Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on June 16, 2005, 12:16:11 PM
-
Read the review: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1093
I'm so excited to see this movie.
-
Me too. But I'm not going to read the review yet because even if it is "spoiler free" it could unwittingly spoil something.
-
Wait. Lucias Fox is a weapons designer? That's funny, I was dead certain that in every comic I've seen him in he's a wiz with finances and business administration. ARGH!
</gratuitous needless bashing of a movie for unfaithfulness>
-
Actually, the movie is rather faithful to the character of Lucius Fox. But I would have to give away too many spoilers to explain how.
-
like I said, it's gratuitous. Fox is always a minor character, and not even that important at that. I don't care if they change things a little. But someone had to make the complaint.
-
Lucius Fox is an awesome name, by the way. It doesn't really say "accountant" or "business administrator," but with a name like that you'd be good at anything.
-
I'm not sure that I can take any review seriously that disparages Tim Burton. You can say what you like about the 3rd and 4th movies, but Tim Burton is THE director for this genre. Add to his direction the music of his genius friend Danny Elfman and you simply can't go wrong. I have to wonder what exceptional experience these two reviewers have had in their lives that gives them leave to think, let alone print, such nonsense. By this review, I have to assume that these two will not be viewing Willey Wonka next month. And in fact, if it were up to me, I would revoke their Golden Tickets.
-
Personally, batman 1 and 2 were rather silly and moderately dull films. Nothing that makes me think 'oh, i'd like to watch those again'.
-
Tim Burton is good, but he's done far better than either of his Batman movies, which were poorly paced in a lot of sections (and a little out of balance overall). I would also like to point out that, in terms of analytical criticism, learning to recognize the faults in your favorite artists is one of the most important qualities you can possibly possess--no one is unilaterally good or or bad, and saying that a movie is good because of who directed it, rather than how they directed it, is a sign of closed-circuit thinking that does very little good for anyone.
I would further like to point out that Allison Hill is my sister, so everyone be nice. Only Mustard and I are allowed to be mean to her (though we perform this function admirably).
-
I agree that Batman and Batman Returns are not Tim Burton's best films. They're not even in the top five. But the simple fact remains that Tim Burton's lesser films are better than other's best films. All I was saying is that to say a relatively untried and untested director is better than Tim Burton displays the ignorance of the critic. Also I can unilaterally support a director based on their name, if that director is consistently of a superior quality. For example, Stanley Kubrick, Sam Mendes, and Terry Guilliam, whose work (with the possible exception of Eyes Wide Shut) has never failed to be groundbreaking and superior--as is Burton's.
-
Have you seen the new batman? It seems that your arguement consists of stating that since your hero directed film X, that makes film X automatically greater than any other attempt to make a similar film. Which is total claptrap.
By that arguement, why bother making new films?
-
Now we're getting into the realm of preference--you obviously like Burton much more than the average joe, so naturally you're going to take issue with a critic who doesn't. For my part, I can probably only name one Burton movie that I considered truly great: Nightmare Before Christmas. His movies in general show a trend toward style over substance, quirk over character, and an emotional detachment from his subject. Even Nightmare has a bit of that. That said, he's a great visionary and one of the only modern directors who's name can be used as an adjective--describe a movie as Burton-esque and just about everybody knows what you mean.
As for the review, there is only one line that could be considered a disparagement of Burton: "Nolan is a greater director than Shumacher and Burton have ever been." I haven't seen either of Nolan's other films, but I do know that you'd be hard-pressed to find a Burton movie that was as critically acclaimed as either of them.
-
Just saw it and It's easly the best movie I've seen since LoTR: Two Towers and is much better then the two Burton Movies. It gets me a warm and fuzzy inside knowing the next movie is going to have the Joker in it.
-
Just read the reveiw and this is the best reveiw by the Brothers yet, they keep getting better and better, keep up the good work guys.
-
*snert*
Sprig, check your PMs.
-
Ok, replied.
-
And replied again.
-
For the record, we are NOT anti-Tim Burton. We love some of his films, including the first "Batman" (not a great FILM, but a heck of a good popcorn movie). As Fellsfroch said, it's a matter of personal taste - there's room to disagree here - I thought we made that clear.
Looking forward to "Charlie and the Chocloate Factory" with an open mind. Butron and Depp created magic with "Edward Scissorhands" and "Ed Wood". But they also made "Sleepy Hollow".
-
Sleepy Hollow is pretty good. I generally hate talking to anyone exept maybe my brother about movies, cause I usually just end up wanting to punch them in the face for being stupid. But the new Batman movie really is just that damn good.
-
I also like Sleepy Hollow ,though I think it's probaly Burton's second worse file (behind Apes), it was a fun movie.
