captainsolo

RedFive said:

Way too much hate in this thread. 

Dark Knight was loads better than Begins.   How many times do I need the goddamn train engineer to remind me that he's "about to crash into the building any minute!"  I mean, I liked it, but nowhere near the level of Dark Knight - it doesn't even compare.

Hey, that's Shane Rimmer's bread and butter type of dialogue and scene! He's been doing that since the 60's! (Maybe it's yet another Bond connection to the Nolan-verse.)

And I'm gonna go ahead and not give up on this movie just because of three or four on-set photos.  That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I'm not giving up on the film, not that I really care, but I will scrutinize what comes out of the publicity dept. etc. because I am invested in what happens to Batman. And I will still likely see the film as I have with all the others-even good ol' Batman and Robin-and you thought that was bad on DVD...at least you weren't in a packed theater full of 200-300 people wondering what the heck was going on.

I guess the thing that has gotten me most is the almost instantaneous reaction to TDK being some type of great statement. It took away from the film considerably. Before, Batman has never been as seriously discussed amongst the major public as a serious figure. Now the film is viewed as a great work of art and somehow meaningful. Sometimes I wonder if I saw the same movie. It  had problems. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't bad.

It's just not great in as either a film of Batman story. It wants to be.

Nice to finally have a Batman film discussion.

bkev said:

Cap, you're really grinding my gears here! :l to each his own of course, I'm mostly kidding.

Didn't mean to grind so much. ;) I like a good film discussion.

Tommy. What a bizarre trip. I watched it buzzed so I enjoyed it, but I think if I was sober it'd be a god awful experience.

That's Ken Russell for you. On any of his films you come out feeling like you've had a bad acid trip. I've never decided whether I loved or was confused by Billion Dollar Brain.

RedFive said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Same here.  I like it about as much as I like the other Indy sequels, which is to say sort of but not really.

I know, people complained about how 'ridiculous' certain scenes were, and how goofy it was.  Did they not see the other movies?

I think people tend to remember what they liked about something over what they didn't, and get an idea in their head that it's something other than what it really is.

I did. Many times. Even with their flaws they can be enjoyed. For these types of films my benchmark is usually: "would this have worked as a 30's serial?" But during Indy IV, I just wanted to get out of the theater as fast as humanly possible. It went quickly from what? to huh? to wait a minute? to please no! to what happened to no CGI? to you're not Brando! to why would you? to you said they weren't related! to make it stop! to even "no no please don't get up"! Normally I dislike a movie. Very few make me feel so beaten. And that is why to me this film is so bad that it never happened.

This is one of those where I don't understand the love for it, but if you like Indy IV, more power to you. Most people think I'm crazy for liking Temple and insisting that Crusade is flawed.

Die Hard 4 is another story, but that's because they changed it to PG-13.  I still didn't hate it, but I don't think I'll watch it again.

I thought the Unrated cut would help some in that regard. It adds a bit more Die Hard-esque violence that is needed but because of the use of alternate takes and dialogue kinda feels like a workprint. Still it works better overall than Vengeance. (aka Lethal Weapon 4 Pt. 1)

Ziggy Stardust said:

Poll:

Stand by Me or The Sandlot?

Can one intensely dislike both?

Yep. It seems they never do.

Yay, more superhero origin reboot films that we don't want!

It's in LucasLand so that's how they got access to a 35mm print. It can't be let outside a 10 mile radius most likely. The runtime is regularly 135 for the SE, but IMDB does state the original runtime is the site listed 134 minutes. Could it be...?

If it is then there is definite proof of an original existing in some kind of reference quality. They can't refute there is at least a copy of ROTJ floating about.

If it actually will be 35mm then it's likely the 97 but you never know...check it out nadcraker!

A Library store $1.00 book I took a chance on. Fascinating read about the 1940's dealings of Hollywood, and not simply one focused on the stars and films. This is more of an overall view of the industry. Perfect for a historian like myself. Chock full of anecdotes and quotes.

There is this feeling of the people involved wanting to get it over with. The news that this third film will end this particular Batman incarnation before the Justice League film and a new Batman reboot is the clincher.

It is great to see that a giant production is still dedicated to film. However, the chances of seeing such film actually on film are increasingly slim. That would be my primary reason for seeing TDKR. These set photos while obviously not the intended image are seriously not promising. Guess we'll have another color corrected tone for this one, what greenish tint?

It's like the comics, every couple of years there is a new universe created and everything starts afresh with new writers. There's no truly definitive representation of Batman in any medium. (TAS is essentially that for me, but not everyone.) As much as I would like a great Batman adventure film, I'd love a dark adaptation of Knightfall or the big one-The Dark Knight Returns. For example, you can do the whole Batman never kills schtick-but originally Batman would even carry a gun! As long as the basic facets of the character are intact-it's still Batman.

