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.
timetowaste85 wrote: Batman is supposed to be dark, not humorous. Yes, we got humor with Adam West, but it was a campy romp through Gotham.
A much better example would be Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, which I enjoy more than Nolan's trilogy. Michael Keaton's Batman actually seems to enjoy what he's doing, and clearly is having some fun with the villains at certain points. It managed to be both dark and twisted without losing a sense of wonder. More importantly, Burton wasn't embarrassed to be working on a superhero film. Nolan turned Batman into a hi-tech crime drama in which a few of the characters begrudgingly wear costumes. Burton wasn't afraid to have fun with the animal motifs of the hero and villains in Batman Returns, or to have a crime carnival, or straight up gags like the henchman who jumps into the fight in the bell tower only to crash through the floor boards and plummet to his death. And as great as Ledger's anarchist Joker character is, that's not really the Joker. Jack Nicholson's Joker is the Joker from the comics, complete with acid-squirting lapel flower and killer joy-buzzers -- and he totally makes that work. Nolan strips everything but the greasepaint from the Clown Prince of Crime to create his ideological terrorist.
Don't get me wrong, Nolan's trilogy is really great in a lot of ways, As an over-the-top hi-tech crime drama it totally works, and from a purely technical standpoint they're really quite amazing. But as superhero movies go? A lot of its was disappointing. I felt the entire third act of Dark Knight, which is by far the best of the three, was weak because Two-Face was unrealistically realistic -- the movie grounded itself so much in reality that I spend the whole third act thinking "Dent would either be screaming in agony or so high on painkillers he'd be incoherent in this scene." And while it's clear that Bruce Wayne is the protagonist, I don't get the sense he's the hero of the films. He's just not likable, and while is motivations feel more grounded in real psychology, they also make him kind of unpleasant. It's not a good sign that I find myself rooting for the Joker every time I watch that movie.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: made all the worse because I had a fair bit of hope from the trailer when it was released the year before that he was going to be the best.
I just felt my heart sink and eyes puff up. I forgot about that gorgeous first trailer. That movie looked like it was going to kick ass, and be something completely new (at least within the genre). Such hope.... such squandered potential.
Moral of the story: watch trailers for Zack Snyder movies instead of the movies- they're better, and you won't have wasted 2 hours being confused and angered.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/17 23:16:27
Batman actually seems to enjoy what he's doing, and clearly is having some fun
Spoiler:
Men so obsessed with their parents death that they devote their entire life to seeking out and punishing crime rarely have fun doing it. He isn't really a 'fun' character, nor should he be, unless we are going full camp like the (awful) TV show. Of the Burton films I liked Batman Returns better than Batman.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
timetowaste85 wrote: Batman is supposed to be dark, not humorous. Yes, we got humor with Adam West, but it was a campy romp through Gotham.
A much better example would be Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, which I enjoy more than Nolan's trilogy. Michael Keaton's Batman actually seems to enjoy what he's doing, and clearly is having some fun with the villains at certain points. It managed to be both dark and twisted without losing a sense of wonder. More importantly, Burton wasn't embarrassed to be working on a superhero film. Nolan turned Batman into a hi-tech crime drama in which a few of the characters begrudgingly wear costumes. Burton wasn't afraid to have fun with the animal motifs of the hero and villains in Batman Returns, or to have a crime carnival, or straight up gags like the henchman who jumps into the fight in the bell tower only to crash through the floor boards and plummet to his death. And as great as Ledger's anarchist Joker character is, that's not really the Joker. Jack Nicholson's Joker is the Joker from the comics, complete with acid-squirting lapel flower and killer joy-buzzers -- and he totally makes that work. Nolan strips everything but the greasepaint from the Clown Prince of Crime to create his ideological terrorist.
I have a hard time understanding how you can claim that considering how different the Joker's been at different times in the character's history. Grant Morrison even wrote this into his rendition of the character (describing him as having a kind of supersanity) to explain how he's been a silly bankrobbing clown at times and a murdering psychopath at others.
The issue with the DC characters seems to be that people get attached to *certain versions* of characters. This is probably more of a DC phenomenon because their characters are mostly older, and so have been through many changes and a few universe reboots in their histories.