-
Ha, Planet of the Apes is not bad. All the apes look real cool, and I liked all their specialized weapons and armor. Its not the best, but its not bad. But I think I've had enough movie talk for now, better leave before someone tries telling me how Clash Of The Titans is better than LotR or something equally dumb. Oh yeah, that reminds me, I'll go stick Appleseed in my backpack so you can watch it too. If I sucker someone else into watching it, then I won't feel as stupid for having actually bought it.
-
Sweet Thanks.
-
Heh, I thought Burton's Planet of the Apes looked pretty. But for plot and character it didn't tough the original film, or the book for that matter.
-
I made the mistake of reading Planet of the Apes once. Holy dull-o-rama.
-
yeah, kind of the epitome of better idea than execution.
-
I find it amusing that someone is accusing a reviewer of being ignorant because they DON'T slavishly applaud whatever a particular director does no matter the quality. How ignorant.
As for my own opinion, Burton is cool, he's done some cool stuff but, as Fell has already pointed out, it's always style over substance. Burton's name can be used as a adjective precisely because he's such a one-trick pony. Whatever he does will be really stylistic and pretty and edgy-cool looking but if the subject matter doesn't happen to be a good fit with Burton's style, oh well, the style stays.
-
That's what I was saying. I HAVEN'T seen this movie, but the recommendation of two critics who think Nolan is a better director than Tim Burton is not going to make me rush out to see it. I HAVE seen Insomnia, and yes, it was great--it actually gave me insomnia for a week. I even own that movie. But to say that Nolan is a better director than Tim Burton has EVER been seems a little generalized and silly to me. They have very different styles, and if you like the one over the other that's okay, but to dismiss a director's entire body of work because the popcorn of a new movie is still stuck in your teeth seems a little hasty. As far as Burton's individual movies go, Nightmare Before Christmas scares the crap out of me, so I don't think I've ever seen that one the whole way through. But Edward Scissorhands--the UNedited version, Big Fish, Beetlejuice, and Sleepy Hollow are wonderful. The style does overpower the characterization in some parts, but it doesn't actually detract from the whole of the movie, and that is the goal, isn't it?
-
by the way, I did not say they were ignorant because they didn't like batman and batman returns. I said they were igorant because they said nolan was a better director than tim burton has even been. and all your arguements about a one trick pony fall flat when you see Big Fish. And if you don't agree with me, maybe you'd better watch that one again.
-
but to dismiss a director's entire body of work because the popcorn of a new movie is still stuck in your teeth seems a little hasty.
Except they arn't. They are saying they like one better than the other. That is not saying burton is crap, just that they don't think he is as good as another director.
-
see, I'm going to make a big disagreement with you. Big Fish was in many ways, and overall, a very big disappointment to me. It was incohesive, flippant, internally nonsensical, and unmotivated.
Beetlejuice was ok, but even when I was a kid I thought it was a bit B-Movie and weak in terms of plot and character.
Nightmare was allright, I guess. I'm not entirely positive why people adore it so much though. It was fun to watch, but nothing in it either a) scared me, b) made me laugh more than a chuckle, or c) made me gasp in awe at the idea or artistic vision.
I think it's a fair statement, when you can say things like that about a person's directing career, that it's fair to say someone else, who has three critically acclaimed movies under his belt, is a better director.
-
actually, that's exactly what they said. If they only said that this movie was better than the first four that would be one thing. But they didn't stop there, they made a silly and unfounded statement that I decided to call attention to.
-
of course, I don't know why I'm arguing with you, it's like arguing with my husband. We obviously don't see eye to eye as far as what makes a good movie. I have seen many movies that I like that I know are crap, and I have seen many movies that I hate that I know are critically acclaimed "art for art's sake" movies. On a far different note, I also don't think I like the idea of a "real world" setting for Batman--it's not like spiderman, it's not supposed to be in the real world or it wouldn't be set in gotham city.
-
uhm... Spider-man doesn't live in the "real world" either. Not even in the sense you make it. At least, not anymore than Gotham city is part of the real world. Gotham and Metropolis represent different sides to the same american city ideal. Since we can't really expect to see many Supes/Bats crossovers, the idea of a clean, pretty looking city with a visibly seedy underbelly fits that aspect of the contrast nicely. It fleshes out Batman's character and setting in a way that the comics don't because the comics use a different tool for it -- a tool not available to the movies.
-
yeah, but that seems to get awfully close to Daredevil territory, and that's dangerous
-
e-
I’m sorry that you so entirely missed the point of Big Fish. It is apparent from your post that you a) do not have kids, b) do not have a father, c) do not have an imagination, and/or d) all of the above. Big Fish was a beautiful movie. It was very well thought out, well conceived and well executed. I found it refreshing, to say the least, that in the world of computers and dot-commers, a movie can still have this much heart. This is a film that should make every man alive look twice at his relationships with both his father and his kids. This if a film about imagination, love, storytelling, and above all, the beauty that exists in the world. Not since American Beauty has there been rumination on beauty that came so close to getting it “right”. To call such a film “nonsensical” says something about your world-view.
