Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Dagenspear

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43
Yeah, it's one thing about this movie that I don't understand. So he meets Talia, sleeps with her, and then just hands over the nuke to her? Also, Selina steals his mother's pearls, gives his fingerprints to Bane, which bankrupts him, then she sells him out to Bane, which he then gets his back broken...and the first thing Bruce does when he gets back to Gotham, is talk to Selina. lolwut?

So Gotham is held hostage because Bruce was too stupid to give a nuke over to someone he just slept with, and then his back is broken, because he keeps trusting a known burglar who keeps screwing him over. It just makes no sense to me. But what do I know, apparently ropes and crackers can fix a broken back, while also making you invulnerable to nuclear bombs.
He doesn't sleep with her until after he gives her Wayne Enterprises and he has known her for awhile at the start of the movie. Him giving her the reactor is actually based on the fact that he's pressed and can't take the chance that Dagget gets it. Talia even says that he's not really trusting her and just has no choice. Same with Selina. She's literally the only other ally he can get at the time, besides Blake. And Selina, being a criminal, can infiltrate Bane's group and help him escape with Fox.

He doesn't trust her perse, but at least counts on her being self serving enough to want to save her own life, a fact she tells him when she betrays him to Bane in the sewer. He believes there's more to her, but doesn't count on her to be more. Though he could believe there's more to her based on the fact that she saves a kid and she feels the need to justify why she betrayed him in the sewer scene, something she wouldn't necessarily do if she didn't care in some way. But that's just my perception of the situation.

The real question is: Why did Bruce take the time to shave? lol. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Bloody hell...the ever opinionated Max Landis, who is a staunch critic of MOS and BvS, apparently tweeted this nonsense about TDK:

Quote from: Max Landis
Rewatching Dark Knight; it's such a fun, silly good-natured movie. Interesting that it's thought of as a grim, serious epic.

Source: https://twitter.com/Uptomyknees/status/887798390712446976

Right, because the idea of Batman putting an entire town in harm's way for no good reason, and betrays everything he stands for to protect a psychopath is a "fun, good-natured movie". ::) Never mind all the other dark sh*t that happens in this movie. He also said that Joker acts like Joker, Two-Face acts like Two-Face and Batman acts like Batman...

All I'll say is this: his Twitter handle says "Uptomyknees". Judging by these opinions and his eccentric behaviour in front of the camera, it should read "Outofmymind" instead. As Rick James once said, cocaine is a hell of a drug.
If you think that anything Batman does in that movie is to protect the Joker or that he betrays everything he stands for to do so, then I question if you've seen the movie. And dark things can and do happen in many movies that are still fun and good natured. Darkness happening doesn't erase good or fun. Let's also not ignore that a character can act like the character their based off of and not be completely accurate. There you go again belittling a human being for not sharing your opinion on a fictional story and characters. You can find a way to be better than that. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Movies / Re: The Perfect Order to Watch the Star Wars Saga
« on: Tue, 18 Jul 2017, 16:29 »
The later stages of the Jedi Order strongly resembles segments of the Western World right now. I see the same pig headed and complacent arrogance. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Honestly, if the Jedi didn't pick up on the warning signs, screw them. They were completely outmaneuvered by a superior strategic mind. I honestly have zero sympathy. Nothing lasts forever. Empires fall. It's your job to make sure it doesn't happen on your watch.
They were all massacred, including children to fuel an empirical violent takeover based on lies. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I tend to agree. The films don't make distinctions there.

Bruce in Begins says "I won't be an executioner". In TDK, he says he only has one rule... which, elliptically, can only be taking life in general. As you say, in TDKRises it's more blunt yet when he says "No killing".

If Nolan cast his version of Batman as someone who will take life under a certain array of circumstances but not willy-nilly as the mood strikes him, I think the movies could be evaluated in terms of when it is or isn't appropriate for Batman to take life.

But they don't.

On the contrary, as you know, they rather starkly say that he won't take life. A fine and noble moral line, I suppose. But his selective violation of that rule makes him a hypocrite. Fine and dandy since some amount of hypocrisy is built into most incarnations of Batman anyway. But all of those have some mitigating factor to them which allows audiences to savor his hypocrisy rather than be distracted by it.

