Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
But he failed at that last bit, in my opinion.
The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny
- Thread starter Serge 13
- Start date
This ghoul has seen it all
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
The ending was only made tragic as of the revision of TDKR. If that movie never happened, then the ending of TDK would've remained up for speculation. It was always held that Batman was always "at large" and that the police were "after" him, when in fact the likes of Gordon knew he was a good guy and worked with him at every opportunity. So on its own, TDK's ending could've signaled the idea that Batman was no longer going to be considered the city's hero by everyone and anyone and considered a hero by some and a reckless vigilante by others and that, as far as official policy goes, he was "to be arrested on sight", but no real efforts were being made to do so. The possibility for this interpretation with TDK's ending was thrown out the window when TDKR came along and said, "So Batman took all the blame and became hated that time, and he disappeared forever and he's been gone for 8 years now. That's what happened." TDK could've ended on a fantastic note to signal another Batman continuity in the collective minds of fans, but TDKR sunk that ship.
As far as Harvey going along with Joker's rant... Again, it was pulled off very well. Even if YOU wouldn't have bought it, the actors made it quite believable that, in his current, distraught and broken state, Harvey easily could've.
And I never said worse offenses made a bad offense okay. I said that, by comparison, what could be construed as an "offense" was so slight in TDK's case that it hardly warrants any attention at all.
As far as Harvey going along with Joker's rant... Again, it was pulled off very well. Even if YOU wouldn't have bought it, the actors made it quite believable that, in his current, distraught and broken state, Harvey easily could've.
And I never said worse offenses made a bad offense okay. I said that, by comparison, what could be construed as an "offense" was so slight in TDK's case that it hardly warrants any attention at all.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Except they literally say batman is to take blame for all of Dent's crimes just to keep his image pure or whatever at the end of TDK, Gordon even gave a speech about how Gotham si so rotten to the core that they deserve an idiot like Swatman for a hero, but they need another kind of hero, the ending wasn't ambiguous or open for interpretation at all. I mean it's not like there was this lunatic criminal that has been blowing up buildings for the past week they could blame for those, nope, Batman has to do it, shut up kid Gordon.
And no, it is no believable, so Dent is so broken and distraught by the loss of his face and girlfriend that he decides to believe a bullshit speech by the dude who kidnapped him and his girlfriend and is directly responsible for her death and then decides to let him just leave? He suddenly develops the coin flip gimmick and then goes on to kill corrupt cops instead of the dude that was the prime culprit there. A better development of that scene would've been if the Joker is actually killed by Dent and that actually sent him on his murderous rampage to rid Gotham of crime from the root with increasingly extremist actions. But no, he just goes along with the Joker because the script says he does, and then instead of being built up as a villain for the next movie he dies at the end (from a drop that didn't kill another character earlier in the movie) after going all mustache twirling evil.
And no, it is no believable, so Dent is so broken and distraught by the loss of his face and girlfriend that he decides to believe a bullshit speech by the dude who kidnapped him and his girlfriend and is directly responsible for her death and then decides to let him just leave? He suddenly develops the coin flip gimmick and then goes on to kill corrupt cops instead of the dude that was the prime culprit there. A better development of that scene would've been if the Joker is actually killed by Dent and that actually sent him on his murderous rampage to rid Gotham of crime from the root with increasingly extremist actions. But no, he just goes along with the Joker because the script says he does, and then instead of being built up as a villain for the next movie he dies at the end (from a drop that didn't kill another character earlier in the movie) after going all mustache twirling evil.
Gnarles Bronson
regular mutant
I think two face was the weakest part of tdk. ekhart's not that good, and really it felt kind of shoe horned in. the last 20 minutes or so of the dk I could have done without.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Exactly. He did a GREAT Dent. The CG on his face was amazing. But... I really would've rathered the film introduce Two Face, not make him the villain at the last second and kill him off just as quickly. For being a lackluster film, Batman Begins had a really cool ending note when it hinted at introducing the Joker. So why not do something similar with Two Face? Nope, we're gonna squeeze him in and make the same mistake Sony and Raimi did with Spiderman 3 and not know when to call it quits at a good time. More time spent developing Two Face means the character could've felt genuine and believable. But as it stands, he felt rushed, because he was. =(
Gnarles Bronson
regular mutant
Only problem is I don't know if I am a big enough fan of two face to have him star as the main villain in his own movie -- I'd much rather have bane -- plus his death leads into the third movie. Now if there were four nolan movies... that might have been cool.
well, it is something I really hate. Can't be just one villain, it has to be two, sometimes tree. Have you seen the last Spiderman movie? Amazing Spiderman 2? Same shit ... not only was it rushed, but having to many bad guys ruins it all in my opinion, well that and the shit acting.