Nightmare is neither scary nor funny. It was not designed to make YOU gasp. It was a film that satisfied a need Burton had to make an animated film. As far as artistic vision goes…bear in mind that it was all done with clay. Could a computer have generated better images? Maybe, but this was clay. The reason for the adoration for the film is based on the perfect cohesion of styles between the artistic designers and Elfman’s music. It’s the combo that makes this film a classic.
Beetlejuice was a valiant effort from a very young director. The movie was funny, startling, and odd. Most of all, the film’s sense of style and overall design vision combined with some pretty beefy special effects (for their day) to create a film that is truly memorable. Admit it…you will never hear “DAY-O” again without thinking of Beetlejuice.
Nolan is an upstart. He has had some early success, just as Burton did. They simply do not make the same types of films. I’m glad you liked the new Batman. But any attempt to put an up and coming director, a critically acclaimed one, yes, but new in the field, up against a director widely considered a master in his field, is foolish indeed. Tim Burton has the most talented people in the world beating down his door. He has consistently shown a flair for finding and grooming talent. He is, perhaps, the only director on Earth whose films I will see on the basis of their director alone. Why? Because he has earned it, through consistently giving me more than I could have hoped for. Has Burton had some failures? Sure. One cannot expect perfection…that is to say, not every team is last year’s UTES. A flub or 2 in 13 films is to be expected.
I like Nolan. I like his work; I like his sense of style. I hope that one day he has an inkling of the public appeal that Burton has. As for today…he simply does not. Let’s talk in 15 years, after Nolan has something under his belt and we’ll see. As for me…I’ll save my movie dollars for Willy Wonka.
-
woah...strange formatting! i am not swearing at you...those are supposed to be quotes and apostrophies!
-
yes our forum dosen't allow for certain types of puncuation, ie the fancy stuff that Word Prossessors use.
-
wow...now i know!
-
And Knowing is half the battle!
G.I. JOE!!!
-
So are Allison Hill and Chill the same person? Just freakin' register already.
(I also want to assure Allison that she is not being attacked--this is how most of our discussions go, especially our movie discussions. And yes, the Brothers Gibb are prone to hyperbole; you should have seen the fight that developed when they called The Incredibles the best superhero movie and the best Pixar movie ever made.)
Now, back to the discussion at hand: I agree with SE about Big Fish. It was good, like most of Burton's work was good, but it still suffered from the same problems that plague a lot of his work, including (I hesitate to say this in light of your comments) a hollow emotional core. What worked best about the movie came not from Burton's direction but from Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup, who were both excellent and lent the movie a lot of substance that wouldn't have been there without them.
edit: aha, you registered and posted while I was typing. Ignore my verbal abuse, in that case.
-
I DID! :P
-
and though often not seen together at family functions...no we are not the same person.
-
So are you Chris, then?
-
si
-
When I say Burton is a one-trick pony I mean that all his films, every single one that I've seen, are all about the visual. My only memories from his films are flash images. The plot, the issues the characters deal with, all are subsumed by the visual. He does it well, possibly better than anyone else but It's all he's got. His movies universally suffer from a lack of plot and emotional depth.
I've seen Big Fish and frankly the most memorable thing about that movie was Ewan standing in front of the giant and shaking his hand and all the different characters standing around at the end.
What some people in this discussion seem to be forgetting is that everything they say about Burton films is subjective. I happen to like more actual substance as opposed to visual appeal in my films than Burton provides. Other people are the opposite. Get over it and stop calling people ignorant or implying that they haven't really thought through their opinions just because they disagree with you. If you have a bone to pick do it with logic rather than emotional flailing.
-
Well, nice to have you--make sure to read the FAQ and introduce yourself, both of which threads can be found in the Site News section of the boards.
For everyone else, this is my brother in law. When reading his opinions on movies, keep in mind that he totally loves Pearl Harbor, and once told me that The Fast and The Furious was going to sweep the Oscars. :)
-
ahh...and we see the pains of reviewing a film with the popcorn still stuck in one's teeth! yes, this is true...but I have successfully picked the best picture winner 6 times in a row! and, I went 85% at the Tony's
-
I missed the Tony's this year--who was the big winner?
-
while i whole-heartedly believe that "the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee" was a superior show...not at all surprisingly "Spamalot" won best Musical. i have the sound track...it's really not very good.
-
Is this the point where SE points out he has 3 children?
-
well, I assure you that I a) have three children with vigorous imaginations who I love bonding with, b) have a father with home I joke and share stories with often, and c) have a vigorous imagination, to which most everyone here will testify to. I'm smart enough and qualified to understand the movie. It just sucked.
At least, that's how I feel about movies where the point boils down to "lying about your past and never admitting the truth is better than trying to overcome the issues between you and your son," and the director does a painfully bad, and obvious, job of trying to manipulate you into "feeling good" so you can ignore the major thematic, plot, and character problems.
It was of the same sub-genre as Second Hand Lions, which was more cohesive, better directed, and more sensical. It also had more engaging stories and had a more satisfying way of looking at story-telling as a tool for relationships.
As for "Nightmare," I'm not sure why you think any of that is a defense for it. If it wasn't "for me" <insert P-A reference> then why should you, burton, or anyone be bothered by the fact that it didn't impress me? And if he did it in a day, then all I can say is that he should have spent several more so it could have been a good movie.
Beetlejuice, on the other hand, I will admit was startling and odd (and Ryder did a much better job than Keeton in that one), but only mildly amusing. I actually listen to Day-O a lot, and had forgotten it was in the flick. I'm more inclined to think of the Muppet Show episode guest starring Harry Belafonte when that comes up (it was, after all, funnier and better directed).
You are constantly condescending about Nolan (calling him an upstart, for example) but what specifically do you have against any of his films? If you have no reasonable criticisms, then how can you argue that it's "ignorant" to say he's a superior director? Note that establishing that Burton has made more films does not make him better. I would say a fair measure is to say that the general quality, taking in all the director's works, is a fair way to judge his quality. Nolan has a solid record, with little to no failure. Burton has an up and down record.
edit: I was told this last paragraph was unclear, I shall attempt to redraft it.
If we say that a few good movies excuses a director from his failures, then George Lucas is the greatest director ever, because he made the first Star Wars flick (not to mention American Graffiti). ANd no one in their right mind would argue he was that good, given the filmmaking he did with epI and EpII. If you HAVE no failures, and a track record, then you are hardly an "upstart" you are a good director. And if you're a good director, then it is hardly poor thinking to argue that he's superior to another good director.
-
I tried to register and it won't let me. For the record I would like to say that I agree with all that about The Incredibles. It IS the best superhero movie ever made AND the best Pixar movie ever made by far.
As I said before, if you didn't like Big Fish, you need to watch it again. I didn't like it when I first saw it, (to be fair I was in and out of the theater changing and nursing my son). But when my husband bought it I figured I had to give it another chance, and I thought it was wonderful! Maybe like me, your children were distracting you when you watched it. Because I cannot think of another reason you would honestly not like that movie.
As far as Nolan being an upstart, I don't think I would classify him that way, but just because he created a world for Batman that is so different (and preferable to you) from Burton's world, doesn't mean that he is better than Burton has ever been. Superhero movies, like it or not, are visual movies. If you make a movie from a comic book, people aren't going to see it for the intellectual stimulation. They want to see the action and the design, and if the acting is good that's even better. Schumaker failed miserably, Raimi was wonderful (another director I seek out), and Burton was fantastic.
And where did all this Keaton bashing come from?
-
LIES!!! Batman Begins is like 1 billion times better then the Incredibles, heck the originaly batman movie (the one with Adam West) is better then the Incredibles.
-
As I said before, if you didn't like Big Fish, you need to watch it again. I didn't like it when I first saw it, (to be fair I was in and out of the theater changing and nursing my son). But when my husband bought it I figured I had to give it another chance, and I thought it was wonderful! Maybe like me, your children were distracting you when you watched it. Because I cannot think of another reason you would honestly not like that movie.
you might want to re-read my post then, because I gave the basic reasons I didn't like it. the premise seems to be that if you want to be happy you have to not only accept that your parents have faults, not only hold them entirely guiltless for their lies and indescretions, but to ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in those issues. Other wise you are not a good son. The parent need not change, the problem MUST be in the offspring.
I need not tell you what that's a crock of.
As far as Nolan being an upstart, I don't think I would classify him that way,
Chill said that exact word.
Superhero movies, like it or not, are visual movies. If you make a movie from a comic book, people aren't going to see it for the intellectual stimulation.
You SO did not go there. Seriously, you want to take that back before I, and half of the rest of the board, explain to you what comic readers are like. Probably you're not aware of the grant I received to research and present a paper on comic books as a medium. Or the work of Will Eisner. Or Scott McCloud. And you've certainly not read McLuhan. And you've never read The Spirit, or Kingdom come, or Peter david's work on Hulk, Supergirl, et al, or Moore's comics, or so forth. To even imply that superheroes or comic books are only visual and are devoid of intellectual presence shows an extremely deep and abiding ignorance of the medium and it's audience.
-
e! Keep your voice down. You'll wake the preconceptions.
;)
-
I knew as soon as I saw Allison's crack about comics that SE was going to come down on her like a ton of bricks. But to be fair, she's talking about superhero movies, not comicbooks, and the audience for each is very different. The primary audience for a superhero movie is, much as we hate to admit, bored teenagers on summer break--and I don't think that any of us can make a useful comparison between that and the work of Will Eisner.
