Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Thread About Movies

19394959698

Posts

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was
    When Nolan has the police outclassed in a pursuit because their chopper looks like a news channel 5 chopper and Bruce comes to a penthouse party in what is essentially a Blackhawk, I think Nolan's making a pretty clear statement that he's the type of guy content to let the civic side of Gotham struggle and put all his money into his toys.

    Which flat out says the issue is Bruce buying toys for himself instead of helping the police with those funds or his attention.

    Which is doubly false in that Batman is both aiding the police (with equipment, expertise and general Batmaning) and most importantly in that the helicopter in no way gets "outclassed".

    Like, all helicopters go need unimpeded rotors and really, a blackhawk helicopter is the silliest thing for a police department to have because nothing about it is necessary in any predictable situation.

    Nothing about your original comment or your follow up to it makes sense.

    shryke on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Cop choppers usually do look like new choppers and a Blackhawk surely would be fucked up by that wire (though it perhaps has some hi tech whatsit to detect it beforehand).

    Also, cops nowhere are as well armed as the freaking Army.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

    Your point was Batman should spend money on the police instead of Batmaning. Your evidence was how "shitty" this police helo looked. They addressed that and you said "I don't care."

    So...

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    No, it was pages of us going on about how you weren't even remembering the movie right and how given what actually happens in the movie, your comment doesn't make any sense.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

    Your point was Batman should spend money on the police instead of Batmaning. Your evidence was how "shitty" this police helo looked. They addressed that and you said "I don't care about the theme of the movie being corruption or how horse blinding is wrong or how we should all love our elders more for they have wisdom in their years I was talking about how I, personally, one single man, viewed his character."

    So...

    FTFY
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    No, it was pages of us going on about how you weren't even remembering the movie right and how given what actually happens in the movie, your comment doesn't make any sense.

    My comment maybe doesn't make sense using the word outclassed. Is that seriously your hang up? When the point to what I was saying was Bruce has better toys than the po0lice your "Nuh-uh!" is semantics?!?

    Mad King George on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    :shrug:

    Lh96QHG.png
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited June 2012
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

    Your point was Batman should spend money on the police instead of Batmaning. Your evidence was how "shitty" this police helo looked. They addressed that and you said "I don't care about the theme of the movie being corruption or how horse blinding is wrong or how we should all love our elders more for they have wisdom in their years I was talking about how I, personally, one single man, viewed his character."

    So...

    FTFY
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    No, it was pages of us going on about how you weren't even remembering the movie right and how given what actually happens in the movie, your comment doesn't make any sense.

    My comment maybe doesn't make sense using the word outclassed. Is that seriously your hang up? When the point to what I was saying was Bruce has better toys than the po0lice your "Nuh-uh!" is semantics?!?
    He's Batman. Of course he has better toys. That's like saying "well, Superman has that S-Shield thingo!" or "Spider-Man has got those webs!". You seemed to be saying something about what the movie was commenting concerning how Bruce was spending his money. What does your comment have to do with anything, then, if you weren't?

    But seriously, when everybody misinterprets your comments, it means you communicated poorly.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    SO, who wants to talk about any of these films so we can all shut up about fucking Batman and Mad King George having a different opinion on it?

    FTFY. :^:

    I agree on Cage. The dude is also good because he gives whatever he's in his all. He is completely earnest in his acting, and that is a sign of a truly dedicated actor.

    As for Raising Arizona, I also agree. It's light Coen fare for me, though it does have some truly wackadoo things, the Mad Maxian biker amongst them.

    And how about that turn Henry Fonda took with Leone, eh?

    No, he's great because he's a fucking crazy person who cares not that everyone else on set is terrified of him.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    [
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

    Your point was Batman should spend money on the police instead of Batmaning. Your evidence was how "shitty" this police helo looked. They addressed that and you said "I don't care about the theme of the movie being corruption or how horse blinding is wrong or how we should all love our elders more for they have wisdom in their years I was talking about how I, personally, one single man, viewed his character."

    So...

    FTFY
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    No, it was pages of us going on about how you weren't even remembering the movie right and how given what actually happens in the movie, your comment doesn't make any sense.

    My comment maybe doesn't make sense using the word outclassed. Is that seriously your hang up? When the point to what I was saying was Bruce has better toys than the po0lice your "Nuh-uh!" is semantics?!?

