Just in case you missed it at the top, because you apparently did from the original post.
And Im very proud of ya, you did just what I figured you would do.
Well, I guess you know me so well then, don't ya. Here's a cookie.
lordjedi said: And he didn't exactly "walk up to Two-Face". If I remember correctly, he lept at him and it actually was a surprise
Did you even see this movie? He walks right up to him and starts conversing with him. Only after revealing that he was there and getting shot does he leap at him. Selective memory much?
No, it's called only seeing the movie one time and not being that worried about some little details.
I saw what you said about "These are my opinions of the movie". I was just pointing out some alternate explanations that I had come up with while watching the movie. Have we gotten to the point, again, where we need every little thing explained (bus coming out of bank, convict throwing away detonator, etc, etc)?
They're probably essentially charging you for Lucas's signature, since he RARELY signs anything. There's no way that book is worth more than a few hundred.
-1, make no mistake, other items that have been produced by Sideshow and Gentle Giant have been just as limited. The only difference here is that this thing is signed by Lucas. It should really show you what he thinks of just his signature, that he's willing to increase the price of the book 10 fold just because he signed them.
I thought you guys were smart? I go into the politics thread and I see all this republican biased talk and people labeling Democrats as socialists/communists? For those of you who are more framiliar with the politcal statistics of the people on this site, could you give me an idea of the ratio of democrats, republicans, and other parties please? Also if you don't mind, tell me what party you lean towards the most (or hate the least)? I'm Democrat, and so far from what I've read it seems like this board is %80-%90 hardcore republican and the other 10-20% are moderates with only a sliver of strong democrats.
If you had looked closely, you also would have seen Republicans labeled as Nazis and fascists, so the labeling isn't one way. In fact, I'd bet if you looked really close (it's a huge thread), you'd find that the Republicans had been labelled as Nazis and fascists before anyone labelled a Democrat as either communist or socialist.
I really don't know what the ratio of Dems to Reps to other parties has anything to do with anything. If you're a Dem, you're a Demo. Why should it matter how many other Dems there are on this site? Are you going to stop visiting OT.com if it turns out to be 90% Reps and only 10% Dems? You should be here for reasons other than politics.
Well, I was generalizing, I'm not in a very good mood right now.
No kidding.
The thing that I don't like is, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is not night and day like it seems our people like to catagorize them as.
It is night and day. Look at what each party believes in and what their policies are.
But I just feel Democrats take this country in a better direction in an inadeqate world.
The problem is, we don't live in an adequate world.
I find most wealthy democrats share the same views as the common man and earned their money more civilized than a lot or reps. Hilary made a lot of her money writing books and smart investing. Most republicans seem to be wealthy because they inherited it. Of course, I'm just generalizing, there's good people in both parties.
And what source do you have that most Republicans inherited their wealth? I'll give you 3 examples of people right now that didn't inherit theirs to your 1 democrat. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Larry Elder. That's 3 Reps that did NOT inherit their wealth. Every one of them, especially Rush, just read about his life sometime, worked their asses off to get where they are. I'll even add another one, but he bills himself as an Independent. Bill O'Reilly, who was audited 3 times during the Clinton years just because of who he is. He finally had to call the Clintons personally and tell them to call off the IRS or he'd file a lawsuit, at which time they stopped auditing him.
Every smart person makes their money buy working smarter and not harder. That's just good economic sense. To become really wealthy, you need more sources of income then you have of debt going out. There are plenty of examples, on both sides, of people working hard to make their money. There's also plenty of examples, on both sides, of people inheriting millions.
Now, why do we need a new thread for this? Shouldn't it all go into the politics thread? I realize that thread was pretty much dead and buried, but there's no reason it can't be "resurrected".
For the record, I'm a Republican that workd my ass off for 15 years to get where I'm at and I don't appreciate it when the government is always trying to raise my taxes to "help everyone else". If you want to help people out, let us keep our money. It is a proven fact that when taxes are lower, charitable contributions go up. Also, assuming you're referring to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Clinton may have signed it, but it was a Republican Congress that got it to his desk. In fact, it was part of the Republican Contract with America. Also, while the economy, especially in California, experienced huge growth during the Clinton years, it was not at all due to Clinton. It was in fact, as someone else mentioned, due to the technological breakthroughs of the Internet and massive VC funding for all kinds of Internet startups (most of which failed during the .com bust).
So puhlease try to get at least some of your facts accurate before coming in here and spouting off on how stupid we all are for being Republicans instead of Democrats.
i know maybe i shouldn't be so excited, but its hard for me not to be........................i can't help it, i've been at the movie theaters for EVERY SINGLE film when it was out, the OT, some re-releases, and the SE, and finally all of the PT......i'm NOT going to miss out now either............