That being said, Bryan Singer and Sam Raimi and (from what I hear) Christopher Nolan have made great strides toward creating a more human, more literate form of superhero movie that need not rely purely on effects.
Allison, email me at editor AT timewastersguide DOT com and I'll register for you, then send back the username and password and so on. If you're going to be posting, you need to register--you're missing out on valuable experience points.
-
/me hands a spade to allison
When will you accept that making sweeping generalisations and stating that opposing viewpoints are merely 'wrong' or 'did not pay attention' does not a compelling arguement make.
Humans are different in many ways. Ignoring our tolerance for chocolate, one of the biggest is the different ways we perceive and interpret things. For example. I look at a british flag, and associations such as 'good' 'patriotism' and 'killing french' arise. JamPaladin could look at the same flag, at the same time, in the same place, and think 'british' 'annoying' and 'self important'. Does this make him wrong? Or me wrong? No. It means that our different experiences and personalities resulted in different results arriving in our mind.
I've argued along similar lines before, and SE stopped talking to me for a week because of it (giving me the highscore), but it bears repeating. Saying that SE is unimaginative and doesn't pay attention is not a valid way to go about saying how much you like a director.
And on the subject of comics being a purely visual thing, I demand, demand, that you give evidence of comics you have read to support this claim.
-
Like I said, she never knocked comics--she knocked comic movies. Which, statistically, are as brainless as she says they are.
By the way, Allison--if you're ever in an argument and Entropy winds up looking staid and temperate in comparison, it might be time to cut your losses and start a new thread about something else :)
-
Yea honestly why are you taking people not likeing Burton as much as you as a personal attack and then trying to insult various forum members with rude and ignorant statements? The ONLY reason you're not getting a harsher treatment on this is because you're Fell's sister but you don't sound related to him and Mustard due to your need to try and demean and insult everyone who disagrees with you. Not agreeing with someone is not equal to thinking that person is stupid, we don't think that way about you and think you should respect us the same way.
-
Fell, I'm going to point you back to the other thread a while back when we (read "I") ennumerated the comic-based movies that we knew of and categorized them. Even taking the most conservative estimates from reactions to my list, it still leaves somewhere around 25% of the films being "good" at a minimum. That's putting all the "average" into the vapid categories you're talking about. That indicates, to me, that superhero-based movies, on the whole, have a much better track record than other genres of film. yes, there were horrible punisher, captain america, and supergirl films, but there were also excellent Superman, Spider-Man, and X-Men films. The generalization she made (being generous and ignoring the connection made DIRECTLY to their source material) is still very unfair and not accurate.
I will point out that, in my book, 25% is a better track record than Burton has.
-
Granted. But I assumed in this case that we were talking about a different set of criteria: not "good" movies but movies that were driven by character rather than spectacle. I like the first three Batman movies very much, and would put them on the "good" list, but I would also put them on the "visually-motivated" rather than "intellectually stimulating" list. Perhaps my commentof brainless was a little over the top, but my point (that mocking superhero movies is not the same as mocking comics) still stands.
-
I never meant to knock comic books at all. I was knocking comic book movies. As far as being related, I know we're different but at least my brother understands what I mean, even if I (apparently) didn't say it right.
But on that same subject, it seems to me like you are particularly touchy on the whole comic book thing and therefore not really reading what I have to say. I suppose that my role in this discussion is to help you understand what NORMAL people think of things. And don't try to tell me any of you are normal. I lived with Fell and Mustard for years. I know better.
-
ok. listen. all I meant to say way back in the beginning was that I LIKE Burton and a reviewer that doesn't probably isn't going to give ME, PERSONALLY good advice for MY taste.
and I KNOW that Chill used the word upstart. That doesn't matter because I never did, thank you very much.
and I KNOW that spiderman and x-men etc. were great. I love them. I own them. I watch them often. That doesn't change the fact that I DON'T watch them for intellectual stimulation, or for models of good acting (don't jump on me for that, I'm not saying they don't contain those things, I'm saying I have other, in my OPINION, better sources for those things).
-
Ok, first off Allison, you have to calm down a little bit. I realize that people have been swatting down your ideas, but you have to remember two things.
A) Although it was inadvertently, you have made a lot of statements to which members of this board did, and always will, take exception. For example, unless you are prepared to fully back up your statement, do not say things against comic books, or especially their audience. Such things will lead to inevitable smack down.
B) You just came to the board. You are at a very high risk of being treated overly harshly. Very few people on the board entered without being subjected to this sort of thing. So, if you choose to stay longer, you can count on the fact that people will become more friendly after a while. That is, assuming you don't imply that comic books are stupid anymore. Doing that might cause Entropy to skewer you with something pointy. ;)
-
Doing that might cause Entropy to skewer you with something pointy. ;)
I try not to do that anymore. But suitable sacrifices and incantations in my name might generate a responce.