    "Bruce Wayne is an asshole, he should have just given money to the police! Like in that chase scene where the helicopter was outclassed!"
    *tangent where we assume you are talking about police funding/training because that's what this comment implies*
    "That's not what I meant! I just meant in that one scene!"
    "That would have happened to any helicopter"
    "Not a super nice military one!"
    "Yes it would have"
    "Nuh uh!"

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

    Your point was Batman should spend money on the police instead of Batmaning. Your evidence was how "shitty" this police helo looked. They addressed that and you said "I don't care about the theme of the movie being corruption or how horse blinding is wrong or how we should all love our elders more for they have wisdom in their years I was talking about how I, personally, one single man, viewed his character."

    So...

    FTFY
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    No, it was pages of us going on about how you weren't even remembering the movie right and how given what actually happens in the movie, your comment doesn't make any sense.

    My comment maybe doesn't make sense using the word outclassed. Is that seriously your hang up? When the point to what I was saying was Bruce has better toys than the po0lice your "Nuh-uh!" is semantics?!?
    He's Batman. Of course he has better toys. That's like saying "well, Superman has that S-Shield thingo!" or "Spider-Man has got those webs!". You seemed to be saying something about what what you think Nolan might have been implying concerning how Bruce was spending his money. What does your comment have to do with anything, then, if you weren't?
    But seriously, when everybody misinterprets your comments, it means you communicated poorly.

    1) FTFY 2) With how I viewed the character. Others feel differently, which is fine, what sucks is when they confuse a supposed refutation or attack on a film's theme with how a another individual on the interwebs feels about how a character was portrayed. Jebus Chreezy.

    Mad King George on
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2012
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

    Your point was Batman should spend money on the police instead of Batmaning. Your evidence was how "shitty" this police helo looked. They addressed that and you said "I don't care about the theme of the movie being corruption or how horse blinding is wrong or how we should all love our elders more for they have wisdom in their years I was talking about how I, personally, one single man, viewed his character."

    So...

    FTFY
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    No, it was pages of us going on about how you weren't even remembering the movie right and how given what actually happens in the movie, your comment doesn't make any sense.

    My comment maybe doesn't make sense using the word outclassed. Is that seriously your hang up? When the point to what I was saying was Bruce has better toys than the po0lice your "Nuh-uh!" is semantics?!?
    He's Batman. Of course he has better toys. That's like saying "well, Superman has that S-Shield thingo!" or "Spider-Man has got those webs!". You seemed to be saying something about what what you think Nolan might have been implying concerning how Bruce was spending his money. What does your comment have to do with anything, then, if you weren't?
    But seriously, when everybody misinterprets your comments, it means you communicated poorly.

    1) FTFY 2) With how I viewed the character. Others feel differently, which is fine, what sucks is when they confuse a supposed refutation or attack on a film's theme with how a another individual on the interwebs feels about how a character was portrayed. Jebus Chreezy.

    And everyone here views you as an idiot. But that's just how we view your character, so you're not allowed to argue about it.

    Bagginses on
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

    Your point was Batman should spend money on the police instead of Batmaning. Your evidence was how "shitty" this police helo looked. They addressed that and you said "I don't care about the theme of the movie being corruption or how horse blinding is wrong or how we should all love our elders more for they have wisdom in their years I was talking about how I, personally, one single man, viewed his character."

    So...

    FTFY
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    No, it was pages of us going on about how you weren't even remembering the movie right and how given what actually happens in the movie, your comment doesn't make any sense.

    My comment maybe doesn't make sense using the word outclassed. Is that seriously your hang up? When the point to what I was saying was Bruce has better toys than the po0lice your "Nuh-uh!" is semantics?!?
    He's Batman. Of course he has better toys. That's like saying "well, Superman has that S-Shield thingo!" or "Spider-Man has got those webs!". You seemed to be saying something about what what you think Nolan might have been implying concerning how Bruce was spending his money. What does your comment have to do with anything, then, if you weren't?
    But seriously, when everybody misinterprets your comments, it means you communicated poorly.

    1) FTFY 2) With how I viewed the character. Others feel differently, which is fine, what sucks is when they confuse a supposed refutation or attack on a film's theme with how a another individual on the interwebs feels about how a character was portrayed. Jebus Chreezy.

    And everyone here views you as an idiot. But that's just how we view your character, so you're not allowed to argue about it.