Batman is probably the most conceptually malleable superhero ever. As Kevin Smith and Grant Morrison riffed once, you could probably find a way to make disco Batman work. Superman isn't quite as malleable, but the Golden Age, Silver Age, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, and New 52 versions all have their differences. He's killed at times. He killed Zod a couple decades ago. He killed plenty of people in the early Golden Age years, tossing them in ways they couldn't possibly have survived. And he has a slightly different vibe in the New 52, thinking in a recent book "I'm not a boy scout, I'm here to protect."
Hell, he and Wonder Woman recently turned a nuclear reactor into a fission bomb in order to shut a Phantom Zone portal, without any regard for what that'd do to the surrounding countryside, any bystanders, etc. "But Superman would never have done that!" Well, he just did.
Personally, I think Nolan's trilogy and MoS have at least been *thoughtful* approaches to the characters. In comparison, I think basically all the Marvel films have been formulaic brain candy, with some more entertaining than others. Avengers was highly entertaining the first time I saw it, but hasn't held up for me as well after repeat viewings. Iron Man was very entertaining, but highly formulaic. I really liked Cap 2, but it wasn't as complex of a political thriller as promised, nor was it a particularly thoughtful film IMO.
There's nothing wrong with brain candy. It really hits the spot at times. But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who says Nolan and Snyder got those characters "wrong," or that their efforts were bad filmmaking. If their Batman and Superman simply weren't the version of the character that you prefer, fine. I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/17 23:34:36
Batman actually seems to enjoy what he's doing, and clearly is having some fun
Spoiler:
Men so obsessed with their parents death that they devote their entire life to seeking out and punishing crime rarely have fun doing it. He isn't really a 'fun' character, nor should he be, unless we are going full camp like the (awful) TV show. Of the Burton films I liked Batman Returns better than Batman.
Which tv show? if you mean the Adam West one then I can't comment, as I haven't seen it, but if you mean The Brave And The Bold cartoon then I don't know how anyone could describe it as awful
Sigvatr wrote: Man, thanks for those animated Batman series links...the clips are amazing. The love tunnel clip is just shy of 4 minutes, but it feels so..."heavy" and "dark". The music goes right along with it. Amazing. Thanks, going to watch some of it with my waifu
Is the entire series just called "The Dark Knight returns"?
I kind of like how batman doesn't Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n around anymore in this. Seems to sort of let his anger get to him. Perhaps he is about to go dark side.
The kid joker takes hostage is pretty ballsy. Holy crap.
I dunno why the cop didn't just shoot. Seriously after all the people he's killed just shoot him.
I'm wondering if I should get this movie for my comic book friend's birthday. He's a massive batman fan and considers himself one of the only ones to have managed to debate batman winning in a fight vs superman. To my knowledge there's a video clip from this movie showing just that too and he wins in pretty much the way my friend mentioned. Something tells me my friend would squee like a little fangirl even though he's a guy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/05/18 11:04:00
Even outside of the.. less serious continuities, Batman has been known to make a snarky joke occasionally.
Which scares the ever living gak out of both enemy and allied alike. Why?
Because The Goddamn Batman just made a funny.
And, of course, we can't forget Batman's favourite joke...
"See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum...and one night, one night they decide they don't like living in an asylum any more. They decide they're going to escape. So, like, they get up onto the roof, and there, just across this narrow gap, they see the rooftops of the town, stretching away in the moonlight...stretching away to freedom.
Now, the first guy, he jumps right across with no problem. But his friend, his friend daren't make the leap. Y'see...y'see, he's afraid of falling. So the first guy gets an idea. He says, "Hey! I have my flashlight with me! I'll shine it across the gap between the buildings. You can walk along the beam and join me!"
B-but the second guy just shakes his head. He suh-says...he says "What do you think I am? Crazy?"
"You'd turn it off when I was half way across!"
Goliath wrote: Which tv show? if you mean the Adam West one then I can't comment, as I haven't seen it, but if you mean The Brave And The Bold cartoon then I don't know how anyone could describe it as awful
Adam West. I never was a big fan of camp, though I still watched it as a kid because, again, Batman. I also mainly watched the Electric Company because sometimes they did Spider-Man shorts.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Personally, I think Nolan's trilogy and MoS have at least been *thoughtful* approaches to the characters. In comparison, I think basically all the Marvel films have been formulaic brain candy, with some more entertaining than others. Avengers was highly entertaining the first time I saw it, but hasn't held up for me as well after repeat viewings. Iron Man was very entertaining, but highly formulaic. I really liked Cap 2, but it wasn't as complex of a political thriller as promised, nor was it a particularly thoughtful film IMO.
