|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 24, 2009 0:01:23 GMT
And I'd like to ask Nolan the same. Hey, I would be serious too for a billion bucks. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator 
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 24, 2009 0:10:54 GMT
You bourgeois pig!
I think it's amazing how you need these concepts explained to you over and over again. All of the questions you just asked Capo have been answered in this thread several times. And you were the one asking them for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 24, 2009 0:25:13 GMT
Being a whore is so much fun. Don't be so serious. I think it's amazing how you need these concepts explained to you over and over again. I wouldn't need to if I actually cared about what you were saying. Make me care. Make me give a shit. To give Capo credit, at least he has something to (usually) say even when I really get pissy in....well, not exactly agreeing with him. And really, for a guy really supposedly obsessed with the proper context, you never seem to bring up your surroundings or environment seriously into your reviews or thoughts. Why is that? All of the questions you just asked Capo have been answered in this thread several times. And you were the one asking them for the most part. Remember that time we got into an epic fight over that (worthless) FRIDAY THE 13TH remake? Now take a breath and consider if you really want to be the big tamale around here. You can have it, I'm comfortable at my pace and (garbage) bin I review. My dick size is comfortably modest. OK maybe sub-average at times. Excuse me, I have some real important work to do instead of partaking in yet another of your off-topic, random pissing contests. Like reviewing CITIZEN TOXIE: THE TOXIC AVENGER IV. Yeah! |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 24, 2009 0:31:47 GMT
It's not a criticism of Batman, it's an observation. Batman is not serious. More specifically, it's a criticism - and until somebody convinces me otherwise, a very valid one - of The Dark Knight, which treats Batman in a serious manner, when a) it ought not to, and, more crucially, b) it cannot. Why? I've already said why. Do you genuinely think The Dark Knight can be taken seriously? And, if so, I've more right to throw the same question back to you: WHY? (HOW?) If you want to take the whole Batman universe seriously, then fine. You should probably see a doctor, though. There isn't a relative gradient of seriousness applicable to Batman. It's inherently and fundamentally unserious.and DIE HARD is? Or did we suddenly forget that ending? Where does one draw the line? I'd actually draw the line at the conception. Sure, Die Hard may be far-fetched, but its conception isn't unserious; if you can't see the difference between Batman and John McLane, you definitely need to see a doctor. This comes off as a cheap shot, a last-ditch effort of argument. It's pretty thin, and quite meaningless, because there isn't any alternative criticism to refer to. I'm not being pretentious, and don't think I'm coming off that way. In fact, I only indulge you and reply to your posts in the hope that others may read them, since I've little hope for you, going by past experience. There's a critical paradox surrounding The Dark Knight. In order to enjoy it and heap genuine praise on it, it seems one must discard its authors' intentions and take them with a pinch of salt; or else you do take Nolan seriously, and genuinely think The Dark Knight has anything serious to say - in which case, you've had THIRTEEN PAGES TO DO SO AND STILL HAVE NOT. On the other hand, taking Nolan and co. seriously, on the terms they want us to interpret them, and then approaching the film with the same mindset they had when making it... I can't see how you might see any genuine insight offered by the film; and hence further criticisms of artistic dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 24, 2009 0:34:27 GMT
Being a whore is so much fun. Don't be so serious. Ah, so you're pulling our leg!!!! I've suspected as much. But then this...  |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 24, 2009 0:34:38 GMT
The Dark Knight (2008) Dir. Christopher Nolan Rating: * * * * * I'm speachless. This is popular art at it's best; the mature, intelligent, masterfully made blockbuster that reminds us all that big budget films don't have to be lost in explosions and special effects. What they need to do is attract us into a story with rich characters and ideals that are not always simpleminded. Script, acting, direction, editing, etc; top notch. Don't believe me? Go fucking watch it. I'm going for the imax showing sometime this week. Agree with this. |
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Aug 24, 2009 0:37:52 GMT
Michael, keep this a secret between you and me, but I thought the Dark Knight was a well made, entertaining movie, too.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 24, 2009 0:38:36 GMT
Bar the first two lines, that entire post could apply to any film. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 24, 2009 0:39:46 GMT