    Glad to know I'm an idiot, and not a goose. Cheers for getting so hung up on Batman!

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Guess what, if everybody who reads your posts interprets something other than what you intended, then maybe the failure to communicate is on your end.

    To answer the way they did, no one could have read my post. But they certainly could have all jumped on the misguided bandwagon by reading someone else's muzzy reply and jumping to conclusions.

    Your point was Batman should spend money on the police instead of Batmaning. Your evidence was how "shitty" this police helo looked. They addressed that and you said "I don't care about the theme of the movie being corruption or how horse blinding is wrong or how we should all love our elders more for they have wisdom in their years I was talking about how I, personally, one single man, viewed his character."

    So...

    FTFY
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    No, it was pages of us going on about how you weren't even remembering the movie right and how given what actually happens in the movie, your comment doesn't make any sense.

    My comment maybe doesn't make sense using the word outclassed. Is that seriously your hang up? When the point to what I was saying was Bruce has better toys than the po0lice your "Nuh-uh!" is semantics?!?
    He's Batman. Of course he has better toys. That's like saying "well, Superman has that S-Shield thingo!" or "Spider-Man has got those webs!". You seemed to be saying something about what what you think Nolan might have been implying concerning how Bruce was spending his money. What does your comment have to do with anything, then, if you weren't?
    But seriously, when everybody misinterprets your comments, it means you communicated poorly.

    1) FTFY 2) With how I viewed the character. Others feel differently, which is fine, what sucks is when they confuse a supposed refutation or attack on a film's theme with how a another individual on the interwebs feels about how a character was portrayed. Jebus Chreezy.

    And everyone here views you as an idiot. But that's just how we view your character, so you're not allowed to argue about it.

    Glad to know I'm an idiot, and not a goose. Cheers for getting so hung up on Batman!

    Yes how silly of us to get hung up on discussion of a movie in the movie thread.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    So, the other day I rewatched Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and had to bring up this outstanding film.

    Such a rare type of film, not made much anymore, of a virtually all-male cast doing grown up things, yet one that was de riguer back in the 70s when it is set. A top-tier who's who of British actors, some newer, some older, all anchored by Oldman's oh-so-subtle performance.

    And then we start getting into the details:
    How Smiley's eyeglasses serve both a thematic and functional purpose. How tragic of a character Ricky Tarr is, not only for when he's spying, but for how he doesn't realize that he's part of the family. How integrated the film is, despite people rarely crossing into each other's scenes.

    What a wondrous piece of film, condensing a large, detailed book down without really losing any of it and without holding your hand to get it. The fact that there's been talk of doing Smiley's People, bringing back Oldman (and assumably Stephen Graham), is very happy news.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the big issue here is your original comment was...blahblahblah snippity-doo

    A comment on how I viewed his character which was followed by pages of you guys going on about the theme of the film being corruption as if I ever said otherwise.

    A comment on how you viewed the character...

    based on specific and objectively misremembered things in the movie.

    Dude madking you made claims and people refuted them so now you are trying to claim that you were misunderstood but you wern't.

    This isn't an issue with you being bad at communicating. This is an issue with you citing incorrect information and then getting kinda bitchy when you are called out on it.

    Quire.jpg
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Oh come on guys, get over yourselves. It's Indiana Jones. I love the films and have fond memories of watching the series and I'm perfectly happy to let that be that, but if a new movie was made it wouldn't bother me and I'd give it a shot.

    Could be good.

    Man, I'm not worried or acting like Indiana Jones is some unassailable paragon of all filmaking, I'm saying I don't get--at all--the mindset of someone who's eaten three tubs of vanilla, has the choice of having some chocolate chip, but would rather eat more tubs of some other brand's vanilla.

    It's the voracious appetite of the genre enthusiast. More is alway better, or at the very least, could be better.

    It's why people are mad that Michael Bay is "ruining" the Ninja Turtles, instead of saying, "Holy shit, I'm a grown adult, why do I care about what Michael Bay does to the Ninja Turtles?"

    It's the problem that I have with the new Batman series. Especially with Dark Knight, you have this pretty sweet crime movie with this lunatic in a batsuit running through it because, "They're doing Batman if he was super realistic and grown up." Batman may be for grownups now, but it was intended for children, not manchildren who can't let go. The most ingenious thing Nolan has done to me is making Batman culpable for all the bad stuff that happens in Gotham.