I disagree and fail to see where this thoughtful and intelligent look at things comes in - there is nothing new in his Batman - at least the Burton version seemed broken and damaged by his parents death - something he had obviously never recovered from which made the Batman persona more reasonable. There is so little emotional depth in the depiction of the Nolan Batman and pretty much every other character in the films. The only person he seems at all interested in is the Joker and he's a infallible (right up to the last act) super terrorist with apparently precog powers......
The second film in particular seems to lurch from set piece to another - whereas the better Marvel films moth smoothly and coherently through the plot. Also compare the wonderful final fight scene from Thor 2 with the frankly increasingly dull one from man of Steel.
The whole Krypton background seemed a complete mess - everyone is born to fulfil specific roles - apart from Sups dad who is a reclusive scientist noble ninja (what?) with a pet Dragon who lives in a castle................not exactly well thought out or especially intelligent.
The varied Marvel directors seem to understand that you can mix fun with dark elements to produce a superior film, I just don't see this in any Nolan film I have watched.
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 wrote: The varied Marvel directors seem to understand that you can mix fun with dark elements to produce a superior film, I just don't see this in any Nolan film I have watched.
I have to admit. I was surprised at how well Thor 2 blended the dark and the comedic.
gorgon wrote: There's nothing wrong with brain candy. It really hits the spot at times. But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who says Nolan and Snyder got those characters "wrong," or that their efforts were bad filmmaking. If their Batman and Superman simply weren't the version of the character that you prefer, fine. I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
Like I said, I enjoyed the Nolan films (except for Two-Face, which I just found completely implausible) but they just don't feel like super-hero movies to me. I'd compare The Dark Knight to Heat before I'd compare it to Avengers. I didn't like Man of Steel at all. I found it turgid and boring, the ending was a series of ridiculously contrived coincidences to keep the supporting cast relevant, Amy Adams was completely lifeless, and the whole thing smacked of Snyder's heavy handedness and utter lack of nuance. He's really a horrible director and Hollywood needs to stop giving him projects.
I couldn't disagree with you more about the Marvel movies, but a lot of people confuse cynicism for seriousness and optimism for immaturity.
gorgon wrote: But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who says Nolan and Snyder got those characters "wrong," or that their efforts were bad filmmaking. If their Batman and Superman simply weren't the version of the character that you prefer, fine. I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
The batman series had decent characters (I liked the joker and scarecrow, thought the rest were bland or bad) and generally okay-to-good performances (though christian bale kinda' stank up the place IMHO), but the plots were so abysmal that it detracted from the rest. I'm fine with people who liked or didn't like the characters, but the story was just bad storytelling (particularly the third one). I'm surprised you're critical of the avengers for underlying problems when the batman series suffered from the same problem of being superficially coherent but being pretty nonsensical on closer inspection.
Man of Steel... I don't even particularly like superman, but that was an atrocity. The only movies I can think of that so fundamentally missed the point of characters or a story were Beowulf and (maybe not coincidentally) Watchmen. I could make a movie called "the awesome spider-man" which featured a guy who got bitten by a radioactive spider and ran around new york in red and blue spandex biting criminals and liquifying their internal organs for nourishment because his uncle told him that "with great power comes great responsibility", which he interpreted as killing people who preyed on innocents... but that wouldn't make it my interpretation of spider man: it would be a movie that took a premise someone else created, and made something completely different out of it. Like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire hunter (which I've only seen trailers for)- it's not a different interpretation or version than the one with daniel day lewis: it's something that nominally and superficially similar.
There's batman as camp, dark, moody, gothic, tongue-in-cheek, etc. They're still fundamentally batman. Man of Steel is not analogous... pretty sure outside of that I've only ever seen super-man kill people in alternate realities, where it turns out he's evil superman.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/18 01:12:46
Slarg232 wrote: Might make me weird, but I kind of enjoyed Man of Steel. I found it to be rather entertaining, if not up to the level of the Marvel movies.
