorder (Bale) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (Jackman) destroy the lives of people suffering from those and people around them, told via the story of rivaling magicians with a cloning machine in it. But of course you can miss the whole perfect depiction of psychiatric disorders if you don't know anything about those... And I can very much imagine, that the original script started with Nolan's idea on how to show bipolar disorder on the big screen via the Professor persona and the rest of the story was built around that core.
While characters in Nolan's original films may be one dimensional and built only for single purpose, entire films never are.
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
The two people thing is kind of the whole point behind the bi polar thing. Bales character cannot keep a relationship because he is always swapping. One loves his wife, the other cant even pretend to. It shows what having huge mood swings can do to a relationship in a clever way
2018/06/22 11:31:25
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Lance845 wrote: I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
It's a movie about how bipolar disorder (Bale) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (Jackman) destroy the lives of people suffering from those and people around them, told via the story of rivaling magicians with a cloning machine in it. But of course you can miss the whole perfect depiction of psychiatric disorders if you don't know anything about those... And I can very much imagine, that the original script started with Nolan's idea on how to show bipolar disorder on the big screen via the Professor persona and the rest of the story was built around that core.
While characters in Nolan's original films may be one dimensional and built only for single purpose, entire films never are.
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
The two people thing is kind of the whole point behind the bi polar thing. Bales character cannot keep a relationship because he is always swapping. One loves his wife, the other cant even pretend to. It shows what having huge mood swings can do to a relationship in a clever way
But it's just YOU attributing that meaning to it. The character/s are not meant to be an analog to a mental disorder. It's also a complete mischaracterization of bi polar disorder. Bipolars are not 2 people inhabiting a single life. They are 1 person who live with emotional extremes that can be triggered easily and often. The only reason they exist as twins is to do their magic trick and confound Jackman driving him to further extremes until he is killing himself over and over in an attempt to repeat/one up his competition. And again, it's not anything Nolan came up with. The book existed 11 years before Nolan made his film.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/22 11:34:32
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2018/06/22 11:38:19
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Looking at Wiki for names: Ariadne is the one I am referring to - When the person reacts to the presence of others in a dream she is able to reset the dream - something that she is unable to do later - because, like a number of elements - the "rules have been changed" in a narrative conceit. She is also another shell of a character - which I get that you say is intentional.
I can't recall Prestige that well - I have never felt the need to see one of his films more than once - but I don't recall anyone in them in it making any impact on me.
But how exactly is Ariadne able to reset the dream? It seems like a sloppy watching on your part or I still don't know which scene exactly you are referring to - the first time Ariadne is in a dream she wakes up right after realizing she's in a dream (her dream collapses spontaneously), exactly how untrained human mind reacts to lucid dreaming - it is not an ability, it's inability to dream consciously. Then there is a brief explanatory scene in the training workshop and they go down under again. This time Ariadne is able to stay in the dream consciously, but messes up with realism so Cobb's projections become aware of the dreamer, Mal shows up and stabs her, Ariadne dies, dream ends. The only time the rules change is introducing sedative, which makes waking up without a kick impossible without falling into limbo, but it is nearly the whole rest of the movie. Conscious self-waking without a kick or shared dreaming machine time out is never introduced in the film.
Maybe I have the name wrong - she is a dream arcitecht or somenthing similar - they are wondering about and the persosn subconscious notices them and the mobs of people come after them - she lets this happen for a bit and then resets the dream so everyhting is calm again. If she can do this then why not later - except of course there would not be the need for the fanservice matrix style gunplay etc.
They also change that being killed in dream becomes suddenly lethal so all the gun play can be "cooler".
I get that you really like this director but step back a bit - and as others have said re the Prestige, its not all his vision - its like giving the director of Vamilla Sky (which is much better film than Inception for me) the credit and not acknowledging the film from which it is derived.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Lance845 wrote: I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
It's a movie about how bipolar disorder (Bale) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (Jackman) destroy the lives of people suffering from those and people around them, told via the story of rivaling magicians with a cloning machine in it. But of course you can miss the whole perfect depiction of psychiatric disorders if you don't know anything about those... And I can very much imagine, that the original script started with Nolan's idea on how to show bipolar disorder on the big screen via the Professor persona and the rest of the story was built around that core.
While characters in Nolan's original films may be one dimensional and built only for single purpose, entire films never are.