    I like the Nolan films, but I'm also very glad that such a steady hand is at the helm when Batman is going through his grimdark phase.

    The people will grow out of it, eventually. The Avengers is already a sign of that happening.

    With to my mind two exceptions (some takes on Daredevil, pretty much all of Punisher) Marvel has never really been grimdark. Batman's been rather solidly dark, if not /grimdark,/ since Miller.

    sig.png
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Just finished watching Drive (it's on Netflix now). It was pretty great! I still think Tinker Tailor was the best film last year, but I can definitely see why people loved it.

    Fantastic soundtrack, too.

    Behemoth on
    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't think thats necessarily a bad thing, a good movie is defined by the generation watching it, and if the movies of the past don't appeal to you, you wouldn't consider it "perfect" despite however many critics say it is so. There is no objective measure of what makes a movie good for any specific person nor can there be.

    I agree with this. It's probably why I jumped the gun a bit when reading Atomic Ross' "perfect 10" list.

    Honestly a lot of those movies on there I don't feel should really be in the same standing, like Ghostbusters and especially Back To The Future. They're decently-made and certainly have had their mark on pop culture, but they really feel like a product of their time, and since I wasn't part of the Spielberg generation I get to look at those pictures without the hype and hysteria that came during their release.

    Back To The Future is actually kind of corny nowadays (everything from the humor to the concept is just a bit too silly), and I feel like if it had been released today it would have nowhere near the impact it did on the movie scene like it did in the 80's. The same can be said for Ghostbusters and the like. Movies like Blade Runner just had an interesting world design with a by-the-numbers story as an excuse to explore the ecology of the setting. Hell, I really enjoy Raiders of the Lost Arc, but when watching it at a get-together with some college buddies who had never seen it before they were more or less bored by it because of the archaic pacing and story structure.

    Like I said, they aren't bad, they're just dated; what worked back then hasn't transcended time as well because the medium has evolved over the years. So whenever I look at a "top ten perfect film" list and see a whole slew of it devoted to the 80's era or whatever, it makes me think the critic's eyes are somewhat jaded and maybe even a bit biased towards a certain style of film-making.

    I personally think it's better to just keep it as a top favorites list instead of this whole "perfect film" nonsense. I already have a rap sheet of films that I love where I wouldn't change a single thing, but they sure as hell aren't perfect, they're just good movies. But hey, opinions I guess.

    Godfather on
    0WBv0.png
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    Mad King George, you really live up to your name.

    Like, in that chase scene... the chopper got taken down by wires. Any chopper, even a Black Hawk, would've gotten taken down by wires. No amount of funding would have saved them, because no chopper exists that would not be screwed by wires. Rotors don't go well with wires.

    Not to mention that if they had somehow had a magical, super expensive chopper to stop the Joker without Batman, his plan would've still succeeded because Harvey Dent and Rachel would've still been kidnapped and tied up with bombs, because of the corrupt police officers. Because the real problem with Gotham is corruption, not lack of funding.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Godfather wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't think thats necessarily a bad thing, a good movie is defined by the generation watching it, and if the movies of the past don't appeal to you, you wouldn't consider it "perfect" despite however many critics say it is so. There is no objective measure of what makes a movie good for any specific person nor can there be.

    I agree with this. It's probably why I jumped the gun a bit when reading Atomic Ross' "perfect 10" list.

    Honestly a lot of those movies on there I don't feel should really be in the same standing, like Ghostbusters and especially Back To The Future. They're decently-made and certainly have had their mark on pop culture, but they really feel like a product of their time, and since I wasn't part of the Spielberg generation I get to look at those pictures without the hype and hysteria that came during their release.

    Back To The Future is actually kind of corny nowadays (everything from the humor to the concept is just a bit too silly), and I feel like if it had been released today it would have nowhere near the impact it did on the movie scene like it did in the 80's. The same can be said for Ghostbusters and the like. Movies like Blade Runner just had an interesting world design with a by-the-numbers story as an excuse to explore the ecology of the setting. Hell, I really enjoy Raiders of the Lost Arc, but when watching it at a get-together with some college buddies who had never seen it before they were more or less bored by it because of the archaic pacing and story structure.

    Archaic pacing and story structure? I ... what's archaic about Raiders? Like, what expectations of pacing did it not meet? Shit, I showed that to plenty of people for the first time in university and everyone loved it.