Gnarles Bronson
regular mutant
I'm trying to think of a good movie with two or more villains and am coming up empty. I think TDK kind of works since the main villain is Joker, but then sort of falls apart when two face comes. Batman Returns maybe? Actually that kind of had three counting Walken. Don't know if that movie is your thing, haven't seen it for a few decades so can't really comment on it's quality, though loved it as a kid.
Not really. The existing movie is basically Bane Nukes Gotham And Does Random Evil Shit In The Process.
Ledger is awesome, but the script he had to work with were eh.
For Jurassic Park 5 I want a team to travel back in time. Yes! The time-travel angle!
Back to 1994, to convince Spielberg to freeze all future JP projects, and de-franchise the concept, before it even becomes a franchise.
The protagonists will remind Spielberg about Ian Malcolm's furious anti-consumerist speech at the dinner table "Slapping a logo on it, and now you're selling, you're selling it" as well as the ending of the movie, where the camera zooms in on the pelicans flying outside of the helicopter. Alan Grant sees them, and smiles, as he realizes that no "Jurassic Park" genetic-farce is needed to enjoy living, real dinosaurs: They never left us.
Spielberg will wipe a tear, at the end of the movie, and sigh "I know. I always knew. Hey, I directed that scene, so how could I not?"
*End credits + John Williams*
Back to 1994, to convince Spielberg to freeze all future JP projects, and de-franchise the concept, before it even becomes a franchise.
The protagonists will remind Spielberg about Ian Malcolm's furious anti-consumerist speech at the dinner table "Slapping a logo on it, and now you're selling, you're selling it" as well as the ending of the movie, where the camera zooms in on the pelicans flying outside of the helicopter. Alan Grant sees them, and smiles, as he realizes that no "Jurassic Park" genetic-farce is needed to enjoy living, real dinosaurs: They never left us.
Spielberg will wipe a tear, at the end of the movie, and sigh "I know. I always knew. Hey, I directed that scene, so how could I not?"
*End credits + John Williams*
Gnarles Bronson
regular mutant
My theory: The post apocalyptic genre attracts disenchanted people. That coupled with having our precious molested into the perversion that is fallout three leaves us bitter hollow shells of human beings; our only solace taken from dumping onto whatever we can, like so much has been dumped onto us.
Just as I feared. Fury was a disapointment. It just doesn't really work for me.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Really? I was about to watch it. Hope I like it.
well to be fair, it's not that it is a bad movie, it is decent, it has awesome visuals, no doubts about that. I just don't understand this "it's so historically accurate!" stuff. It's not more historical accurate, or lets say it is as inaccurate like Private Ryan. It is a Holywood war movie. They try very hard to show that Americans can do evil things too! Yet, it is so ham-fisted in to the movie that it feels almost comical. At least in my opinion. It would have been better if they gave the characters more time to grow. This is what makes Band of Brothers so believable, because you follow the course of a whole unit, not just a handful of men. But if you enjoy movies like Private Ryan, then you will like this as well I guess. Like I said, if all you want are juicy fights and dying Germans, this is the movie for you.
The other part that really bothered me is the way how the movie sets up the tone. I get it! I get it! The veterans are battle-weary! No one wants to die! Germans are fanatical. But actually the roles should be reversed. By April 1945 the German military was on the brink of collapse. Or the start of the movie, The US forces have been constantly "outguned" and dealing with inferior equipment while fighting the superior Germans.