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
Oh, I have missed the book part, thank you. 2006 is way before internet became what it is today and I never looked past this great movie for explanations because it is so self-contained. So it is Priest who caught the nature of bipolarity in such a great way and Nolan "just" translated this into film language perfectly. What Dreadwinter says is very true - to the outside world bipolarity looks exactly like Professor persona and Jackman has the whole package of OCPD. Now you are basicaly arguing that works of art cannot reshape reality into catching stories without losing the true meaning of things...
I get it, that you wish to dismiss anything impressive about Nolan's works, but I don't really know why anymore. Can you please tell me about any other movie about the phenomenon of human dream state?
2018/06/22 11:44:27
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Lance845 wrote: I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
It's a movie about how bipolar disorder (Bale) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (Jackman) destroy the lives of people suffering from those and people around them, told via the story of rivaling magicians with a cloning machine in it. But of course you can miss the whole perfect depiction of psychiatric disorders if you don't know anything about those... And I can very much imagine, that the original script started with Nolan's idea on how to show bipolar disorder on the big screen via the Professor persona and the rest of the story was built around that core.
While characters in Nolan's original films may be one dimensional and built only for single purpose, entire films never are.
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
The two people thing is kind of the whole point behind the bi polar thing. Bales character cannot keep a relationship because he is always swapping. One loves his wife, the other cant even pretend to. It shows what having huge mood swings can do to a relationship in a clever way
But it's just YOU attributing that meaning to it. The character/s are not meant to be an analog to a mental disorder. It's also a complete mischaracterization of bi polar disorder. Bipolars are not 2 people inhabiting a single life. They are 1 person who live with emotional extremes that can be triggered easily and often. The only reason they exist as twins is to do their magic trick and confound Jackman driving him to further extremes until he is killing himself over and over in an attempt to repeat/one up his competition. And again, it's not anything Nolan came up with. The book existed 11 years before Nolan made his film.
Symbolism is a lost art. Your argument falls short when its not just Jackman they are hiding the secret from. They also hide it from the people they are in relationships with. The people in the relationship changing from day to day, hour to hour depending on who is in charge. From the wifes view, it is one person with wild mood swings. That is not me projecting things on the character, it is a staple to the story as you can see his relationships deteriorating over time. As far as it being a book first, kind of irrelevant. Directors are able to add new things to the source material they are adapting.
2018/06/22 11:48:14
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Looking at Wiki for names: Ariadne is the one I am referring to - When the person reacts to the presence of others in a dream she is able to reset the dream - something that she is unable to do later - because, like a number of elements - the "rules have been changed" in a narrative conceit. She is also another shell of a character - which I get that you say is intentional.
I can't recall Prestige that well - I have never felt the need to see one of his films more than once - but I don't recall anyone in them in it making any impact on me.
But how exactly is Ariadne able to reset the dream? It seems like a sloppy watching on your part or I still don't know which scene exactly you are referring to - the first time Ariadne is in a dream she wakes up right after realizing she's in a dream (her dream collapses spontaneously), exactly how untrained human mind reacts to lucid dreaming - it is not an ability, it's inability to dream consciously. Then there is a brief explanatory scene in the training workshop and they go down under again. This time Ariadne is able to stay in the dream consciously, but messes up with realism so Cobb's projections become aware of the dreamer, Mal shows up and stabs her, Ariadne dies, dream ends. The only time the rules change is introducing sedative, which makes waking up without a kick impossible without falling into limbo, but it is nearly the whole rest of the movie. Conscious self-waking without a kick or shared dreaming machine time out is never introduced in the film.
Maybe I have the name wrong - she is a dream arcitecht or somenthing similar - they are wondering about and the persosn subconscious notices them and the mobs of people come after them - she lets this happen for a bit and then resets the dream so everyhting is calm again. If she can do this then why not later - except of course there would not be the need for the fanservice matrix style gunplay etc.
They also change that being killed in dream becomes suddenly lethal so all the gun play can be "cooler".
I get that you really like this director but step back a bit - and as others have said re the Prestige, its not all his vision - its like giving the director of Vamilla Sky (which is much better film than Inception for me) the credit and not acknowledging the film from which it is derived.
[/quote
She is not cooling down those reactions by herself - those are Cobb's reactions and his mind is very well trained and not directly hostile, while in the main part of the movie those are reactions of a mind trained in self defence. This is all explained in the movie, but as I repeatedly stated already, the greatness of this movie lies not in the story but in catching the nature of human dream state.