Being a whore is so much fun. Don't be so serious. That was a joke. Don't be so dense. Actually you wouldn't need to repeat yourself endlessly if you understood the answers you'd been given. And it's not hard to understand. And Capo has answered you too. Why you would want to keep repeating yourself I'm sure has a different explanation... Frankly I don't care whether you care or whether you continue this debate. Your posts aren't interesting to me to begin with, and you've been repeating the same ill-thought-out objections for about half of this thread. Which, for someone who doesn't care, seems like a lot of effort. No sense making. Uh, yes. As I was saying. All of the questions you just asked Capo have been answered in this thread several times. And you were the one asking them for the most part. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 24, 2009 0:45:01 GMT
And I'd like to ask Nolan the same. Hey, I would be serious too for a billion bucks. Actually, whether you know it or not, this cuts to something addressed earlier in this thread. That The Dark Knight is an economic adventure not an artistic one. The film's appeal may lie in its "grim'n'gritty mannerism", but that's a product of commercial demand; we live in some dark and worrying times, so let's dress up our Batman film with a little splash of "darkness" and "realism". (What's that, you say? "Why don't we write a script set in the real world about real issues without a fucking bat?" Well, nobody would go and see it LOLZ!) Had Schumacher made The Dark Knight in 1995, there's no reason why Nolan would not now be making a film called "Batman Forever". |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 24, 2009 0:46:54 GMT
I've already said why. Do you genuinely think The Dark Knight can be taken seriously? And, if so, I've more right to throw the same question back to you: WHY? (HOW?)[/quote] *dramatic beat* Because I choose to. I know, anticlimatic. Sorry. If you want to take the whole Batman universe seriously, then fine. You should probably see a doctor, though. I will. As soon as I get off my meds. I'd actually draw the line at the conception. Sure, Die Hard may be far-fetched, but its conception isn't unserious; if you can't see the difference between Batman and John McLane, you definitely need to see a doctor. Do you work for a HMO? With the referals you're dropping so far, I get you enough points to get those free flyer miles.  Plus, what of Karl? |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 24, 2009 0:50:44 GMT
Hey, I would be serious too for a billion bucks. Actually, whether you know it or not, this cuts to something addressed earlier in this thread. That The Dark Knight is an economic adventure not an artistic one. The film's appeal may lie in its "grim'n'gritty mannerism", but that's a product of commercial demand; we live in some dark and worrying times, so let's dress up our Batman film with a little splash of "darkness" and "realism". (What's that, you say? "Why don't we write a script set in the real world about real issues without a fucking bat?" Well, nobody would go and see it LOLZ!) Had Schumacher made The Dark Knight in 1995, there's no reason why Nolan would not now be making a film called "Batman Forever". And you're absolutely right. Reminds me of the paradox trap of blaxploitation: All these "black empowerment" films are crime pictures. Though imagine the inevitable gay innuendo in Schumacher's THE DARK KNIGHT. Kinda like that Canadian sketch series did...except with neon pink visualization and a fortune behind it. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 24, 2009 0:54:05 GMT
SNORE.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 24, 2009 0:59:58 GMT
I didn't know Sleep Posting exists.
Will wonders ever cease?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 24, 2009 4:27:19 GMT
To go back on something I said, since I was basically fucking with someone who always comes back to me like a fucking buffet.
I don't take TDK "seriously", and reject that whole extremes options that Capo and RNL seem to be the only ones available to pick. Either its a joke, or a frown. That is rather a simplistic outlook, no?
I took TDK as basically....bear with me....as a crime film, but with a fantasy/sci-fi flavor. See, RNL has just thrown the yellow flag. 5 yards!
When I watch Sci-Fi or fantasy, I don't take them seriously, or as RNL/Capo seem to consider cinema to be realistic, which it isn't.
Sci-fi/fantasy in general, or at least the best I've noticed in particular patterns, are not so much a realistic template. They're more a colorful canvas for which to explore particular themes and politics. This doesn't include those action adventure rides like STAR WARS or whatever.
Is BLADE RUNNER realistic regarding the future building synthetic humanoids? I would say no because whats the point? OK some guys want to fuck something without fearing consequences (I would think an android is more desirable than a fleshlight), but a war machine or factory cog doesn't necessarily need a humanoid shape to be rather efficient at their jobs. But that's not the point of BLADE RUNNER.
Or the recent DISTRICT 9. Its less realistic and has a logic hole or two at least, but more a genre page to make illusions to racism, Apartheid particularly...and I would even stretch to include other such slums of greatly-abused-second-class citizenry striking back to the Palestinians. A terrific movie, I'm surprised FCM hasn't reviewed it yet. Don't hate those aliens for clicking.
Or shit, CHILDREN OF MEN with the overt thoughts and musings on immigration, treatment of minorities by a scared society, and of course the War on Terror. And so forth, like Jewison's ROLLERBALL about the ultimate capitalist future which trades personal freedoms for wealth and comfort.