Taking life in the Nolan trilogy is different. No clarification is ever offered, no remorse is ever expressed and very little heed is ever paid to the fact that (A) Batman has one rule and (B) Batman has repeatedly broken his one rule.

And as you know well, I don't think even think he was out of line in breaking that rule. But he still set that rule and then he broke that rule. Very little is ever made of those two undeniable facts in the films. As it stands, Batman is very much of the "Do as I say, not as I do" school in the Nolan trilogy but it isn't done in a way that benefits the material.

Sad, really.

I'm re-quoting your post again because recently, I've read some anti-BvS comments on YouTube questioning why didn't Batman kill the psychotic Joker if he had abandoned his moral code. Oh, the irony!

I actually told these very same people that criticism more than applies to the entire Nolan trilogy, and they couldn't defend it. To their credit, at least they weren't that delusional and tried to justify Nolan's inconsistencies. I guess that counts for something.
Baleman was never faced with the same situation where killing the Joker was the way to save anyone, even himself, the same way as he was with Harvey in the movie, at any point. Your comparison isn't appropriate. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Your expectations, right? I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to grasp about my argument about the variables concerning BVS and I'm honestly in no mood to relitigate that issue.

You're wrong. Simple as that.

As to appeal to authority vis a vis mentioning the movie's profit (of which there was a lot), that's an objective measure of success. The movie cost $X to produce. It grossed $Y in undeniable profit. Pointing that out is inconvenient to people who want to project flaws, failures and shortcomings BVS doesn't merit so I understand why you're eager to move away from that aspect of the discussion. But it doesn't change the facts (A) that you're wrong and (B) the movie was a box office success by definition.
Any money issues may BvS have is the least of its shortcomings. But that doesn't erase the fact that by all standards it should have done better. There are different expectations for different characters and they have no excuse because MOS did decently for itself. And BvS only got a couple hundred million more. That doesn't make the movie a failure, but it certainly doesn't make the movie a strong success. No matter what though, profit doesn't make any movie good. Those that try to use that as a defense for a movie aren't correct. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I've defended the character of Superman from faux-intellectual, superficial zealots for years, people who whined that he was just "boy scout in a cape." That's he's "not edgy enough." (To me, the use of the word "Edgy" as either a criticism or praise is a clear sign of a misguided pseudo-intellectual brat) These are the people that think every character should be like Wolverine, Batman, or Deadpool.

And yet these same people criticize Cavill's Superman for not being that boy scout. It's the Kobayashi Maru.
For some reason I don't think this is their idea of what they mean when they ask for it to be edgy. But that's just my thought.

When MOS came out, there was backlash over Superman "destroying Metropolis and causing collateral damage". I remember watching some hyperactive fools on YouTube complain passionately that the S did not stand for hope, but it stood for destruction instead. These people had an enormous distaste for Superman and didn't care about him at all. But what makes it even more astonishing to me is a lot of these people didn't have any sympathy for Batman for having such a prejudiced view of Superman. If anything, I'd say Batman in this film represents as an avatar to the audience who deeply hated MOS and have a lot of things in common with those type of people.

BvS established Batman as a witness to the destruction and deems Superman responsible from his point of view. He believes that nobody with such power could ever remain good and must be destroyed, and like the haters in the audience, completely ignored all the good deeds that Superman continues to do. Before realising that he was the one who was on the verge of becoming evil at the end of the fight later on in the film, Batman deemed Superman with extreme distaste and didn't regard him as a god or a man, much like the haters. To me, it seems there is a contradiction between the complaints for Superman in the DCEU and not understanding the premise behind Batman's opposition towards him in BvS. And it's not something that critics themselves have seemed to realise.
If he's a bad guy, his good deeds don't erase his bad. Though that doesn't mean this Superman is a bad guy. He's not. But the "haters" aren't killers who want to murder Superman for no real reason. Trying to make an awkward jab at the "haters" via butchering Batman's character and making him a bad version of Punisher, while never holding him responsible for it, is irresponsible writing wise. I don't see why it matters in general or should matter to the critics at all.