I just don't think live action has been truly able to nail a superhero and universe yet. The DC Animated Universe proves it whether good, great or decent almost every time.

On the Burton films: Burton's wackiness usually turns me off, but I think Returns is the best thing he's ever done. And The Keaton really develops both sides of the character. His introduction to the movie is that great Batman moment of brooding in the darkness of Wayne Manor's study with the Bat-signal being reflected inside. Totally ridiculous, but fitting and a great little visual moment. It once again reiterates that HE HAS NO LIFE and that HE CEASED TO EXIST as a person. There are psychological complexities here that are skimmed over completely by the corporate drive of the first film and were submerged by in the re-cut of Forever.

greenpenguino said:

I liked the story behind the concept album 'Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars'.

Ziggy is the human manifestation of an alien being who is attempting to present humanity with a message of hope in the last five years of its existence. Ziggy Stardust is the definitive rock star: sexually promiscuous, wild in drug intake and with a message, ultimately, of peace and love; but he is destroyed both by his own excesses of drugs and sex, and by the fans he inspired.

Could be made into a pretty fun movie.

Ziggy Stardust Part I: Five Years

Don't try an overload of film noirs. Very bad idea. I've done it twice, once at a three day festival at an art house and a second time for the film society I ran in film school. You'll be thinking the worst of people and searching for ulterior motives for days afterwards.

Also don't watch a bunch of 60's/70's paranoia and conspiracy films too close together. The Parallax View is disturbing enough, but don't follow it with fare such as Night Moves, and John Frankenheimer films. You won't sleep easily.

The only thing I can think of is the speeder bike cut down by lightsaber shot.

I Need Some Fine Wine and You, You Need To Be Nicer-The Cardigans

The movie that never happened was shot by a master of uninteresting cinematography and garish coloring, Kaminski, in a way to imitate and honor Slocombe's original work.

Yeah right. If the movie truly had no CGI and was done just like in the old days (they were referring to the 80's vintage of the first films-not 30's serials) then the two most powerful movie producers would have easily done a down and dirty 35mm production on the cheap and maybe rekindled some of the initial Raiders magic that so captured our imaginations and is so desperately need again.

But no! That would make too much sense! And it wouldn't be as perfectly marketable to every demographic!

And if Connery wasn't going to be in the film then you know it had to not go very well.

NOTE: all further reference to Michael Keaton must be under the title of The Keaton or Keatster or Jack Frost.

The Keaton did not wear the rubberBat to view information that was for some reason always gathered by Alfred. The Keaton always wore either formal wear or the always fashionable turtleneck/blue jean combo. Well at least they kept the Prince songs out as much as possible.

Both Burton films gain some sort of new depth with each viewing. Odd, but even last night watching the first film I saw several elements of foreshadowing and connective plot touches that I hadn't before. But the Vicki Vale character is seriously underwritten.

Returns still destroys the first film in terms of story and design. The only thing it lacks is an enlarged city scape for the setting because one can always see how the sets became much smaller and re-used. (All from the move from England to LA production between films) But Batman+snow=genius.

Also, Bale cannot show any real thinking as Batman. He is the film version of the Bat blunt instrument. With The Keaton especially, you can see Batman mull things over, get angry, rationalize and all of this comes through minute facial twitches and grimaces and no dialogue. And Batman is supposed to be relatively quiet. (In the first film, The Keaton gets angry and frankly gets too into the work he does. In the second the initial blood fever has worn off and Bruce/Batman has become so painfully tired of this endless and thankless crusade. The armor has been weakened.) Kilmer also did this but in a more subdued way since he played heavily into the character's psychological basis.

I'm on board.

greenpenguino said:

Alternate scenes of the prequels where the acting is actually good...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pfffttt

yeah right

OMG! Best gif ever!! Episode #26 The Car Hater!

Back to the thread.

Woo! Some people in body armor and spandex! Fighting on a street! On a borrowed weird motorcycle! With goggles that lying around!

I couldn't care less about this one being good. In fact the more I think about it the more I know it will likely disappoint everyone. Whenever someone mounts a Batman adaptation they always leave some key element out. With the Nolan-verse it's the character's spirit and escapist element of being a vigilante that gets dropped along with the Gothic gloom.

And try as I do, I still can't see this as Batman. It's just a guy growling in some body armor. Then he sits around and "thinks/broods". Then the plot becomes overcomplicated twists and turns involving elements of the criminal underworld being manipulated by the arch villains and vice versa. This isn't freaking The Long Halloween or Hush people! And if you want to make a film more like the graphic novels, then don't reduce the story! It's like someone reads a bunch of long story arcs and then takes a few of the overall arcs and throws them in a blender. I swear if this one tries to toss in some ideas of Knightfall...