With THE DARK KNIGHT, its Law & Order (Batman) versus Anarchy (Joker), the goods and bads of both, with Two-Face a somewhat mix of the two.
The 9/11 and War on Terror has already been much elaborated on, with liberals and conservatives each claiming KNIGHT speaks for them (though I argue its more liberal, especially that particular ending regarding that sonar machine). Overall I would consider it a pretty great crime/action movie with very good acting, well-crafted action cinema, and probably justified that major blockbuster bigass budget it got. A larger than life myth perfectly complementing the predequel BATMAN BEGINS.
Better than the GODFATHER? No. One of the best movies ever produced? No. The best movie of 2008? Depends, but not certainly a lock.
I liked it. If one can't get beyond the costumes and gimmicks and shit...well shit. You just can't.
I think TDK, then I also consider a movie I saw last week: G.I. JOE, a big budget loud actioneer of a toy commercial with no characters to care or give a shit about, and a rather mindless automated plot. Shit I couldn't even invest myself in the action shit. The only character that might have stood out was the ninja, if because well...he was a ninja. Nobody else on the hero squad had a stand-out interesting gimmick.
Then I compare that waste of time with the direct-to-dvd GREEN LANTERN: FIRST FLIGHT, that animated adaptation of the DC superhero (who is getting a blockbuster live-action treatment from Martin Campbell) which also was a rock'em, sock'em brain-unnecessary narrative like G.I. JOE. Except the best parts was the 1st half, when it starts out as a cop movie. An Intergalactic sci-fi flavor, but a cop picture none the less.
That villain's scheme, like GI JOE's, is also to "reign in chaos" cliche as the dictator. Except FIRST FLIGHT did give him a really good scene where you understand where he's coming from. Not the same as agreeing. Initially a rough maverick Dirty Harry-top space cop, then a Dirty Harry that goes over the edge. Then that interesting shit had to go dodo in favor of a nonsensical ending which lost me.
In short, I would love to live in one's world that can easily dismiss TDK only because they're a casual viewer. Much like how many casual viewers rejected ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE because it tried to ground 007, make him human, and deeply flawed. Oh and that devastating ending. You know, not a gay safe time. When OHMSS is probably one of the better entries. If not the best.
Though some I guess thought OHMSS was......too serious?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 24, 2009 12:07:04 GMT
I think you're missing the point, but thanks for actually attempting to engage in debate.
As has already been said, though, there's nothing silly about trying to make a serious film about a Secret Service agent. Just as there isn't anything silly about the concept of an LAPD cop fighting off terrorists in a skyscraper.
And, to repeat again, there is everything unserious about trying to make a serious film about a guy who dresses in a batsuit to fight off thugs. It's fundamentally, unavoidably, unpretentiously silly as a concept, and so to make a film attempting (and declaring itself as) non-silly, as very serious, then it's fundamentally, unavoidably pretentious.
Conceptually, as a serious film with anything valid to say about our society, the film fails from the outset. Formally, as an action film, I think there are better examples... and yes, Die Hard, if you want to reference it, is one of them.
But it's not a crime film because the issue of crime isn't treated in an honest or thorough manner. It's a 'super hero' film, and it's silly because of that - because we all know super heroes are silly - and is therefore ill-equipped from the very outset to even begin to think about calling itself a 'crime film'. Unless you think it sufficient for a crime film to feature 'criminals' without anything else to say about them or their 'work'.
I think of the crime in 'crime film' as a substitute for issue. A crime film is an 'issue film', if you want to put it that way. And 'issue films' should at least attempt to offer some serious social analysis of their given or chosen issue. If it's crime, it needs to look at crime head-on and in a serious, investigative, honest way. The Dark Knight doesn't do that, because it can't do that, because it's set in Gotham City, a super hero city, which may have a vague appeal in these real, objective times, but which cannot fully offer any deep look at the issue of crime.
It's not as if I'm dismissing super hero fans, or people who enjoy super hero films or comics or anything else super hero-related. I like Batman, and I'd love nothing more than to see a good Batman film. I'm dismissing the entire premise of dressing the Batman universe up as something it isn't - and cannot be. The essential components that a Batman project requires do not lend themselves to reality.
In order for fantasy to work on a sociologically insightful level, its allegory has to be thought through, so that its parallels to the real world are legitimate and obvious enough for the allegory to work. The Dark Knight doesn't do that, because it doesn't treat its issues seriously enough - and HEY, YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE IT CANNOT TREAT ITS ISSUES SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE AFTER ALL THE DRESSING UP IT IS STILL A BATMAN FILM. If Nolan really wishes to engage with the real world - and from the evidence we have, he doesn't - he would have done better to script a film without Batman in it at all.