You will always see me defending the DCEU films, Suicide Squad to a lesser extent, on their creative merit. That's why I like them in the first place. To suggest I'm hiding behind profit alone is simply false. It's just an added bonus that the franchise is banking cash, because naturally that means the franchise continues. The issue I have is that the cash banking fact isn't emphasised by others, and when it is, sour grapes come into play.
If you bring it up as a way to point to a movie's quality, it's hiding behind. More than anything the sour grapes are coming from the side who don't like that, according to them, a movie they like is "one of the most hated cbm of all time".
Oh, here we go. The good old 'you must just like bad movies' routine.
Do you like those movies? You're allowed to. That's your God given free will.
Thanks for the laugh Mr. Holier Than Thou.
That seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.
Then that's your problem and not mine.
My opinion isn't a problem in this regard.
I said it's one of the most hated comic books of all time, and I stand by that claim, even though the tide is turning.
Who cares if the tide turns? It won't make anything good or bad. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I am re-watching the film now and I have to say I really love the way this film opens. For starters, I find the "Beautiful Lie" to be one of the most poignant portrayals of Thomas and Martha's deaths put to film. I really love the way Burton did it, but I think this version is a little better.
I can't agree. Burton's was beautifully done to me.
And with the second half of the sequence, with Bruce in Metropolis. I love it. I was never terribly critical of Man of Steel's climax. Some people pointed to Superman II where Superman leaves to protect the people and Zod follows him, but that was a different Zod. Terrance Stamp's Zod was egotistical. He even had the world in the film for a time while Superman was in la-la land with Lois, but was depicted as being somewhat bored. With Superman, he saw that challenge.
Though the different Zod doesn't change that Superman should still try instead of engaging in a fight with him thoughtlessly. Though I never blamed Clark for the Metropolis destruction.
Man of Steel's Zod was more genocidal and driven to protect his species, more so than Superman II's Zod, who wanted to rule the world, but not necessarily wipe out the entire human race, which is what Zod was going to do with the World Engine. When Superman destroyed the world engine, Zod became enraged and still wanted to destroy to humanity
David Goyer said is was more like Zod committing suicide, death by cop. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

According to whom?

And if past is prologue, Superman has been viewed as a box office risk for at least twenty five years. Batman has done really well at the movies in recent years, sure, but that hasn't been universal. And there was risk in rebooting the character considering how successful the Nolan version was. Wonder Woman was a completely unproven commodity until a few weeks ago.

WB started from behind the 8-ball in ways Marvel didn't have to and had limitations Marvel didn't. On balance, I think they've done pretty well on a creative level.
In all honesty, a Batman and Superman movie should have done better than it did. That's what I was talking about mainly. MOS did solid for it's starting point. That makes sense considering it's one of the better made DCEU movies, 2nd to WW from what I hear.
How on Earth does the DCEU 'hide behind profit' when the profit aspect is either not reported or downplayed by people like you? There is NOWHERE for the DCEU to hide given the level of aggression and bias against it. Their case must be made because no-one else will make it, because they're too busy pointing at Rotten Tomato scores.
The DCEU doesn't. In this particularly case the person defending it did. The sad truth is that many things make a profit that aren't good. Age Of Ultron Thor TDW and IM 3 made a profit and those certainly are the lesser of the MCU totem polls.
Agreed. BvS is one of the most hated comic book films by the 'know it all crowd'. But this quote nails everything for me: "I never wanted to be popular. I want to be significant. Significant people can become popular, popular people almost never become significant." Most Marvel films just come and go and don't challenge your senses in any real way. Snyder created something that will always drive debate. I know what I'd prefer.
It's funny, because that sounds like something a know it all would say. The conflict attachment to justify the fact that there's a split in fans regarding a movie isn't something I get. But it's certainly not the most hated cbm. That goes to something like Batman & Robin, unjustly. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43
Not a member? Click here to register now!
Latest Forum Post
Re: Hathaway's Selina Kyle/Catwoman (SPOILERS)
by The Dark Knight
Total Members: 680 | Total Posts: 48,497 | Total Topics: 3,126

SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
| Design based on the Reference theme by Crip XHTML RSS WAP2 iPhone Theme Scrolling News Ticker by Mioplanet
"BATMAN" all related characters indicia are copyrighted by D.C. COMICS, a TIME-WARNER company. Batman created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger.
All features, articles and blogs are © of Batman-Online.com's staff & members (unless otherwise indicated) and may NOT be copied without the author's permission. All artwork is © of respective owners.
This is NOT an official Batman website. Conceived, designed and edited by Paul Rodgers since 1st June 2002. Facebook and twitter feeds maintained by Rick Francis and Azrael.