Hey man, whatever floats your boat. No need to be cynical just for our sake.
Who said he had to break all his bones, have him show some sort of discomfort after falling that far
I guess laying there and not moving just wasn't enough then. I guess he had to say something like "Groan, that hurt." Yeah, that would've made that scene so much better :P
Ok well Ill get the ones we’ve discussed out of the way first
The SWAT member riding shotgun making terrible comments throughout that entire chase scene
Shock...horror! A no name actor gets the worst lines in the movie! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
Fox having a problem helping Batman locate Joker, using the technology he created and when his morals have been at best questionable with what else he has done for Batman.
Uh, no. Fox had a dilema because Batman suddenly wants to invade EVERYONES privacy in order to find one criminal. This is probably the one scene in the entire movie that could be compared to our current government (not getting into it here). I don't think anything else he had done until that point had been questionable at all. Everything he did to that point involved helping someone that actually had the money and abilities to catch the bad buys, to actually catch the bad guys.
A yellow school bus driving out of a bank covered in rubble and everyone acting like that was a normal thing.
I thought it was funny actually. I'm sure everyone did freak out (the shot wasn't exactly a close up) and I can imagine the calls to 911. "A school bus just drove out of a bank". So the cops would end up looking for a school bus and they'd find all those buses driving somewhere (maybe). And that then assumes that Joker didn't simply drive it a couple of blocks and then unload it.
The whole scene recreating the fingerprint from a fragmented bullet was completely and absolutely absurd.
Much like almost every episode of CSI, right?
Making the convict out to be a “good” person by having him throw out the remote. I guess their trying to show not everyone is as messed up as the Joker, sorry the guys already in an orange jumpsuit…failure.
Or maybe they were trying to point out that the convict realized "I've had my chance. I screwed up. I need to pay my debt." Just because you're in an orange jumpsuit, doesn't mean you have to be evil and take out a bunch of innocent people. It seemed to me like he was willing to serve his time or even accept the fate of being blown up rather than take out everyone else. In fact, a friend of mine said it would have been really fun if both detonators actually blew up the convicts anyway. I think it would've been funny if the detonators had blown up the boats they were on. I think that would've been classic Joker.
Batman not being Batman. Not attempting to stop Rachel and himself from falling. Not attempting to get the drop on The Joker in the building when he knew his exact location. Batman walking straight up to Two-Face when he had a gun to the kids head. Batman just walks around in broad daylight, so much for his secretive nature.Batman basically getting his butt kicked by The Joker and only accidently beating him.
Yeah, because Joker had been so easily surprised before. And he didn't exactly "walk up to Two-Face". If I remember correctly, he lept at him and it actually was a surprise.
Batman saving The Joker.
As others have said, this was perfectly within character. If he had really wanted to kill him, he would've run him over with his motorcycle.
The Joker making a deal with the mob to get their money when he cares about nothing.
Others have already pointed this one out. Joker only cared about chaos. By burning his half, he made the mob realize how insane he really was.
Batmans longest and most physical fight was with the SWAT team.He couldnt have incapacitated the first group, grabbed one of their comms and informed the entire team? Nah it was better for him to have fought all of them, that made more sense. I mean don’t have him fight the criminals/enemy for the last big fight scene.
Um, no, because they were no longer listening to him if you remember. They were taking orders from Gordon only. What would've made some sense, if Gordon had been willing to listen to Batman, would be if Batman had radioed Gordon and told him to have the SWAT team stand down because the "criminals" were just a bunch of kids all tied up. But then that would've taken the dramatic element out of it and it would've meant that Gordon still trusted Batman when it was becoming apparent that he didn't.
The Jokers convincing of Harvey into becoming a cold blooded murder.
Yeah, I'm sure it was hard for Joker to do after Batman saved him instead of Rachel.
The Joker blowing up the hospital. (I have my reasons for that, I don’t wish to explain)
Um, ok.
Putting The Mayor out in an area impossible to control and extremely visible after a hits been placed on his life.
Maybe to draw the bad guy out? I don't really know nor do I care. It didn't really jump out at me as a bad thing.
Regarding the Pixar papers provided on the link, I kind of agree with -1 that for the most part they aren't anything too jaw dropping. A number of them are simply clever ways/shortcuts to reduce how long it takes to render scenes, which is nice to the production team but is literally a 0% difference on screen in the before and after sense. (and AOTC had pretty good CG cloth flow physics, before Ratatouille...)