2018/06/22 11:52:27
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Lance845 wrote: I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
It's a movie about how bipolar disorder (Bale) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (Jackman) destroy the lives of people suffering from those and people around them, told via the story of rivaling magicians with a cloning machine in it. But of course you can miss the whole perfect depiction of psychiatric disorders if you don't know anything about those... And I can very much imagine, that the original script started with Nolan's idea on how to show bipolar disorder on the big screen via the Professor persona and the rest of the story was built around that core.
While characters in Nolan's original films may be one dimensional and built only for single purpose, entire films never are.
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
Oh, I have missed the book part, thank you. 2006 is way before internet became what it is today and I never looked past this great movie for explanations because it is so self-contained. So it is Priest who caught the nature of bipolarity in such a great way and Nolan "just" translated this into film language perfectly. What Dreadwinter says is very true - to the outside world bipolarity looks exactly like Professor persona and Jackman has the whole package of OCPD. Now you are basicaly arguing that works of art cannot reshape reality into catching stories without losing the true meaning of things...
I get it, that you wish to dismiss anything impressive about Nolan's works, but I don't really know why anymore. Can you please tell me about any other movie about the phenomenon of human dream state?
I think you said that English is not your fuirst lanaguage but your defence of Nolan is vering towards passive agressive - especially with that last line. Any of this stuff is highly subjective - we are all different and like different stuff
I assume you have seen Vanilla Sky and Open your Eyes?
Some more dream exploration films / altered mind state here:
She is not cooling down those reactions by herself - those are Cobb's reactions and his mind is very well trained and not directly hostile, while in the main part of the movie those are reactions of a mind trained in self defence.
Sorry thats not at all what I got from it - she reset it.
This is all explained in the movie, but as I repeatedly stated already, the greatness of this movie lies not in the story but in catching the nature of human dream state.
Ah I see - that works for you which is cool and important , the inconsistant plot, story and non existant characters kill it for me
I have read plenty of books and watched plenty of films about altered mind state and I still find this one is much more about flashy imagery and Matrix style gun play/action than anything else.
Hell watch Westworld, Altered Carbon and other mainstream shows about the nature of reality and preception of the same.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/22 12:00:00
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Lance845 wrote: I really enjoy the prestige but it's JUST a movie about magicians with a cloning machine in it. And inception is fun but it;s not deep and the ending isn't some super introspective nonsense.
It's a movie about how bipolar disorder (Bale) and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (Jackman) destroy the lives of people suffering from those and people around them, told via the story of rivaling magicians with a cloning machine in it. But of course you can miss the whole perfect depiction of psychiatric disorders if you don't know anything about those... And I can very much imagine, that the original script started with Nolan's idea on how to show bipolar disorder on the big screen via the Professor persona and the rest of the story was built around that core.
While characters in Nolan's original films may be one dimensional and built only for single purpose, entire films never are.
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
Oh, I have missed the book part, thank you. 2006 is way before internet became what it is today and I never looked past this great movie for explanations because it is so self-contained. So it is Priest who caught the nature of bipolarity in such a great way and Nolan "just" translated this into film language perfectly. What Dreadwinter says is very true - to the outside world bipolarity looks exactly like Professor persona and Jackman has the whole package of OCPD. Now you are basicaly arguing that works of art cannot reshape reality into catching stories without losing the true meaning of things...
I get it, that you wish to dismiss anything impressive about Nolan's works, but I don't really know why anymore. Can you please tell me about any other movie about the phenomenon of human dream state?
I think you said that English is not your fuirst lanaguage but your defence of Nolan is vering towards passive agressive - especially with that last line. Any of this stuff is highly subjective - we are all different and like different stuff
I assume you have seen Vanilla Sky and Open your Eyes?
Some more dream exploration films / altered mind state here:
She is not cooling down those reactions by herself - those are Cobb's reactions and his mind is very well trained and not directly hostile, while in the main part of the movie those are reactions of a mind trained in self defence.
Sorry thats not at all what I got from it - she reset it.
This is all explained in the movie, but as I repeatedly stated already, the greatness of this movie lies not in the story but in catching the nature of human dream state.
Ah I see - that works for you which is cool and important , the inconsistant plot, story and non existant characters kill it for me
I have read plenty of books and watched plenty of films about altered mind state and I still find this one is much more about flashy imagery and Matrix style gun play/action than anything else.
I saw at least half of the movies on both lists and most of them are not about the nature of the human dream state, but are either about illusions of reality or show dreams, this is different than trying to incorporate mechanisms of lucid dreaming into the story itself. It is no accident, that the top place on both lists goes to Inception.
But you are right, that I'm becoming passive agressive in reaction to straight up hostility. So I should indeed back up from this thread.