I do actually enjoy the first Superman film, and like some of the ideas in the second. I still need to see the Donner cut. Reeve makes for a great hero, but when I think of Supes, I think of the Fleischers. They just scream Superman. And they don't have any of the hokeniess that creeps in occasionally on the live action films. That said, I think the dialogue in the second half is what really makes the first film work. "Otisburg?" And that's Tom Mankewicz doing some fantastic script doctoring.

Always.

"Forgive me, you did say your forum was correct?"

"Russian forums are always correct."(explosion)

Hah! Finally figured out an easy way to make a list. I went through my mubi.com favorites (400 strong) and whittled it down from there.

For any interested here's my list. It's pretty much everything I could think of, and I had to cut out a lot of the great films to just leave the stuff I really adore. It's done by release year not preference.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQiDXa6TbIF8JzYXYPkUmehSsd8AbR6f8POrJNLUZ64/edit?hl=en_US

But it couldn't be a prequel because Caesar is the child of Cornelius and Zira who don't exist yet..unless this would undo all of the original sequels? I love doing POTA what ifs.

Last Crusade is like a flat soda. Still good, but just lifeless. Had a choice between picking up an LD of it or this other movie from 1989...

Batman. Found a shrinkwrapped LD and finally did the shootout I've wanted to do since getting the 2disc DVD. I've always disliked the 5.1 remix for this film and after getting DTS capable I still wasn't satisfied. (Although the DTS mix is not bad at all, it still does not feel right) To my ears the DVD mixes sounded a bit tinny and very subdued. There's little to no low end. The LD proved me right. When a good sounding Dolby Stereo movie gets remixed into 5.1 all the subtleties get lost in the process. On LD the mix is more balanced and has just the right amount of low end for the Keaton punch.

And it was nice to see in the composed 1.85:1 ratio instead of cropped to 1.78:1. I know it's a minute difference, but everything just has more room and if it's they way it was composed, why change it?

You weigh a lot more than 108 balls in the pale moonlight.

Can't do it! Guess I will have to make a definitive list.

No matter the display, HD images seem way too bright to me. Almost as if it's an over bright fluorescent light.

Then again I like mouse droppings so...;)

Over on lddb this is listed under severe cases of rot. But these titles don't have any signs on my pressings.

Yay PCM! I've honestly noticed that it is more punchy than the lossy 5.1. And in Pro Logic with a sub it's not to different from the 5.1 soundfield.

From what I've heard about the 5 Star boots they were just claiming to have that DTS audio and were just crummy upmixes.

The DTS audio discs that pop up occasionally accompany 35mm prints because there is no DTS optical track. The disc has to be put into a DTS decoder and then run with the print which has a specially printed time code to sync with the audio. No one has ever cracked the encoding and you have to have all the necessary equipment plus a print of the film.

What would the quality of one of these be though? I figured something like DTS Laserdisc (and early DVD) which was about 1500-1600 kbp/s.

EDIT: found this on wiki:

In theatrical use, a proprietary 24-bit time code is optically imaged onto the film. An LED reader scans the timecode data from the film and sends it to the DTS processor, using the time code to synchronize the projected image with the DTS soundtrack audio. The multi-channel DTS audio is recorded in compressed form on standard CD-ROM media at a bitrate of 1,103 kbit/s. The audio compression used in the theatrical DTS system (which is very different and completely unrelated to the home Coherent Acoustics-based DTS Digital Surround format) is the APT-X100 system. Unlike the home version of DTS or any version of Dolby Digital, the APT-X100 system is fixed at a 4:1 compression ratio. Data reduction is accomplished via sub-band coding with linear prediction and adaptive quantization. The theatrical DTS processor acts as a transport mechanism, as it holds and reads the audio discs. When the DTS format was launched, it used one or two discs with later units holding three discs, thus allowing a single dts processor to handle two-disc film soundtracks along with a third disc for theatrical trailers. The DTS time code on the 35mm print identifies the film title which is matched to the individual DTS CD-ROMs, guaranteeing that the film cannot be played with the wrong disc. Each DTS CD-ROM contains a DOS program that the processor uses to playback the soundtrack, allowing system improvements or bug fixes to be added easily. Unlike Dolby Digital and SDDS, or the home version of DTS, the theatrical DTS system only carries 5 discrete channels on the CD-ROMs. The .1 LFE subwoofer track is mixed into the discrete surround channels on the disc and recovered via low-pass filters in the theater.