    Ghostbusters and Back to the Future I'd kinda agree on. They are very well made films, but I don't find them very funny or gripping or anything. They make me think of what Ross was saying about Airplane! feeling really dated too.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Comedy is often easier prey for changing sentiments in culture. It can be focused on the cultural climate of the time.

    I can sort of see how Raiders could be boring to someone who only watches current blockbusters that are full of attention span robbing quick and jump cuts. That's not really a negative for raiders though, more the people that can't sit through something that isn't spazzing all over.

    Lucid on
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Mad King George, you really live up to your name.
    Yes, this is driving me insane.
    Like, in that chase scene... the chopper got taken down by wires. Any chopper, even a Black Hawk, would've gotten taken down by wires. No amount of funding would have saved them, because no chopper exists that would not be screwed by wires. Rotors don't go well with wires.

    Not to mention that if they had somehow had a magical, super expensive chopper to stop the Joker without Batman, his plan would've still succeeded because Harvey Dent and Rachel would've still been kidnapped and tied up with bombs, because of the corrupt police officers. Because the real problem with Gotham is corruption, not lack of funding.

    Again, last time, sayonara: I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT WOULD OR WOULDN'T CRASH A HELICOPTER. I DO NOT CARE. THAT NEVER IS, NEVER WAS, AND NEVER EVER EVER WILL BE AT ALL RELATED TO MY POINT.

    I thought I made it simply, but am obviously wrong about that (and the monks have set up an appointment for me at the self-flagellation room in the abbey, so don't worry, folks, you'll have your blood and lashes) since the issues people got hung up on was 1) my inattention to specific detail in scenic description 2) what would or would not crash a helicopter and 3) their own nonsense about theme and I don't know where that came from.

    My point was, as basic as I can make it: Bruce Wayne uses a Blackhawk for party drop offs. The city of Gotham has news-channel looking copters for doing police work in a city where their elevated train was destroyed. I think, personally, me, myself, and I think, maybe this works as an example of Nolan's opinion on how Bruce spends his money, putting more into gadgets that the civic side of Gotham. It was only one example that always stood out to me. I said all of this at this level of breakdown already, but obviously that wasn't enough. I don't know if this will be simple enough, but like Pandora's vagina, hope remains.

    People do not have to agree, people probably won't agree, great, fine, we're all wondrous beings of light and can feel as we wish and I don't care about that either. Just let the fucking thing drop already.

    Mad King George on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I mean, the reason we're disagreeing is because the things your using as evidence don't really line up with how police departments work or what the inherent problems with Gotham are.

    I think it's an interesting take and a prime candidate to be brought up in TDKR perhaps, but the evidence just isn't in Batman Begins or The Dark Knight.

    Also that middle paragraph, where you talk about Bruce Wayne and Nolan's opinion, that speaks to theme.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    I mean, the reason we're disagreeing is because the things your using as evidence don't really line up with how police departments work or what the inherent problems with Gotham are.

    I think it's an interesting take and a prime candidate to be brought up in TDKR perhaps, but the evidence just isn't in Batman Begins or The Dark Knight.

    Also that middle paragraph, where you talk about Bruce Wayne and Nolan's opinion, that speaks to theme.

    I don't give two blue rat shits at this point. Guess the whole asking people to let it drop wasn't knee-scrapingly bloody and pleading enough.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Hey you know whats maybe not helping and making you look like a complete goose?

    This:
    (and the monks have set up an appointment for me at the self-flagellation room in the abbey, so don't worry, folks, you'll have your blood and lashes) since the issues people got hung up on was 1)

    And this
    3) their own nonsense about theme and I don't know where that came from.

    And actually as far as I can tell everyone gets your point.

    To bad it isn't really supported by the film.

    Why are you getting so emotional about this anyway? Nobody else is.

    It's really baffling when you say things like were taking everything super serious and acting like everyone is attacking you for being wrong about minute details.

    nightmarenny on
    Quire.jpg
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    And actually as far as I can tell everyone gets your point.

    To bad it isn't really supported by the film.

    8->

  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    Mad King George, you really live up to your name.
    Yes, this is driving me insane.
    Like, in that chase scene... the chopper got taken down by wires. Any chopper, even a Black Hawk, would've gotten taken down by wires. No amount of funding would have saved them, because no chopper exists that would not be screwed by wires. Rotors don't go well with wires.

