Batman Begins (no spoilers)

[Fellfrosch]

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.

[Allison Hill]

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.

[Allison Hill]

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).

[Archon]

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.

[Entsuropi]

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.

[Allison Hill]

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.  

[Oldie Black Witch]

So, ummm, Batman Begins is a pretty good movie. . .

[Spriggan]

*Spriggan wants Entropy to skewer him so he doesn't have to listen to this insipid argument anymore.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Akeyata]

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.

[Akeyata]

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.  

[Chimera]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Skar]

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?