2018/06/22 12:16:43
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
Oh, I have missed the book part, thank you. 2006 is way before internet became what it is today and I never looked past this great movie for explanations because it is so self-contained. So it is Priest who caught the nature of bipolarity in such a great way and Nolan "just" translated this into film language perfectly. What Dreadwinter says is very true - to the outside world bipolarity looks exactly like Professor persona and Jackman has the whole package of OCPD. Now you are basicaly arguing that works of art cannot reshape reality into catching stories without losing the true meaning of things...
I get it, that you wish to dismiss anything impressive about Nolan's works, but I don't really know why anymore. Can you please tell me about any other movie about the phenomenon of human dream state?
Showing how the outside world wrongly views the disorder is not a praise worthy representation of the disorder on film. Which is why it is not a representation of that disorder. It's just a facet of those characters. They are 100% dedicated to the magic trick that is the fake person they collectively play. They stick to it no matter how badly it hurts the people around them. They have dedicated their lives to the lie. Jackman has NONE of the package of OCPD. OCPD people are compelled to do mundane actions because their minds attribute meaning to them and the repetition creates a sense of control and comfort. Did you EVER get the impression that Jackman felt like he had control or comfort in that film? Did you see him dodging cracks in the sidewalk or taking a specific number of steps in ritual fashion?
Nolans work is making some good movies and some ok movies and 3 bad batman movies that have 1 really great actor in one of them doing a great portrayal of an iconic character. I don't see why this elevates him above so many other great directors out there who have better track records or have made better movies. I think the recent Upgrade is a much more impressive movie with some really interesting twists in the plot and neat things to say on a much smaller budget (3-5 mil) then Inception (160 mil). When you place the 2 movies side by side I just don't see any reason to stroke Nolan's.... ego.
Dreadwinter wrote:
Lance845 wrote: But it's just YOU attributing that meaning to it. The character/s are not meant to be an analog to a mental disorder. It's also a complete mischaracterization of bi polar disorder. Bipolars are not 2 people inhabiting a single life. They are 1 person who live with emotional extremes that can be triggered easily and often. The only reason they exist as twins is to do their magic trick and confound Jackman driving him to further extremes until he is killing himself over and over in an attempt to repeat/one up his competition. And again, it's not anything Nolan came up with. The book existed 11 years before Nolan made his film.
Symbolism is a lost art. Your argument falls short when its not just Jackman they are hiding the secret from. They also hide it from the people they are in relationships with. The people in the relationship changing from day to day, hour to hour depending on who is in charge. From the wifes view, it is one person with wild mood swings. That is not me projecting things on the character, it is a staple to the story as you can see his relationships deteriorating over time. As far as it being a book first, kind of irrelevant. Directors are able to add new things to the source material they are adapting.
Symbolism is fine when it's actually there. But if the "symbols" are complete mischaractarizations of the things they are trying to represent then it's 1) bad all together 2) crappy symbolism 3) Not praise worthy.
If anything the movie is about how singular drives and a laser focus ruins lives by not allowing you to actually live them. The Bales collectively admit to only having half a life each. And for them... it's enough. But it also kills one of their wives and puts one in jail and killed. And Jackman is so narrowly focused on his rivalry that his life becomes an empty shell. His eventual victory hollow. There is depth there. But it's not the oceans depth you guys are making it out to be. Nolans a good director. He's not THAT good of a director.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2018/06/22 12:23:14
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Except Bale isn't bi polar, hes 2 people. They are twins. And Jackman isn't obsessive compulsive. He's angry, vindictive, and vengeful against the man he thinks killed his wife. Also, the prestige was a book before Nolan made the movie. It's an adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prestige
Don't attribute anything to Nolan about those characters or that plot. He just directed a movie (well). He didn't write it.
Oh, I have missed the book part, thank you. 2006 is way before internet became what it is today and I never looked past this great movie for explanations because it is so self-contained. So it is Priest who caught the nature of bipolarity in such a great way and Nolan "just" translated this into film language perfectly. What Dreadwinter says is very true - to the outside world bipolarity looks exactly like Professor persona and Jackman has the whole package of OCPD. Now you are basicaly arguing that works of art cannot reshape reality into catching stories without losing the true meaning of things...
I get it, that you wish to dismiss anything impressive about Nolan's works, but I don't really know why anymore. Can you please tell me about any other movie about the phenomenon of human dream state?