-
for the love of monkeys, once and for all I NEVER said anything about comic books or their readers. Any comments I made about the subject at all was about movies made from comic books. I have actually never read a comic book in my life and therefore would never dream of saying anything against them. At least not to such enthusiasts. I am not qualified and I know it.
However, I am an avid movie-goer and probably saw several of these movies before any of you did. I know what I like, but more importantly, i have very inside knowledge of what the general public likes (what sells) and the general public agrees with me on superhero movies.
Having lived with my brothers I am not particularly offended by anything that you're saying, except that some of you are so touchy thinking I MIGHT be bad mouthing comic books that you don't even read what I wrote.
-
So, ummm, Batman Begins is a pretty good movie. . .
-
*Spriggan wants Entropy to skewer him so he doesn't have to listen to this insipid argument anymore.
-
Allison, you are on a very wrong track. To make claims that you know better what "normal people" think like is pretty offensive, frankly, especially without stating creditials for that. What is it that makes you think you've seen most movies before us (maybe you're in the industry?), and for that matter, why does having seen it "first" make you more qualified to comment on it? Not any cause I can see.
I know that the criteria for "good" and "intellectual" examination is different. I also reduced the actual numbers quite a bit.
I'm not saying that visual focus makes a movie bad. However, someone who can make a movie BOTH visually stimulating AND thoughtful is inherently a superior movie-maker than someone who can only do one or the other, no? The implication is that superhero movies are not made to be thoughtful. My contention is that the best ones are both. And that saying that someone can do the visual aspects, and that's all he needs to make a great film is wrongheaded. A director is better if he makes a film, particularly in a genre that is noted by most people for it's visual aspects, not only visually interesting, but though-provoking as well. Further, to say that superhero movies are not thoughtful is an AWFULLY broad brush to paint with. If you accept is as valid, it's my contention that it is more valid to say all movies are terrible. Because there are more terrible movies, on average, than there are non-thought provoking superhero movies, on average.
-
I didn't say they are not thought provoking, I said that people don't go to see them because they might be thought provoking. that's an added bonus to be sure, but not necessary when deciding which movie to see.
I didn't mean that I saw them first so I know them better than you, I meant I saw them first, as in, I love movies and the genre as much as you.
As far as credentials go, my husband was the general manager of 3 movie theaters in the salt lake valley, and he was able to predict within a small margin (1-200) the amount of money his theaters would make for a certain movie. I know what sells and what doesn't, and I know what will sell and what won't. (I can also tell you what kind of concessions are most popular with what movies, but I'm sure you don't care)
As far as stating I am more "normal" than you, I thought that went without saying that you all are not very normal in the normal sense of the word, and I don't want to get into that unless I very much have to. I am surprised that it was not taken in stride, and therefore I must have offended someone without meaning to, and I don't want to do that.
-
by the way, I kind of forgot what we are arguing about anymore. I'm sick of restating myself, and probably so is everyone else. So unless there's something that's unresolved lets just revert this back to discussion of the movie it's supposed to discuss. Which by the way I can't discuss very well since fell and mustard took MY dad to see it on saturday and didn't invite me.
-
As far as stating I am more "normal" than you, I thought that went without saying that you all are not very normal in the normal sense of the word, and I don't want to get into that unless I very much have to. I am surprised that it was not taken in stride, and therefore I must have offended someone without meaning to, and I don't want to do that.
Maybe you meant to joke around, but that's kind of harsh. I mean, that's one of the reasons it took me forever to admit what I liked. I was embarrassed that I liked fantasy and science fiction. You know why? Because the general public assumes (and tells you) that to like fantasy and science fiction you have to be a nerd with bad personal hygiene and no social skills. I watch a lot of adolescent TV shows--I like to see what is popular on all fronts in the YA area--and I can't tell you how many times the stereotypical geek is someone who reads sci-fi/fantasy and plays video games and roleplays. (Granted, there are people who take it to the extreme. And everyone should practice good personal hygeine, no matter what they like. ;)) But why should liking those things be considered any less normal than liking sports or art or cheerleading? Why do we always have to label each other?
I came to realize that what people think really doesn't matter. I like what I like and that's fine. I think you are trying to say the same thing--that your opinion on the movie is valid. It is. But insulting people's tastes and claiming to be more "normal" is not the best way to go about it. Even I was offended by what you wrote.
-
then why bring it up? Why does it matter what the rabble like? I admit I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to movies and lit. What the "general public" likes is usually complete crap. Titanic made millions upon millions of dollars. Does that make it a good film? no, not in terms of being a piece of art. (incidentally, it doesn't make it a bad film either, though I thought that film was a joke). All it does is state earning potential. If that's what you like directors for, ie, they can make a lot of money, then I have a very different view of what a good director is.