    Not to mention that if they had somehow had a magical, super expensive chopper to stop the Joker without Batman, his plan would've still succeeded because Harvey Dent and Rachel would've still been kidnapped and tied up with bombs, because of the corrupt police officers. Because the real problem with Gotham is corruption, not lack of funding.

    Again, last time, sayonara: I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT WOULD OR WOULDN'T CRASH A HELICOPTER. I DO NOT CARE. THAT NEVER IS, NEVER WAS, AND NEVER EVER EVER WILL BE AT ALL RELATED TO MY POINT.

    I thought I made it simply, but am obviously wrong about that (and the monks have set up an appointment for me at the self-flagellation room in the abbey, so don't worry, folks, you'll have your blood and lashes) since the issues people got hung up on was 1) my inattention to specific detail in scenic description 2) what would or would not crash a helicopter and 3) their own nonsense about theme and I don't know where that came from.

    My point was, as basic as I can make it: Bruce Wayne uses a Blackhawk for party drop offs. The city of Gotham has news-channel looking copters for doing police work in a city where their elevated train was destroyed. I think, personally, me, myself, and I think, maybe this works as an example of Nolan's opinion on how Bruce spends his money, putting more into gadgets that the civic side of Gotham. It was only one example that always stood out to me. I said all of this at this level of breakdown already, but obviously that wasn't enough. I don't know if this will be simple enough, but like Pandora's vagina, hope remains.

    People do not have to agree, people probably won't agree, great, fine, we're all wondrous beings of light and can feel as we wish and I don't care about that either. Just let the fucking thing drop already.

    No, I don't think it's an example of Nolan's opinion on how Bruce spends his money. I think it's an example of how real police departments all use news-channel looking copters cause that's all they need. Real police departments do not use Apache copters or Blue Thunder, cause that's retarded and not how our open society operates. Nolan's giving us a very realistic take on the Batman universe, so... that's why the copters are like that.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    And actually as far as I can tell everyone gets your point.

    To bad it isn't really supported by the film.

    8->

    Sorry, there is gold in that thar hill.

    Now, let's talk about another movie. Clearly we can't deal with Batman.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    And actually as far as I can tell everyone gets your point.

    To bad it isn't really supported by the film.

    8->

    Sorry, there is gold in that thar hill.

    Wish there was but being told, "People get your point," following right after a lecture on helicopter flight...come on, that's funny...
    Now, let's talk about another movie. Clearly we can't deal with Batman.


    I brought up Tinker Tailor after my rewatch, but i guess it's been all talked to death.

  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    Robocop: Great movie, or greatest movie?

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    And actually as far as I can tell everyone gets your point.

    To bad it isn't really supported by the film.

    8->

    Sorry, your interpretation doesn't really have much support in the film itself.

    Your point in your own words.

    My point was, as basic as I can make it: Bruce Wayne uses a Blackhawk for party drop offs. The city of Gotham has news-channel looking copters for doing police work in a city where their elevated train was destroyed. I think, personally, me, myself, and I think, maybe this works as an example of Nolan's opinion on how Bruce spends his money, putting more into gadgets that the civic side of Gotham. It was only one example that always stood out to me. I said all of this at this level of breakdown already, but obviously that wasn't enough. I don't know if this will be simple enough, but like Pandora's vagina, hope remains.



    But

    1)Bruce didn't pay a cent for most of his crap

    2)Bruce is shown to pay in support of charities, Politician he thinks will do good work and yes, police equipment.

    You keep citing the helicopter but the police having a normal helicopter instead of Millitary grade supports your POV but it doesn't because that isn't money well spent. Getting the Police a new helicopter would do shit to stop organized crime in Gotham. You know what might have helped? Irradiated dollar bills that would let the Police track mop activity and look, he did that!

    You say he hasn't spent money supporting the police or the general welfare but he has.

    So no your opinion is not very supported in the movie.

    Quire.jpg
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    And actually as far as I can tell everyone gets your point.

    To bad it isn't really supported by the film.

    8->

    Sorry, your interpretation doesn't really have much support in the film itself.

    Your point in your own words.