A lot of people liked it, not just you.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
The only part I didn't like was the Zod neck snap at the end...
After all that fighting why didn't Superman just throw him into the air or punch him on the side of the head. The destruction levels were ridiculous too.
Medium of Death wrote: After all that fighting why didn't Superman just throw him into the air or punch him on the side of the head.
That is what had been happening the whole time. Forgoing that, this isn't the Superman from All-Star Superman at the apex of his abilty and knowledge, this is a newbie who hadn't been Superman for even 24 hours.
Well I have to imagine a World Engine would cause a lot of damage. I also think that two god-like beings fighting would cause a lot of damage as well, especially when one gives zero feths about the planet or its inhabitants.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Personally, I think Nolan's trilogy and MoS have at least been *thoughtful* approaches to the characters. In comparison, I think basically all the Marvel films have been formulaic brain candy, with some more entertaining than others. Avengers was highly entertaining the first time I saw it, but hasn't held up for me as well after repeat viewings. Iron Man was very entertaining, but highly formulaic. I really liked Cap 2, but it wasn't as complex of a political thriller as promised, nor was it a particularly thoughtful film IMO.
I disagree and fail to see where this thoughtful and intelligent look at things comes in - there is nothing new in his Batman - at least the Burton version seemed broken and damaged by his parents death - something he had obviously never recovered from which made the Batman persona more reasonable. There is so little emotional depth in the depiction of the Nolan Batman and pretty much every other character in the films. The only person he seems at all interested in is the Joker and he's a infallible (right up to the last act) super terrorist with apparently precog powers......
Nolan's Bruce Wayne is a rage tank, there's no doubt about that. It's really just a narrow slice of what that character's been in the comics. If someone doesn't like that, I get it.
However, there were *definitely* a number of larger themes going on in those movies -- especially in TDK -- that had a lot to do with the events of that decade. They've been discussed ad nauseum. Cap 2 tried to play in the same sandbox, but it was two-dimensional in comparison, never really asking deeper questions or suggesting answers.
I completely understand why someone might not like raging counterterrorism Batman who drives an APC. But there are reasons why TDK was talked about as having an outside chance at an Oscar nomination, while the Thor movies definitely weren't.
gorgon wrote: There's nothing wrong with brain candy. It really hits the spot at times. But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who says Nolan and Snyder got those characters "wrong," or that their efforts were bad filmmaking. If their Batman and Superman simply weren't the version of the character that you prefer, fine. I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
Like I said, I enjoyed the Nolan films (except for Two-Face, which I just found completely implausible) but they just don't feel like super-hero movies to me. I'd compare The Dark Knight to Heat before I'd compare it to Avengers. I didn't like Man of Steel at all. I found it turgid and boring, the ending was a series of ridiculously contrived coincidences to keep the supporting cast relevant, Amy Adams was completely lifeless, and the whole thing smacked of Snyder's heavy handedness and utter lack of nuance. He's really a horrible director and Hollywood needs to stop giving him projects.
Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze.
I couldn't disagree with you more about the Marvel movies, but a lot of people confuse cynicism for seriousness and optimism for immaturity.
Nope, not a bit of confusion over here. I know dumb fun when I see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
spiralingcadaver wrote: The batman series had decent characters (I liked the joker and scarecrow, thought the rest were bland or bad) and generally okay-to-good performances (though christian bale kinda' stank up the place IMHO), but the plots were so abysmal that it detracted from the rest. I'm fine with people who liked or didn't like the characters, but the story was just bad storytelling (particularly the third one). I'm surprised you're critical of the avengers for underlying problems when the batman series suffered from the same problem of being superficially coherent but being pretty nonsensical on closer inspection.
I don't know really know what you mean by that.
And I don't think Avengers and, say, The Dark Knight are remotely comparable. The Avengers isn't *about* anything, it's a smash-up. It's fun. Whedon did a great job just getting the characters to work onscreen together. But there's nothing TO it. There's a lot more going on with TDK.