Incidentally, if you *do* want to argue that the best measure of a director is how much money his movies make, then Burton is *not* the best director. That goes to someone like SPielberg, I think. So, anyway, do you have a reasonable argument for why it's "ignorant" to say that Nolan is a better director than Burton?
-
As far as stating I am more "normal" than you, I thought that went without saying that you all are not very normal in the normal sense of the word, and I don't want to get into that unless I very much have to. I am surprised that it was not taken in stride, and therefore I must have offended someone without meaning to, and I don't want to do that.
Incdientally, yes, that's still offensive. "Normal" and "abnormal" are socially loaded terms. When used by someone who isn't in the group described, they are perjorative in the "normal" usage. Ie, they are used to mean "you are different and therefore less than me." I would recommend not using it. AND incidentally, YOU are in absolutely, in no way, whatsoever, REMOTELY qualified to make a judgement about how normal *I* am, as you have no idea whatsoever I am like.
-
As far as stating I am more "normal" than you, I thought that went without saying that you all are not very normal in the normal sense of the word, and I don't want to get into that unless I very much have to. I am surprised that it was not taken in stride, and therefore I must have offended someone without meaning to, and I don't want to do that.
Wow. The condescending tone that has laced your emotionally charged, inflammatory, and ill-thought out comments is suddenly explained. If we're so far beneath you why bother posting here at all? Surely you don't have any emotional investment in what the wierdos on this board think?
-
by normal I meant mainstream. I should have used that word instead. Sorry
And I haven't been talking about Tim Burton for a while now. I though we were discussing movies made from comic books. It is in that respect that I am telling you what sells and what doesn't. I was defending my position that the public likes movies based on comic books to be action packed and visual. The general public likes most movies to be action packed and visual.
-
Which subject we were on because YOU were trying to defend the esteem in which you hold Burton.
-
remember what I said about being touchy? My goodness. I'm honestly sorry to have offended you with the "normal" comment, I meant you are not mainstream, which is usually a good thing. And i have plenty to back that up by the way. For instance that you are registered on this site and get really really upset when I say the words comic book. If someone acted that way when I mentioned that I think the Broncos (despite any evidence to the contrary) are completely better than the Packers, they would be labeled a complete fanatic. I am not the only one with "emotionally charged responses" here.
-
so telling someone they are Waaaaaay off base and that they are extremely poor (and occassionally offensive) at expressing their views is "abnormal" now. Right.
Look, you may have meant certain things, but they're not what you said. You didn't say that the brothers Gibb would be bad at telling you what you would or wouldn't like. You called them ignorant for doing something they had a legitimate basis for saying. You didn't say we were not mainstream. You said we weren't normal. and so on.
I'm the king of saying things that can be misunderstood. Ask Skar. He'll tell you. However, you're not just saying that we've interpretted your comments wrong, you're telling us that you meant something other than you said.
-
I don't think they had a legitimate basis for saying that. As a person stating their opinion maybe, but I think that when one is reviewing movies for others in a more formal setting such as this they have a certain obligation to temper such statements.
And the words normal and mainstream are usually interchangeable, but I will concede that mainstream is much more appropriate in this context and I have already apologized for not using it in the first place.
-
That's what I'm saying. "opinion" is a legitimate cause for disagreement. This is hardly a formal setting, either. Read the other articles, you'll see. calling someone ignorant because they disagree with you, however, is MUCH less legitimate -- not to mention extremely rude.
What I think you mean, but didn't say, is that you disagreed with them. Which is fine. But saying that their opinion is ignorant or illegitimate is hardly appropriate. Further, repeating over and over that someone who disagrees with you MUST be missing some information is also quite impolite at best (and yes, you did that, every single time I ventured to say that Big Fish isn't a good movie -- apparently the only reason someone who isn't clearly insane can disagree with you is if they aren't qualified to form a valid opinion on the subject).
by the way, "Normal" and "mainstream" are rarely perfectly interchangeable, actually. "Normal" is a much, much more psychically loaded term. Not just in this context, but in nearly every context I can think of. Just for future reference.
-
Okay. In light of my love for all things democratic and free, I will not be closing this thread. That said, this argument is dipping fairly heavily into "saying the same things over and over and making everybody mad" territory, so I advise all parties to drop it and move on to other topics in other threads. You are free to discuss movies, but if we can leave this emotionally charged environment and do it somewhere else I think we'd all be a lot happier.
-
Batman does not condone this arguement. Go watch Batman Begins.
Now! *whipcracks*
-
Whip cracks imply Catwoman, not Batman. And frankly, I'm appalled.
-
But i'm appauled, which is even better.
-
You people who spell it "appauled" are less than us normal people.
-
I feel the need to inform you of a situation.
While I in no way change my opinions at all, I would like to say that I am not usually such a fathead. I do have a reason for it, if you would be patient enough to listen again.