    My point was, as basic as I can make it: Bruce Wayne uses a Blackhawk for party drop offs. The city of Gotham has news-channel looking copters for doing police work in a city where their elevated train was destroyed. I think, personally, me, myself, and I think, maybe this works as an example of Nolan's opinion on how Bruce spends his money, putting more into gadgets that the civic side of Gotham. It was only one example that always stood out to me. I said all of this at this level of breakdown already, but obviously that wasn't enough. I don't know if this will be simple enough, but like Pandora's vagina, hope remains.



    But

    1)Bruce didn't pay a cent for most of his crap

    2)Bruce is shown to pay in support of charities, Politician he thinks will do good work and yes, police equipment.

    You keep citing the helicopter but the police having a normal helicopter instead of Millitary grade supports your POV but it doesn't because that isn't money well spent. Getting the Police a new helicopter would do shit to stop organized crime in Gotham. You know what might have helped? Irradiated dollar bills that would let the Police track mop activity and look, he did that!

    You say he hasn't spent money supporting the police or the general welfare but he has.

    So no your opinion is not very supported in the movie.

    What will placate you and get you to move on?

  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    We've moved on to Robocop now. Although, come to think of it, that movie has no helicopters, so maybe there's nothing to discuss.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    And actually as far as I can tell everyone gets your point.

    To bad it isn't really supported by the film.

    8->

    Sorry, there is gold in that thar hill.

    Wish there was but being told, "People get your point," following right after a lecture on helicopter flight...come on, that's funny...
    Now, let's talk about another movie. Clearly we can't deal with Batman.


    I brought up Tinker Tailor after my rewatch, but i guess it's been all talked to death.

    I hope you arn't talking about me because that wasn't what I said at all.

    Quire.jpg
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Some films that I'd consider pretty much perfect, that haven't been mentioned so far (as far as I can remember, at least):

    - Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: yes, the film is very much a product of its time, especially in its Burt Bacharach soundtrack, but it works. It's perhaps the most charming film I've ever seen, and it transitions beautifully from being fun and frothy to something considerably more melancholy, while still being fun. And the ending is exactly right.
    - Jules et Jim: one of the first films I watched that made me realise just how predictable the structures of most Hollywood films are (e.g. character arcs, plot development). Even though the film was ~40 years old at the time when I saw it, it felt fresh, and it still does so on every rewatching. I like most of the other Truffaut films I've seen, but this is the one I love.
    - The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard: no one mixes wit, sweetness and cynicism as well as Billy Wilder at his best - and for me, those two films are his best. (I will have to rewatch Some Like It Hot at some point, but when I last saw it, probably as a teenager, it didn't resonate all that much with me, whereas The Apartment did.)

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    And actually as far as I can tell everyone gets your point.

    To bad it isn't really supported by the film.

    8->

    Sorry, your interpretation doesn't really have much support in the film itself.

    Your point in your own words.

    My point was, as basic as I can make it: Bruce Wayne uses a Blackhawk for party drop offs. The city of Gotham has news-channel looking copters for doing police work in a city where their elevated train was destroyed. I think, personally, me, myself, and I think, maybe this works as an example of Nolan's opinion on how Bruce spends his money, putting more into gadgets that the civic side of Gotham. It was only one example that always stood out to me. I said all of this at this level of breakdown already, but obviously that wasn't enough. I don't know if this will be simple enough, but like Pandora's vagina, hope remains.



    But

    1)Bruce didn't pay a cent for most of his crap

    2)Bruce is shown to pay in support of charities, Politician he thinks will do good work and yes, police equipment.

    You keep citing the helicopter but the police having a normal helicopter instead of Millitary grade supports your POV but it doesn't because that isn't money well spent. Getting the Police a new helicopter would do shit to stop organized crime in Gotham. You know what might have helped? Irradiated dollar bills that would let the Police track mop activity and look, he did that!

    You say he hasn't spent money supporting the police or the general welfare but he has.

    So no your opinion is not very supported in the movie.

    What will placate you and get you to move on?

    Man just, my god. I pretty clearly wrote that while you were asking to move on.

    You make a point

    I make post countering your point.

    If you don't want to take part in this debate then don't fucking take part in this debate!

    I'm not forcing you, or constantly bringing it back up. You post about it then I post about it.

    Quire.jpg
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Also I still really dig Back to the Future.

    Doesn't feel dated to me.

    Quire.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Robocop: Great movie, or greatest movie?

    Most Optimistic About Detroit Movie

This discussion has been closed.