Showing how the outside world wrongly views the disorder is not a praise worthy representation of the disorder on film. Which is why it is not a representation of that disorder. It's just a facet of those characters. They are 100% dedicated to the magic trick that is the fake person they collectively play. They stick to it no matter how badly it hurts the people around them. They have dedicated their lives to the lie. Jackman has NONE of the package of OCPD. OCPD people are compelled to do mundane actions because their minds attribute meaning to them and the repetition creates a sense of control and comfort. Did you EVER get the impression that Jackman felt like he had control or comfort in that film? Did you see him dodging cracks in the sidewalk or taking a specific number of steps in ritual fashion?
Nolans work is making some good movies and some ok movies and 3 bad batman movies that have 1 really great actor in one of them doing a great portrayal of an iconic character. I don't see why this elevates him above so many other great directors out there who have better track records or have made better movies. I think the recent Upgrade is a much more impressive movie with some really interesting twists in the plot and neat things to say on a much smaller budget (3-5 mil) then Inception (160 mil). When you place the 2 movies side by side I just don't see any reason to stroke Nolan's.... ego.
Dreadwinter wrote:
Lance845 wrote: But it's just YOU attributing that meaning to it. The character/s are not meant to be an analog to a mental disorder. It's also a complete mischaracterization of bi polar disorder. Bipolars are not 2 people inhabiting a single life. They are 1 person who live with emotional extremes that can be triggered easily and often. The only reason they exist as twins is to do their magic trick and confound Jackman driving him to further extremes until he is killing himself over and over in an attempt to repeat/one up his competition. And again, it's not anything Nolan came up with. The book existed 11 years before Nolan made his film.
Symbolism is a lost art. Your argument falls short when its not just Jackman they are hiding the secret from. They also hide it from the people they are in relationships with. The people in the relationship changing from day to day, hour to hour depending on who is in charge. From the wifes view, it is one person with wild mood swings. That is not me projecting things on the character, it is a staple to the story as you can see his relationships deteriorating over time. As far as it being a book first, kind of irrelevant. Directors are able to add new things to the source material they are adapting.
Symbolism is fine when it's actually there. But if the "symbols" are complete mischaractarizations of the things they are trying to represent then it's 1) bad all together 2) crappy symbolism 3) Not praise worthy.
If anything the movie is about how singular drives and a laser focus ruins lives by not allowing you to actually live them. The Bales collectively admit to only having half a life each. And for them... it's enough. But it also kills one of their wives and puts one in jail and killed. And Jackman is so narrowly focused on his rivalry that his life becomes an empty shell. His eventual victory hollow. There is depth there. But it's not the oceans depth you guys are making it out to be. Nolans a good director. He's not THAT good of a director.
You are mistaking OPCD with OCD and that is sufficient enough comment on your ability to read psychiatric disorders.
Thank you all for (at least partially) educative discussion, I won't be posting here anymore. Cheers!
2018/06/22 12:27:47
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Eh, it's kind of on topic. If Nolan's library of work is to be considered classics it would need to be worthy of it. Discussing the merits of his work is on topic in that sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/22 12:30:39
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2018/06/22 12:30:47
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Xenomancers wrote: I think Fight Club is already a classic. Everything else on that list is great but what is a classic really?
A classic is IMO is a perfect rendition of it's type that is at least a generation older than the present. So really every movie that is "really good" will eventually be a classic.
I am going to go with, if I am excited seeing it for the 100th time, its a classic to me. If I get everything I need out of it watching it once or twice, it isn't.
Remember Blair Witch Project? I saw that while in college in a packed theater and we were all on our edge. The ending freaked everyone out and I am not even bothered with horror movies. But that same movie is terrible on a TV. The movie experience was one I will never forget, but I wouldn't consider it a classic.
Amazingly enough, Planet Terror is one of my favorite movies. Its a classic to me as I can watch that a hundred times, but I know most wouldn't consider it one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Nolan is alright. For me he is very hit or miss. I only saw parts of Inception, but what I did see didnt interest me. I liked Interstellar for a cool sci fi film. Not very scientifically accurate, except for that Black Hole, but still a fun story and pretty good acting. His take on Batman was glorious, however.
Wow we couldn't be more opposite. Inception is amazingly layered and just about every line in the movie has a detail that is important to the story. Every time I watch it I find something new, and I've seen it some 50 times now. Nevermind that it is visually stunning. Its a near perfect movie.
Interstellar is probably the most scientifically accurate sci-fi film to date. Sure it takes some liberties with technology, but for a movie in space... its unparalleled. The ending though, communicating with his daughter after being sucked into the black hole is terrible though. That's the only point of the movie that loses me. I would have preferred we follow him down into the Black Hole as he dreams of his daughter before his death, and Dr Brand finds a way to save the day.
As far as the Nolan's Batman Trilogy, you take out Ledger's Joker, and what do you have? I loved Bane, but even he isn't enough. And to be honest, while Ledger's Joker was a legendary performance, I think Leto's is far more accurate of what the Joker should be. What is worse is that Nolan's Batman movies should really be called Bruce Wayne, because Batman is barely in it. And I agree Batman should be in Arkham with the others too, and looks ridiculous hanging out on top of buildings or flying around the city. To me he belongs in the alleys and sewers. Places the cops and FBI aren't crazy about going to.
As far as him not killing people... I am ok with it. Affleck played a perfect mature Batman to me, and if he wants to kill some people here and there, go for it. Part of the problem is that Batman has moved from fighting simple criminals with revolvers to terrorists with assault weapons. Is he really not going to be lethal with guys like that? Its one thing to track down a serial killer and take him in, but a dozen guys with assault rifles? That's where I think it goes a little too far.
I will give props to The Dark Knight. Not crazy about Two Face, nor the ending, but the first half of Ledger is worth watching every time its on TV.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/06/22 13:02:52
2018/06/22 13:09:24
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Turnip Jedi wrote: but isn't part of Sucker Punch's schtick that we the audience are complicit in watching the girls exactly because they are hella purty, and their oddball fantasy escapism sequences are essentially teenage / dirty old pervs sticky fetish fever dreams that 'we' think they should have further demeaning them for 'fun'
Correct - it's no accident that the audience of men in the dream layer are sleazy and slimy AF. Snyder could have cast guys that looked like John Hamm, a father that looked like George Clooney, etc. but he chose not to. The casting choices and how they present in the various layers are very deliberate. One should assume implicit intent.
The question wasn't about the casting. It was about us, the audience, not the sleazeballs in the movie.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2018/06/22 13:22:21
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Third Nolan-Batman was okay, the first two were great. First really focused on Bruce becoming Batman; it was an origins story (which hadn’t happened on the big screen). The second was where he met his polar opposite, and didn’t know how to handle someone like that. Third tested his ability to trust and taught him his limitations physically. I did find it a weak end, but the first two were great.
Inception was interesting, and maybe I’ll go back and rewatch (seems a movie best watched every few years so you forget 99% of it). From what was described, I’m interested in the Prestige. I’ll be ignoring Lance’s input, as I’ve found I don’t agree with his taste in movies, and given the depths of mental illness (especially including bi polar disorder) I can solidly say his description is severely lacking.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
2018/06/22 13:31:57
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
Eh, it's kind of on topic. If Nolan's library of work is to be considered classics it would need to be worthy of it. Discussing the merits of his work is on topic in that sense.
Half the thread seems like two people arguing if Inception is a good film.
It should be taken to a separate thread or even to PM.
Eh, it's kind of on topic. If Nolan's library of work is to be considered classics it would need to be worthy of it. Discussing the merits of his work is on topic in that sense.
Half the thread seems like two people arguing if Inception is a good film.
It should be taken to a separate thread or even to PM.
So are we making this thread a place to come in and dump a list? No giving opinions on the lists or lively discussions about why they think that movie should be considered a classic?
2018/06/22 13:36:10
Subject: What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?
timetowaste85 wrote: Third Nolan-Batman was okay, the first two were great. First really focused on Bruce becoming Batman; it was an origins story (which hadn’t happened on the big screen). The second was where he met his polar opposite, and didn’t know how to handle someone like that. Third tested his ability to trust and taught him his limitations physically. I did find it a weak end, but the first two were great.
Inception was interesting, and maybe I’ll go back and rewatch (seems a movie best watched every few years so you forget 99% of it). From what was described, I’m interested in the Prestige. I’ll be ignoring Lance’s input, as I’ve found I don’t agree with his taste in movies, and given the depths of mental illness (especially including bi polar disorder) I can solidly say his description is severely lacking.
Batman origin is always on the bog screen!
Now granted they don't usually show much of his training but having a hackneyed "Western guy goes to Asia and in a montage becomes the bestest Super Ninja that ever was - hey bet them Asian dudes are jealous" story was not a good thing.
I thought the best thing in that first film was the Scarecrow - he was good,
Ledger was Ok as a bad guy with super precog abilities but IMO both Nicoolson and more recently Leto were much more dangerous, unpredictable and insane.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