Man of Steel... I don't even particularly like superman, but that was an atrocity. The only movies I can think of that so fundamentally missed the point of characters or a story were Beowulf and (maybe not coincidentally) Watchmen. I could make a movie called "the awesome spider-man" which featured a guy who got bitten by a radioactive spider and ran around new york in red and blue spandex biting criminals and liquifying their internal organs for nourishment because his uncle told him that "with great power comes great responsibility", which he interpreted as killing people who preyed on innocents... but that wouldn't make it my interpretation of spider man: it would be a movie that took a premise someone else created, and made something completely different out of it. Like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire hunter (which I've only seen trailers for)- it's not a different interpretation or version than the one with daniel day lewis: it's something that nominally and superficially similar.
There's batman as camp, dark, moody, gothic, tongue-in-cheek, etc. They're still fundamentally batman. Man of Steel is not analogous... pretty sure outside of that I've only ever seen super-man kill people in alternate realities, where it turns out he's evil superman.
Your analogy is completely overblown. Again, the problem is that YOU have a certain idea about the character, based on what you're admitting is incomplete knowledge of the character's "fundamental" nature. He's killed before. He's done reckless things. He's killed Zod, regretted it, and grown from it.
MoS touched on MANY important and traditional themes for the character, and borrowed lots of little details from this or that version that even a lot of "fans" never realized. His unique birth? That was inspired by something from the comics...and probably another obvious source also. The wrecked moon in Krypton's sky is in that condition for a reason. Those combat moves that Jor-El had? I'm pretty sure that I know what that was supposed to be also.
And sure, they changed some things (Lois knowing his identity from the beginning), and wrote that shocking scene in the station. But that scene served a purpose, and made a point. If that was a Silver or Bronze Age Superman story, he might have used his super-breath to create a reflective ice mirror to deflect Zod's heat vision, then built a Phantom Zone projector at superspeed from a bunch of junk and spare parts in the station. Which is to say that Superman stories are traditionally full of bad writing. He'd get in a bad spot, and he'd use his super-powers -- sometimes in ridiculous fashion -- to escape it. Issue after issue, while Batman was making tougher calls in his book and using his brain. Hell, look at the '78 film. Disaster strikes, so he breaks the time barrier so that NOTHING BAD HAPPENS. All gone. Anytime he wants. This is good writing?
Now, you may like a Superman who doesn't kill, and would prefer a straight-up Silver or Bronze Age Superman story. That's fine and a legit opinion. But Goyer and Snyder didn't piss all over the concept of Superman the way you think.
Again...red haze.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/18 04:00:09
gorgon wrote: Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze. ...I know dumb fun when I see it.
You also know how to be extremely rude and argumentative. Allow me to disagree: People who like Zach Snyder will mindlessly defend his bowel movements, and anyone who doesn't love Marvel films is a joyless, soulless automaton incapable of appreciating life. You see what I did there? I implied that anyone who disagrees with me does so for irrational, emotional reasons, and that people who like things I don't are simple-minded.
One wonders why one would even bother to have conversations when everyone who doesn't agree with you is so dumb...
Snyder hasn't done anything to make me happy. I went into watchmen, excited as all hell. I hated it. I saw the trailers for Superman, extremely excited. Hated it the first go round, found it acceptable on the second viewing. He hasn't instilled me with confidence. Do I have to watch all his movies to find out my dislike is appropriate? If the answer is "yes", then the person who says yes is an idiot. I've seen his comic renditions, and they've been bad. On the first viewings, they were terrible, but MoS moved up to acceptable, so it averages out to "bad". That said, he has impressed me with the image of Batman. We'll see if my level of impressed stays after we start seeing trailers. Personally, I think Kevin Smith would bitchslap Affleck if he screwed up Batman, so maybe there's a chance.
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.
I'm going to be the odd man out. I've liked every one of Snyders movies I've watched exept for Beowulf.
300 was an awesome male power fantasy. Bonus points for having so many half naked sweaty guys that your significant other will watch it with you. I saw Watchmen before reading the comic, but I liked its alternate take on the storyline. Jackie Earle Haley stole that movie. I'm one of those people that feels the need to talk about how much I hate Superman, but I loved Man of Steel. Michael Shannon as Zod was great. I even liked Sucker Punch.
But I'm aware I have terrible taste in movies. I mean, I also like Michael Bays movies.
I was annoyed they weren't carrying over Joseph Gordon Levitt as Batman/Nightwing and tie in the Nolan films, but I'll give Affleck a chance as Batman. I'll sure as hell give Snyder another go with Superman.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/18 07:03:38
gorgon wrote: Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze. ...I know dumb fun when I see it.