All of the moral issues in the film are given extra conceptual excitement and novelty because it's Batman who is experiencing them. "OMG super heroes are real ppl too!" Forgive the tone, but it's only to address the superficial relationship between fan and film; there's nothing wrong with loving Batman, but there's possibly (or probably) a danger of taking him and the world he lives in seriously.
The film is fluff, and it should have treated itself as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 25, 2009 22:39:52 GMT
But it's not a crime film because the issue of crime isn't treated in an honest or thorough manner. It's a 'super hero' film, and it's silly because of that - because we all know super heroes are silly - and is therefore ill-equipped from the very outset to even begin to think about calling itself a 'crime film'. Unless you think it sufficient for a crime film to feature 'criminals' without anything else to say about them or their 'work'. See I disagree right there, and I point to the scene of the mountain of money being burned. Crime is perfectly compatable in the capitalist society, protected by the same laws legislated by the special business interests to protect themselves, because like business Crime is committed because the perpetrator wants something. Which they rather steal than buy much of the time. What does it say about this Joker fellow who burns a fortune off? Or as a suppose advocate of anarchy (despite obsessed with defeating Batman, physically or philosophically) when he says: "It's fair!"[/i] Now to be fair, most movies with "anarchy" villains...such shit resorts to blowing stuff up, ala that stupid Stallone vehicle COBRA. So I guess TDK is a step-up in that regard. I think of the crime in 'crime film' as a substitute for issue. A crime film is an 'issue film', if you want to put it that way. And 'issue films' should at least attempt to offer some serious social analysis of their given or chosen issue. Question, what does that make PAYBACK (Director's Cut) or its earlier version of the same adapted book POINT BLANK? Both were about criminals getting revenge/extorting other criminals, neither really philophically than one violent son of a bitch trying to meet the needs of his wants. Are they action films then? It's not as if I'm dismissing super hero fans, or people who enjoy super hero films or comics or anything else super hero-related. I like Batman, and I'd love nothing more than to see a good Batman film. I'm dismissing the entire premise of dressing the Batman universe up as something it isn't - and cannot be. The essential components that a Batman project requires do not lend themselves to reality. Off-topic, but did you think of the other BATMAN pictures, including the animated MASK OF THE PHANTASM? |
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Aug 26, 2009 23:40:48 GMT
These flaws are even more apperent upon multiple viewings. Throughout, youre wondering how certain characters knew certain things, or what a lucky coincidence theyve stumbled into. The more you pay attention to the story, the less it makes sense.. Like? I KNOW the Joker has a "super-sanity" as some of his writers describe. But lets analyze the events surrounding the best part of the movie...the car chase in the middle. Here is his plan, to an extent a) rig two buildings w explosives b) rig a henchmen with a bomb in stomach c) KNOW that Harvey Dent isnt Batman even though he just admitted he was d) Attack Harveys armored car with machine guns and rocket launchers. Keep in mind the plan is to have your suicide henchman stay alive for later, AND keep Harvey (also part of the plan) alive, despite aiming for him with a rocket launcher. While this is going on, mafia and henchmen abduct Rachel and bring her to one location in (a). Similarily, Batman needs to stay alive for later parts of the plan to work. e) get arrested purposely. henchmen with bomb has to also be arrested, and jailed in nearby vicinity to you f) Harvey kidnapped, moved to other location in (a) g) knowing addresses of both locations, and who was placed in each, feed information to Batman (knowing Gordon isnt dead and will be promoted to commissioner, allowing Batman, who you somehow know will be at the station, to interrogate you) at a time where he can make it to whichever he chooses by 30 seconds, but somehow, the cops will be 30 seconds late. h)know that they will leave a cop in the cell with you while finding Rachel and Harvey. Abduct cop and request phone call to set off bomb. i)escape and figure out an equally absurd way to rig an entire hospital or ferry boat with explosives. this is fine in a Burton-esque "comic book" movie (one doesnt particularily care how Penguin rigged and got plans for the Batmobile). Not for somethign that claims to be grounded in reality |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 27, 2009 18:39:33 GMT
"c) KNOW that Harvey Dent isnt Batman even though he just admitted he was"
When did that happen in the movie? I don't remember that part.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Aug 27, 2009 20:40:56 GMT
Its the reason Dent is imprisoned. He says he is Batman at a press conference.
|
|