It may not make a difference in the before and after sense, but if it saves rendering time, that means it also saves money. If it saves money, that means you can do something even more complex in the next feature and hopefully something that looks even better. The point is that technological improvements don't usually come in leaps and bounds. They usually come in small steps. After enough small steps, you've improved things dramatically. The audience may not notice it, but the majority of audiences probably also can't tell a film that's projected digitally vs one that is on 35mm film. And I do get tired of the argument that people "don't know how great a film is because they haven't seen it in a theatre on 35mm". If a movie is that good, it won't matter whether I watch it on DVD on my 50" tv or on a big screen being projected in a theatre.
negative1 said:
star wars influenced a 10 year old child, over 3 decades ago,
and now i find myself at a point in my life, where i want some way to find that feeling again...
why shouldn't i be excited???????????
later
-1
Maybe because the Star Wars that you and I grew up with isn't the same Star Wars anymore. I don't know, just a thought. If you're still trying to "find that feeling", then you may be waiting a very long time.
If you want to create your own reasonings thats fine Im just going off what I actually saw not what my mind can come up with. And I guess no Airborne Infantry solider specially equipped for parachuting has ever been injured by a fall :p. And lets not forget in Batman Begins after he jumps off the building after speaking with Gordon he lands hard against the railing and at least shows signs of injury by a 1 1/2 story fall. If your going to make him more human in the movie then at least show a 20+ story fall caused a bit of an inconvenience especially since he did nothing to slow their descent.
But Im sure there will be another loop hole I must be missing that was neither implied are articulated in the movie, he was cape less and his cape didnt catch cosmic bat winds that drop him as light as a leaf to the ground below. OR his armor was not updated to the newest beta 2.0 which has a special hidden impact feature that senses imminent impact and deploys a special batgel within the suit to let him withstand falls from 5000 feet, how could we forget the batgel.
The movie prides itself on being true and gritty and "realistic" yet has so many holes. I realize that other movies have the same issue but if you want to make a critically realistic movie I think it should be looked at critically. If they are going to step away from the comic book style and walk into a whole new arena, thats great but do it right, and I don’t feel they have. Take the scene when they are transporting Dent, the SWAT guy riding shotgun delivered so many terrible lines that took away so much of the seriousness of that scene. Hes making these casual nonchalant remarks about horrendous destruction thats going on. Wheres the gritty, seriousness in that? And tagging it as a good time to lighten the tension with humor is just a terrible idea.
Actually, I could care less how he survived. He's the hero, the main guy, the star. He's suppose to survive. If he had broken all his bones and been taken to the hospital, it would've made the movie really funny.
What other holes does it have? So far, the biggest problem seems to be the 20 story drop. What other things "brought you out of the movie"? The only scene I remember thinking looked funny was when he rode the batcycle into a wall, went up the wall, turned, and came back down facing the other direction. Something about it looked forced and funny, but that's the only one that really stuck out.
It does not canopy or do anything significant to slow them and even if there was a slight flare just before they hit that would do absolutlty nothing. Even when a parachute opens and slows a person down if there is a failure and their is partial canopy in which to slow the person the force at which they hit is often devastating. And falling onto a car is no help, falling into water from ~ 100 feet is like hitting concrete. And I think most people, including kids, realized that everything about Batman is on the "fantastic" side. However, the point is still that he does not act like Batman in this movie and the movie does a poor job of injecting "reality" into the Batman world. The fact still stands, he falls from 20+ stories in his suit and is fine, he falls ~5 stories in his suit and can barely get up.
People in parachutes aren't usually wearing armor either ;) And I'm pretty sure he was somewhat faking not being able to get up after falling 5 stories at the end. Why get up when the bad guy is just going to keep knocking you down? Better to wait for him to come over and get him when he doesn't expect it (similar to Batman getting "shot" in the first movie). Either way, it doesn't bother me that he fell that far and survived. I can think of plenty of other movies that have a lot more problems than one minor scene.
What I was referring to with the Mythbusters thing is the gagdets that look real. Like the wire he uses to lift himself up or go across rooms with. Some of those things at least seemed plausible. Unfortunately, there's nothing commercially available in that size of a package. The best one Mythbusters tested was the cable to turn the car around tight corners. Even with the strongest cable they could find, they only made it about halfway through the turn before the pole (the anchor) got pulled up.
Bush fans are going nuts. The comments are so funny, I spend most of the day reading them.
Nothing better to do, eh?
The trailer looks alright. I'm sure I'll see it, just to see what kind of bs Stone has put into it. I'm sure the truth sites will pop up shortly after it's released.
I'll agree that two face was taken out a bit to quick, but I think the point of keeping Joker alive was to have him for the next movie (not gonna work out unfortunately unless they go with a different actor).
As far as the two falls go, I swear I heard Batman activate something (his wing thing maybe?) during his fall with Rachel that at least slowed them down. That's why he was able to get under her and provide some cushion when they hit. Otherwise I'd agree with you.
Sorry but when I watched it again, I watched and listened intently to that scene and he does nothing, so... still ridiculous
His cape flares out just before they hit. I'm not sure if that's enough to slow them down or not. He's also wearing the new suit, so that may have helped a bit. I'm willing to suspend some belief, especially since Mythbusters showed that just about every gadget Batman has is a little on the "fantastic" side.
again, who cares? unless you can understand them, apply them, or deal with them,
it's all eye-candy.......revolutionary? more like evolutionary....not to knock pixars
techniques.......but until there is a huge breakthrough ...this is status quo.....
go to the siggraph conferences if you want to see the real innovations/innovators...
later
-1
But isn't that what it's all about at the end of the day (besides a story)? Making it look better and more realistic, which we simply call "eye candy". If the story is utter crap, it won't matter how good it looks. It's only status quo if every movie uses the same techniques. As long as they continue to push the technology forward, and they seem to be doing just that, then it's not status quo anymore.
I think # 1,4 & 6 are very important points. The movie took an iconic character and totally rewrite him, unnecessarily. It was not the batman I know and they did not do a good job in "evolving" or changing how he is in my opinin.
#10. I agree with that, especially with the ending, it was done poor. Dispatching Two-Face so quickly and not allowly the chance to further develope his chracter in the next movie was a complete failure. Saving the Joker and not wrapping up his story was terrible.
The movie didnt seem "grounded," it was flmisy and all over the place. Batman falls about 20+ stories with Rachel, doesnt use any gadgets to save them and they are completely uninjuried. Batman falls ~5 stories at the end and has trouble getting up.
People talk like they have watched this amazingly well done movie and its full of scenes and situations that are really poorly done that youd have to be blind not to see. I dont know what people saw.
I'll agree that two face was taken out a bit to quick, but I think the point of keeping Joker alive was to have him for the next movie (not gonna work out unfortunately unless they go with a different actor).
As far as the two falls go, I swear I heard Batman activate something (his wing thing maybe?) during his fall with Rachel that at least slowed them down. That's why he was able to get under her and provide some cushion when they hit. Otherwise I'd agree with you.
list of complaints i have heard from people who have seen the film:
1. Movie too cerebral, aka comic book takes itself too serioulsy and acts all hitchcock.
2. Too long
3. Utterly Humorless and boring
4. Pathos of the characters makes no sense aka the batman saves joker.
5. destroyed the batmobile again
6. The batman character has no motivation in the film, no save the girl or get revenge on the man who murdered his parents like in the 89 movie.
7. costume design epic fail like watchmen, batcycle uncessary and stupid only in film to sell toys.
8. The movie is so dark in tone that it is batshit crazy and runs off the reels. Unlike begins which was middle of the road.
9. the joker performance advertised as chilling to the bone comes off as accidentaly laugh out loud funny, there were people in the theater laughing their asses off.
10. Movie is dissjointed, there is no real beginning, middle and end. The movie fails thematically and their is no resolution to the plot at the end of the film, neither is there any hint at a cliffhanger the movie just ends like it is a story only half finished.
I only have time for points 2, 5, 8, 9, and 10.
2. Too long? Are you kidding? I thought it was perfect! In fact, I wanted more by the time it ended.
5. I noticed that too and it happened sorta the same way as Batman Returns. Batman even ends up in a similar vehicle afterward. It'll probably be a staple of Batman movies to have the batmobile destroyed every other film. I was actually starting to like the Tumbler a lot too.
8. To dark? Again, I don't think so. I thought it was very dark, but I also thought it was very well done. Remember, the Burton films were pretty dark too, then they gave it over to Schumacher and he screwed it all up. Batman is suppose to be dark and violent, not bright and funny.
9. Sometimes the Joker was hilariously funny. I think that's the beauty of the way the part was played. Sometimes he absolutely crept you out, while other times you couldn't help but laugh.
10. No ending? WTH? Did we see the same movie? I knew the moment Gordon started into his monologue that the movie was going to end. I think that in itself was the cliffhanger. Rather than have the next one show Batman all chummy with the commissioner ala Batman Forever, we'll probably see him on the run and hiding in shadows.
WALL-E is by far the best movie (of any type) I have seen in a very very very long time, period. It's probably a little too intelligent or subtle for a lot of people...
wall-e 's pro-ecological theme was about as subtle as 'hitting someone over with the head with a sledgehammer', which is what i suspect the
motive of selling this to children was for.....notice how 'kung fu panda'[which i refuse to watch] is beating this as its competition?
more numbers: week 5. another huge drop of 37%
Seventh goes to WALL-E, which is now in its fifth weekend. WALL-E earned $6.3 million and was off 37% compared to the previous frame. WALL-E has seen drops of 48%, 42%, 46% and now 37% - drops that are way too high for the usual Pixar film. Still, a current domestic gross of $195.2 million is great, and it will slightly surpass Ratatouille's final gross of $206 million, which is in the lower echelon of Pixar releases.
'horton hears a who' which was decent was much more interesting as a storyline..
later
-1
Oh yeah, real big surprise that Wall-E had another big drop. Let's see, TDK is still going strong (quickest movie to $300 million) and it had to compete with X-Files, which seems to have had a fairly lackluster opening (most likely due to TDKs continuing numbers). Yeah, I'm real surprised Wall-E took another hit. And of course huge numbers of people were at Comic-Con this weekend.
Kung Fu Panda (which I liked and thought was very funny by the way) is only ahead of Wall-E by $15 million.
Hey, notice how Hancock, a shitty movie about a homeless guy that's a "super hero" dropped 3 places to number 6? And how it's just $11 million ahead of Wall-E? But I guess it's a winner since it's making more money.
So why are you refusing to watch Kung Fu Panda? Do you not like Jack Black (the voice of the Panda)? Or is it "not deep enough" for you? Seriously, sometimes you just need to enjoy a movie for what it is and not look for some deeper meaning that only the few "select" will get.
negative1 said:
i don't happen to like 'cutesy' animals/robots/etc...............granted 'car's didn't appeal to everyone either, although i liked it because i've always been biased towards cars....
So you're probably going to hate most every CG animated movie that's released then. At least the one's from Pixar.
Wait ... you thought "Meet the Spartans" looked good from the trailer?
Yes. I thought it looked like a campy, satirical movie in the same vain as Scary Movie or even Airplane. I was sadly mistaken though. Of course, just looking at who directed it told me everything I needed to know. Which is why I now look at the writers, directors, and the actors in any of those movies.
What's the point of this? Is the Soul Calibur franchise so hard up that they now need to use Star Wars characters to draw players in? I just don't get it.
And I don't remember the others to well...but I know that I don't really like Nemo, I should watch them all again, didn't see Cars
And whats with all the hate for Ratatuiolle (sorry if I spelled that wrong). I thought that movie was a masterpiece. It felt like a classic disney movie. Many of the scenes and characters were great, the story and writing was mature and clever and the animation had a photorealistic quality coupled with the fluid expressiveness of traditional animation.
I loved it probably as much as the others. I only put it at the bottom because I had to put them in some kind of order :)
is going to be good until you watch it right???????????????? i know a lot of people thought 'cars' was a waste of time, and for kids only, but
to me it was a breakthrough..............................
Uh, no. Honestly, it's pretty easy to tell a good movie from a bad one even from the trailer. Some exceptions are Mission to Mars (horrible movie) and Meet the Spartans (GAWD aweful movie). Mission to Mars looked like a decent trip to Mars movie. To bad they got ALL the science wrong. Meet the Spartans looked like a funny, slapstick movie. Apparently the directors couldn't even do that right though.
The other thing people usually take into account is who's making it and who's in it. I actually check the writing and directing credits on comedies now to see if it's someone that did a previously funny movie.
But what does that have to do with the media that's used to shoot the movie? Whether it was shot with high end digital cameras or 35mm, if there's no CGI in it, that doesn't change anything except the media that's used. Sure, you'll get a higher definition (and the grain) out of the 35mm, but that's about it.
one person...............................sure lucas is a control freak,
but there were a lot more people involved, and i don't see them getting castigated over it.
later
-1
Maybe that's because if they even tried to say no, Lucas pretty much overruled them. He had all the money and all the control. If you want to continue working on Star Wars, and who wouldn't at the time, you did what he said whether you thought it was a good idea or not. Even McCallum tried to talk Lucas out of Jar Jar and that went nowhere. He was the Producer. Anyone else didn't stand a chance, so they all became "Yes Men". Witness the contrast with the OT, where people had no problem telling Lucas no and that something wasn't going to work and how much better it turned out.
Lucas is a control freak that doesn't take no for an answer anymore.
