Last movie seen — Page 549

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:
I find it funny, therefore by rule of Frink, it doesn’t matter if others are annoyed.

The problem is that it’s not funny.

That’s a subjective opinion, something that shows up frequently on this site. The fact that you think it isn’t funny doesn’t change the fact that I do think it’s funny.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

I watched both when they were in theaters. I enjoyed both, but expected Boyhood to swamp all the awards, so rooted for Birdman because I felt it was the underdog and more entertaining. Boyhood was an experience, but one I wouldn’t really want to revisit.

Dek Rollins said:

Handman said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Everything is a product of its time.

But some more than others. I once again point to how Superman, although made 10 years earlier, ends up being much more timeless.

I mean, you may not be wrong, but you can’t tell me that Superman doesn’t ooze the seventies at some moments as well.

Fair enough. I guess what I’m trying to say is Batman feels like a movie of its time rather than a Batman movie, while Superman feels more faithful to the character. Superman is the first thing I’d point to if someone wanted me to explain the character, while Batman isn’t. It’s still a solid movie and I really enjoy it to this day.

Well as I’ve said multiple times already, it’s a Burton movie. And by extension it’s not a Batman movie.

Batman isn’t a Batman movie? I don’t quite follow what you’re saying here.

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

TV’s Frink said:

ray_afraid said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

I watched both when they were in theaters. I enjoyed both, but expected Boyhood to swamp all the awards, so rooted for Birdman because I felt it was the underdog and more entertaining. Boyhood was an experience, but one I wouldn’t really want to revisit.

Dek Rollins said:

Handman said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Everything is a product of its time.

But some more than others. I once again point to how Superman, although made 10 years earlier, ends up being much more timeless.

I mean, you may not be wrong, but you can’t tell me that Superman doesn’t ooze the seventies at some moments as well.

Fair enough. I guess what I’m trying to say is Batman feels like a movie of its time rather than a Batman movie, while Superman feels more faithful to the character. Superman is the first thing I’d point to if someone wanted me to explain the character, while Batman isn’t. It’s still a solid movie and I really enjoy it to this day.

Well as I’ve said multiple times already, it’s a Burton movie. And by extension it’s not a Batman movie.

Batman isn’t a Batman movie? I don’t quite follow what you’re saying here.

Have you seen it?

It’s not a Batman movie, it’s a Burton movie that happens to have Batman and happens to star The Joker.

It’s technically a Batman movie but presumably you get my point now.

Which (live action) Batman movies then are actually Batman movies and not just Martinson/Burton/Schumacher/Nolan films that happen to have Batman?

You might as well say Superman: The Movie was not a Superman movie but a Donner movie that happened to have Superman. Every director flavors their movies with their own style, so I’m not sure what the point is of Burton’s Batman not really being Batman.

If anything, you should say that about Shumacher’s films and not Burton’s.

I think it’s a great Batman movie that is well directed by Tim Burton and co-stars the Joker.

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

How is that inherently pretentious?

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

Thing is, the movie is good.

Don’t you get it? People on a Youtube said that it was pretentious.

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

Thing is, the movie is good.

It’s a decent prequel for a remake of Before Sunrise 😜

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

I suppose you’re not wrong, I just find it pretentious in an attention grabbing sort of way. Look at me, I spent a long time shooting this movie, now give me oscars.

Thing is, the movie is good.

Some beg to differ. But I won’t argue about the quality of the film since I ain’t seen it.

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

I suppose you’re not wrong, I just find it pretentious in an attention grabbing sort of way. Look at me, I spent a long time shooting this movie, now give me oscars.

He never did that. People found the movie interesting for that reason after it came out. RLM just made up the Oscar-bait stuff. I am willing to bet money that Richard Linklater doesn’t go into his film projects with the “give me oscars” mindset.

Thing is, the movie is good.

Some beg to differ. But I won’t argue about the quality of the film since I ain’t seen it.

Most of the people mocking it, like you, haven’t actually seen it.

.

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

ray_afraid said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

I watched both when they were in theaters. I enjoyed both, but expected Boyhood to swamp all the awards, so rooted for Birdman because I felt it was the underdog and more entertaining. Boyhood was an experience, but one I wouldn’t really want to revisit.

Dek Rollins said:

Handman said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Everything is a product of its time.

But some more than others. I once again point to how Superman, although made 10 years earlier, ends up being much more timeless.

I mean, you may not be wrong, but you can’t tell me that Superman doesn’t ooze the seventies at some moments as well.

Fair enough. I guess what I’m trying to say is Batman feels like a movie of its time rather than a Batman movie, while Superman feels more faithful to the character. Superman is the first thing I’d point to if someone wanted me to explain the character, while Batman isn’t. It’s still a solid movie and I really enjoy it to this day.

Well as I’ve said multiple times already, it’s a Burton movie. And by extension it’s not a Batman movie.

Batman isn’t a Batman movie? I don’t quite follow what you’re saying here.

Have you seen it?

It’s not a Batman movie, it’s a Burton movie that happens to have Batman and happens to star The Joker.

It’s technically a Batman movie but presumably you get my point now.

Which (live action) Batman movies then are actually Batman movies and not just Martinson/Burton/Schumacher/Nolan films that happen to have Batman?

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

I suppose you’re not wrong, I just find it pretentious in an attention grabbing sort of way. Look at me, I spent a long time shooting this movie, now give me oscars.

So anytime a filmmaker wants to experiment with the filmmaking process it’s pretentious and attention grabbing? You don’t think it’s an interesting concept at all?

As for “now give me Oscars,” that’s ridiculous. This kind of thing is right in Linklater’s wheelhouse and he never gets nor (I would presume at this point) expects Academy recognition.

I guess it just seemed that way to me. It was a big marketing point IIRC.

Thing is, the movie is good.

Some beg to differ. But I won’t argue about the quality of the film since I ain’t seen it.

Exactly mfm’s initial point.

But mfm’s point is moot because I was never commenting on the quality of the film. I made a joke about people who think you aren’t allowed to dislike it because people were disagreeing with Handman about Birdman being better.