You also know how to be extremely rude and argumentative. Allow me to disagree: People who like Zach Snyder will mindlessly defend his bowel movements, and anyone who doesn't love Marvel films is a joyless, soulless automaton incapable of appreciating life. You see what I did there? I implied that anyone who disagrees with me does so for irrational, emotional reasons, and that people who like things I don't are simple-minded.
One wonders why one would even bother to have conversations when everyone who doesn't agree with you is so dumb...
I thought 300 was fine and funny, if nothing special; was pissed off how watchmen came out; was ready to give snyder a chance to redeem watchmen after seeing a spectacular trailer for man of steel- was vaguely optimistic and completely let down.
thanks, friendlycommissar, for the counteragrument.
Loki, Beowulf wasn't Snyder.
also, think I'm done here. rather leave on an informative note, then be dragged back into a debate over something I think has no merit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/18 07:23:31
gorgon wrote: Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze. ...I know dumb fun when I see it.
You also know how to be extremely rude and argumentative. Allow me to disagree: People who like Zach Snyder will mindlessly defend his bowel movements, and anyone who doesn't love Marvel films is a joyless, soulless automaton incapable of appreciating life. You see what I did there? I implied that anyone who disagrees with me does so for irrational, emotional reasons, and that people who like things I don't are simple-minded.
One wonders why one would even bother to have conversations when everyone who doesn't agree with you is so dumb...
And some people are so blinded by love that anything and everything Nolan does is beyond perfect and can accept or understand no criticism
Agreed - apparently we are just not "clever or deep" enough to appreciate Nolans god like skill - see that's pretty standard - anyone who dares speak against the "great Mans work" is simply not clever enough to understand it - oh I understood it - despite the prostrations there is little actual depth to the film or the characterisation whereas Marvel "brain candy" is actually much better thought and plotted far more tightly. The only reason TDK returns had an Oscar chance was the death of one the actors.
I loved 300 - as a story the Spartans would tell to inspire themselves and cower others - the 2nd film is beautiful - historically it gets virtually nothing right - especially Artemisia - but Eva Green does make a deliciously evil queen.
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
gorgon wrote: Nah, there's some good direction in Man of Steel, but then a lot of people are so blinded by hate for the guy they watch his movies through a red haze. ...I know dumb fun when I see it.
You also know how to be extremely rude and argumentative. Allow me to disagree: People who like Zach Snyder will mindlessly defend his bowel movements, and anyone who doesn't love Marvel films is a joyless, soulless automaton incapable of appreciating life. You see what I did there? I implied that anyone who disagrees with me does so for irrational, emotional reasons, and that people who like things I don't are simple-minded.
One wonders why one would even bother to have conversations when everyone who doesn't agree with you is so dumb...
And some people are so blinded by love that anything and everything Nolan does is beyond perfect and can accept or understand no criticism
Agreed - apparently we are just not "clever or deep" enough to appreciate Nolans god like skill - see that's pretty standard - anyone who dares speak against the "great Mans work" is simply not clever enough to understand it - oh I understood it - despite the prostrations there is little actual depth to the film or the characterisation whereas Marvel "brain candy" is actually much better thought and plotted far more tightly. The only reason TDK returns had an Oscar chance was the death of one the actors.
I loved 300 - as a story the Spartans would tell to inspire themselves and cower others - the 2nd film is beautiful - historically it gets virtually nothing right - especially Artemisia - but Eva Green does make a deliciously evil queen.
Just to add my thoughts in here, even though I love the Avengers, the plot is full of holes. I'm not going to claim TDK as faultless, that plot has flaws as well, but to claim that all of the Marvel films are plotted far more tightly than Nolan's trilogy is ludicrous.
Also, while people are ranting about the Superman portrayed in MoS, what are your thoughts on the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3?
See, you're trying to use people logic. DM uses Mandelogic, which we've established has 2+2=quack. - Aerethan
Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry. - Jihadin
AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world. - Iron_Captain
DakkaRank Comment: I sound like a Power Ranger.
TFOL and proud. Also a Forge World Fan.
I should really paint some of my models instead of browsing forums.