I am experiencing a withdrawl from a prescription medication that I have been on since last July. Had I expected such an adverse reaction I wouldn't have chosen this time to make my debut on this site.
I was recently informed by those close to me that I am flying off the handle at everyone for stupid things, even at my beautiful children whom I love more than anything.
So while I retain my basic opinions, I would like to offer an apology for the attitude and phrasing and generally everything.
-
That can be tough. It's good you were able to realize it. Don't worry, people fly off the handle at each other around here periodically and we always make up. :)
-
SE has flown off the handle so many times, he doesn't even remember where it is.
I'm sorry to hear it, Akeyata...and somewhat surprised to be hearing it in this context. Usually mom calls me up and yaks all about this kind of stuff.
And now she's probably reading this thread--I'm so screwed.
-
Wait.
There's still a handle?
I thought my last launch left it in splinters
-
It was in splinters. I had to replace it, and let me tell you, it was no mean feat. Have you ever tried replacing a metaphor?
-
I replaced one with a simile once. It was like rain on my wedding day.
-
Well, isn't that ironic.
-
Don't ya think?
-
Not by any definition of irony that I'm familar with.
And perhaps that is the greatest irony of all.
-
It rained on my wedding day.
-
Not by any definition of irony that I'm familar with.
And perhaps that is the greatest irony of all.
Oh, dang, he missed it!
-
Didn't you get the memo?
-
What memo. Didn't I fire you?
-
I'll have you know, that song has been going through my head for hours since you said "it was like rain on my wedding day."
"It's like rayeeeaaaaaaiiiiiin on your wedding day,
A free riiiiiiiiide when you've already paid,
Some good adviiiiiiiiiice thatcha just didn't taaaaaake--
Who would've thought? It figuuuuuures....."
-
no no no. that song was popular. Even if fell heard it once, he blocked it out.
-
You can't honestly think I missed a reference to a song that I was the first to reference?
-
Well, your comment seemed to imply that you had. Stacer and I were rattling off further lines of the song, and then you seemed to take it literally.
It was a logical conclusion.
-
Similes are easy Fell. Replacing metaphors is not like or as anything you have done before.
-
It rained on my wedding day.
Actually, isn't that supposed to be good luck? Perhaps that's why the song says that it is ironic--because it's an old wives tale that rain on your wedding day is good luck (just like it is an old wives tale that you're supposed to have something borrowed, something blue, something old, and something new)--but who really wants rain on their wedding day, lucky or not? No one.
I think the superstition was made up to appease the people who have rain on their wedding day. Some old wife said, "Well, that's a bit unpleasant. Hey! I know! I'll tell them rain on a wedding day is good luck. And because I'm a wise old woman, they'll believe me."
[/end Chimera's flight of fancy]
-
I would love to have it rain on my wedding day. The rain makes me happy. When it storms, I like to go out and walk around, when everyone else is running for shelter.
-
Speaking of rain...I just think I heard thunder. And looking outside my window, it's all cloudy and windy all of the sudden.
Weather is so bizzare. Just under an hour ago I was outside suffering in the blazing sun at the pool. And now it looks like it will rain.
Well, if it is cooler outside it will be cooler in my apartment. Perhaps I, too, will go for a walk in the rain, like Archon.
-
Well there's your problem--you're searching for logic. And on this forum. And from me, of all people. Now that is Morrisettian Irony of the highest degree.
-
I agree, logic was probably the wrong word to use (when I said I came to a logical conclusion.) I mean, we were quoting Alanis Morisette, for crying out loud. Not exactly a Zen master or a Ph.D. or anything like that--definitely not an appeal to logic. ;)
-
Ok, so I've been gone for some days, away from the glory's and betrothol of the interweb. What's happened since friday?
-
Nothing, Gemm. Absolutely nothing. And you are still truly, truly, truly outrageous.
-
People are still posting in this thread? It's like so last week, she-sh get with the times.
-
It's so last week that it's now neo-retro-cool
-
Last week is back in a big way. Nostalgia has finally caught up with itself.
-
I'm so cool I've gone back to last week and updated every post I made!
-
Sorry to drag up a fading thread but I figure news should go here.
So sequels for Batman Begins have been planned:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=31955&type=0
And there are rumors (or vane hopes) that Scarecrow will be in the sequels:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=31968&type=0
-
Scarecrow should be in the sequal at least in Arcumn or something like that. Don't think he should be a major character though.
-
So I found this lego batman short (about 7-10 minutes long) staring, and I kid you not, Adam west as Batman and Markhammel as the Joker and Dick Van Dyke. It's not Bruce Timm batman but fun none the less.
http://www.daveschool.com/projects/BATMAN/assets/pages/DS_BATMANTRAILER.html
-
big file but I liked it a lot.....cool animation, volume was a little low. I had a hard time hearing it