This is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where I should start. But let's go to the Sherman, everyone who's serious about history knows that the Sherman was a good tank, not a perfect tank, not a Tiger, but a good one. It was updated trough out the war and it proved itself on the battlefield many times. There are tons of great literature available on the Sherman and the technology behind it. The most common German tanks have been the Stug assault tank and the Panzer IV, and the Sherman was comparable with them, in fact the Sherman had even a decent chance to fight the Panther and Tiger head on with the upgrades, like the new 76mm guns and in some cases the Sherman was even superior to the Panzer IV H and J.
I am not saying it was easy for the US forces, but the US forces were not the underdog either. It's interesting that even after almost 70 years so many sing to the tune of the German propaganda machine. The Tiger was a great tank, if used correctly, with a skilled crew. But it was no "wonder weapon". There are situations where a single Sherman from the US 752nd Tank battalion with a 75mm gun managed to take out the leading Tiger tank forcing the second Tiger and the other tanks to retreat - battle of Cecina, July 1st 1944. And there are several situations on the eastern front where the Tiger was not doing so great either. Particularly if they had stupid commanders.
So the idea that the US force was somehow using technically inferior equipment is not correct. In many cases they had even superior equipment. Like the Bomber and aviation technology, or the Brits with their radar equipment, just to name a few. The US had also more mobility because they have been the only TRUE motorized force in WW2, while the Germans had to fall back on railway systems and horse carts. Mobility played a major role in many of the battles trough france and belgium.
The other part that really bothered me is the way how the movie sets up the tone. I get it! I get it! The veterans are battle-weary! No one wants to die! Germans are fanatical. But actually the roles should be reversed. By April 1945 the German military was on the brink of collapse. Or the start of the movie, The US forces have been constantly "outguned" and dealing with inferior equipment while fighting the superior Germans.
This is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where I should start. But let's go to the Sherman, everyone who's serious about history knows that the Sherman was a good tank, not a perfect tank, not a Tiger, but a good one. It was updated trough out the war and it proved itself on the battlefield many times. There are tons of great literature available on the Sherman and the technology behind it. The most common German tanks have been the Stug assault tank and the Panzer IV, and the Sherman was comparable with them, in fact the Sherman had even a decent chance to fight the Panther and Tiger head on with the upgrades, like the new 76mm guns and in some cases the Sherman was even superior to the Panzer IV H and J.
I am not saying it was easy for the US forces, but the US forces were not the underdog either. It's interesting that even after almost 70 years so many sing to the tune of the German propaganda machine. The Tiger was a great tank, if used correctly, with a skilled crew. But it was no "wonder weapon". There are situations where a single Sherman from the US 752nd Tank battalion with a 75mm gun managed to take out the leading Tiger tank forcing the second Tiger and the other tanks to retreat - battle of Cecina, July 1st 1944. And there are several situations on the eastern front where the Tiger was not doing so great either. Particularly if they had stupid commanders.
So the idea that the US force was somehow using technically inferior equipment is not correct. In many cases they had even superior equipment. Like the Bomber and aviation technology, or the Brits with their radar equipment, just to name a few. The US had also more mobility because they have been the only TRUE motorized force in WW2, while the Germans had to fall back on railway systems and horse carts. Mobility played a major role in many of the battles trough france and belgium.
Last edited:
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Yeah, from the moment I saw the first trailer, it seemed to me to be merely a vehicle or Brad Pitt and Shia to get in on the line of award winning or otherwise notable movies that say war is hell as if in revelation.
Also, you may all rejoice, in that Akratus shall soon see the light and finaly come around to seeing the Mad Max movies, sometime in the very near future.
Also, you may all rejoice, in that Akratus shall soon see the light and finaly come around to seeing the Mad Max movies, sometime in the very near future.
Last edited:
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
No I'm getting to it, I swear, very soon! I saw the first ten minutes once even!
Last edited:
Was. Ledger was awesome.
I watched 10 Years last night. It's a simple movie about growing up and taking responsibility. I was a little disappointed because I was able to predict, after only half an hour, that the musician in the movie had a hit song containing the line 'your funny yellow shoes'. Yeah: that's a very specific prediction, but I was in fact 100% right about it. I dunno if that means 10 Years is a bad movie because I was still moved when he actually started singing the song and the line 'your funny yellow shoes' came out of his mouth. A good watch if you have nothing better to do.
Last edited by a moderator: