Isn't that characteristic of Kurosawa's films though is that they're more western in style and more easily understandable to someone not familiar with Japanese culture/history?
I'm not sure to what extent that's true. He's had so much influence on Western cinema that I'd think it might be more fair to say that Western cinema is more similar to Kurosawa.
Why do you feel E.T. is perfect? I already brought up problems like the inconsistent nature of the titular character.
I disagree with your assessment of E.T.'s inconsistency. There's nothing about his savant-like nature that can't be readily explained by the facts that he's both magic (or may as well be) and a being completely out of his element that understands little about the environment he's stuck in.
It's that fish-really-way-far-out-of-water element that allows the character to connect with children on a very innate level, and in doing so frees the script from having to come up with too many explanations as to his agenda or his history. That's part of what makes the story great: the story establishes ET's defining characteristics as being utterly lost and aggressively benevolent, and it's that reciprocal kindness from the children that's really the backbone of the film. One good party understands the goodness of the other, and they try to help each other out of the kindness of each other's hearts.
I meant inconsistent in that Spielberg doesn't seemingly know how smart he wants E.T. to actually be. He has a character that can create an interstellar communicator out of a Speak-N-Spell and an umbrella, but is dumb enough that he gets sick from eating candy off the ground like a dog.
Prometheus was pretty bad. It's not exactly an unenjoyable movie. but god damn does it go nowhere.
You could literally see the moment were the writer was like "Oh shit... I'm gonna have start actually answering some of these mysteries... um... the big guy rips off his head and kills everyone! Fuck explanations, explosions!
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Prometheus was pretty bad. It's not exactly an unenjoyable movie. but god damn does it go nowhere.
You could literally see the moment were the writer was like "Oh shit... I'm gonna have start actually answering some of these mysteries... um... the big guy rips off his head and kills everyone! Fuck explanations, explosions!
That is exactly how I interpreted the moment as well. The writer might as well have literally stepped out of the screen to say "sorry, folks! I sold the sizzle but there's no steak to be had here!"
Isn't that characteristic of Kurosawa's films though is that they're more western in style and more easily understandable to someone not familiar with Japanese culture/history?
I'm not sure to what extent that's true. He's had so much influence on Western cinema that I'd think it might be more fair to say that Western cinema is more similar to Kurosawa.
It's kind of both. He was very influenced by early westerns, but then he sort of made the template for a lot of Western film.
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Yes. He caught a lot of flak from the homefront for being such a 'westernized' director. I mean, of course you'll probably get a bit more out of his films if you know and can identify better with the cultural backgrounds, but it's totally non-essential.
Can we talk more about Kurosawa please? He was just absurdly good at what he did, I'm in love with so many of his films.
Sure!
One of my favorite Kurosawa movies is Throne of Blood. An adaptation of Macbeth that transplants it perfectly to medieval Japan, cuts the subplot fat, and actually improves the twist at the end.
The "trees rising up" is a lot easier to grasp and makes more sense than not being "of woman born" because of a cesarean section. It comes off less as rules-lawyering a prophecy and more as a genuine prophecy misinterpreted by the villain.
Also, apparently at the end, it was real archers shooting real arrows at Mifune. That's why he was so freaked out.
Throne of Blood is great, and Mifune just rampages through that entire goddamn movie, it's fantastic. The ending sequence is ridiculous, so perfectly done.
Ikiru is wonderful. I actually find Rashomon a little overrated.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I enjoyed moonlight kingdom, but it was very Wes Anderson-y.
Isn't that characteristic of Kurosawa's films though is that they're more western in style and more easily understandable to someone not familiar with Japanese culture/history?
I'm not sure to what extent that's true. He's had so much influence on Western cinema that I'd think it might be more fair to say that Western cinema is more similar to Kurosawa.
It's kind of both. He was very influenced by early westerns, but then he sort of made the template for a lot of Western film.
It definitely goes both ways, I suppose, but I feel like Kurosawa gave more to American westerns than he took away.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Why do you feel E.T. is perfect? I already brought up problems like the inconsistent nature of the titular character.
I disagree with your assessment of E.T.'s inconsistency. There's nothing about his savant-like nature that can't be readily explained by the facts that he's both magic (or may as well be) and a being completely out of his element that understands little about the environment he's stuck in.
It's that fish-really-way-far-out-of-water element that allows the character to connect with children on a very innate level, and in doing so frees the script from having to come up with too many explanations as to his agenda or his history. That's part of what makes the story great: the story establishes ET's defining characteristics as being utterly lost and aggressively benevolent, and it's that reciprocal kindness from the children that's really the backbone of the film. One good party understands the goodness of the other, and they try to help each other out of the kindness of each other's hearts.
I meant inconsistent in that Spielberg doesn't seemingly know how smart he wants E.T. to actually be. He has a character that can create an interstellar communicator out of a Speak-N-Spell and an umbrella, but is dumb enough that he gets sick from eating candy off the ground like a dog.
Maybe I'm blanking here. When did he get sick from the Reese's Pieces?
Why do you feel E.T. is perfect? I already brought up problems like the inconsistent nature of the titular character.
I disagree with your assessment of E.T.'s inconsistency. There's nothing about his savant-like nature that can't be readily explained by the facts that he's both magic (or may as well be) and a being completely out of his element that understands little about the environment he's stuck in.
It's that fish-really-way-far-out-of-water element that allows the character to connect with children on a very innate level, and in doing so frees the script from having to come up with too many explanations as to his agenda or his history. That's part of what makes the story great: the story establishes ET's defining characteristics as being utterly lost and aggressively benevolent, and it's that reciprocal kindness from the children that's really the backbone of the film. One good party understands the goodness of the other, and they try to help each other out of the kindness of each other's hearts.
I meant inconsistent in that Spielberg doesn't seemingly know how smart he wants E.T. to actually be. He has a character that can create an interstellar communicator out of a Speak-N-Spell and an umbrella, but is dumb enough that he gets sick from eating candy off the ground like a dog.
Maybe I'm blanking here. When did he get sick from the Reese's Pieces?
Isn't that assumably what sends him on his downward spiral?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Why do you feel E.T. is perfect? I already brought up problems like the inconsistent nature of the titular character.
I disagree with your assessment of E.T.'s inconsistency. There's nothing about his savant-like nature that can't be readily explained by the facts that he's both magic (or may as well be) and a being completely out of his element that understands little about the environment he's stuck in.
It's that fish-really-way-far-out-of-water element that allows the character to connect with children on a very innate level, and in doing so frees the script from having to come up with too many explanations as to his agenda or his history. That's part of what makes the story great: the story establishes ET's defining characteristics as being utterly lost and aggressively benevolent, and it's that reciprocal kindness from the children that's really the backbone of the film. One good party understands the goodness of the other, and they try to help each other out of the kindness of each other's hearts.
I meant inconsistent in that Spielberg doesn't seemingly know how smart he wants E.T. to actually be. He has a character that can create an interstellar communicator out of a Speak-N-Spell and an umbrella, but is dumb enough that he gets sick from eating candy off the ground like a dog.
Maybe I'm blanking here. When did he get sick from the Reese's Pieces?
Isn't that assumably what sends him on his downward spiral?
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.
Why do you feel E.T. is perfect? I already brought up problems like the inconsistent nature of the titular character.
I disagree with your assessment of E.T.'s inconsistency. There's nothing about his savant-like nature that can't be readily explained by the facts that he's both magic (or may as well be) and a being completely out of his element that understands little about the environment he's stuck in.
It's that fish-really-way-far-out-of-water element that allows the character to connect with children on a very innate level, and in doing so frees the script from having to come up with too many explanations as to his agenda or his history. That's part of what makes the story great: the story establishes ET's defining characteristics as being utterly lost and aggressively benevolent, and it's that reciprocal kindness from the children that's really the backbone of the film. One good party understands the goodness of the other, and they try to help each other out of the kindness of each other's hearts.
I meant inconsistent in that Spielberg doesn't seemingly know how smart he wants E.T. to actually be. He has a character that can create an interstellar communicator out of a Speak-N-Spell and an umbrella, but is dumb enough that he gets sick from eating candy off the ground like a dog.
Maybe I'm blanking here. When did he get sick from the Reese's Pieces?
Isn't that assumably what sends him on his downward spiral?
Please tell me you're serious.
It's been years since I've seen the film, man. The last time was the "walkie-talkie" version which basically started pushing it out of my head. Either way, he's super smart, but eats off the ground like a dog.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
Well I think there's your mistake. It's not a "rather".
I'm a fan of many flavors, but if I'm out shopping and I see a new vanilla, I might try it out.
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Isn't that characteristic of Kurosawa's films though is that they're more western in style and more easily understandable to someone not familiar with Japanese culture/history?
I'm not sure to what extent that's true. He's had so much influence on Western cinema that I'd think it might be more fair to say that Western cinema is more similar to Kurosawa.
It's kind of both. He was very influenced by early westerns, but then he sort of made the template for a lot of Western film.
It definitely goes both ways, I suppose, but I feel like Kurosawa gave more to American westerns than he took away.
I'd agree with that.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Why do you feel E.T. is perfect? I already brought up problems like the inconsistent nature of the titular character.
I disagree with your assessment of E.T.'s inconsistency. There's nothing about his savant-like nature that can't be readily explained by the facts that he's both magic (or may as well be) and a being completely out of his element that understands little about the environment he's stuck in.
It's that fish-really-way-far-out-of-water element that allows the character to connect with children on a very innate level, and in doing so frees the script from having to come up with too many explanations as to his agenda or his history. That's part of what makes the story great: the story establishes ET's defining characteristics as being utterly lost and aggressively benevolent, and it's that reciprocal kindness from the children that's really the backbone of the film. One good party understands the goodness of the other, and they try to help each other out of the kindness of each other's hearts.
I meant inconsistent in that Spielberg doesn't seemingly know how smart he wants E.T. to actually be. He has a character that can create an interstellar communicator out of a Speak-N-Spell and an umbrella, but is dumb enough that he gets sick from eating candy off the ground like a dog.
Maybe I'm blanking here. When did he get sick from the Reese's Pieces?
Isn't that assumably what sends him on his downward spiral?
Please tell me you're serious.
It's been years since I've seen the film, man. The last time was the "walkie-talkie" version which basically started pushing it out of my head. Either way, he's super smart, but eats off the ground like a dog.
He picked candy off the carpet with his hands. Candy that Elliot had put on the carpet.
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.
Well I think there's your mistake. It's not a "rather".
I'm a fan of many flavors, but if I'm out shopping and I see a new vanilla, I might try it out.
I see my metaphor fell flat.
Vanilla=Indiana Jones by Spielberg
Chocolate Chip=A new, Indy-like film
Off-Brand X Vanilla=More Indiana Jones with a completely different cast and director
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.
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?"
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
Well I think there's your mistake. It's not a "rather".
I'm a fan of many flavors, but if I'm out shopping and I see a new vanilla, I might try it out.
I see my metaphor fell flat.
Vanilla=Indiana Jones by Spielberg
Chocolate Chip=A new, Indy-like film
Off-Brand X Vanilla=More Indiana Jones with a completely different cast and director
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.
Well, no, I can stick with mine. It isn't a "I want this more than that" thing. It's a "I wouldn't mind if this existed".
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.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
That's a novel take on TDK.
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.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
That's a novel take on TDK.
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.
I don't see that at all, like at all. Though, the evidence you present is in all Batman ever. If anything it's the opposite message: Wayne can afford to do the things the cops can't. Somehow I don't think that the entire movie is a commentary on not paying your fair share in taxes.
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.
That's a novel take on TDK.
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.
I don't see that at all, like at all. Though, the evidence you present is in all Batman ever. If anything it's the opposite message: Wayne can afford to do the things the cops can't. Somehow I don't think that the entire movie is a commentary on not paying your fair share in taxes.
I'm saying Nolan is making Bruce culpable by showing that he's the type of guy who will watch an underfunded police force struggle with the tide of Gotham crime while he puts tons of cash into his Bat-goodies. Batman thus becomes responsible for not helping the city in ways that are legitimate because he wants to play vigilante. Even the Joker basically says the only reason he came to Gotham was because of Batman.
Mad King George on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.
That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.
I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.
That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.
I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.
In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.
I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'll be really interested to see how TDKR plays out. MKG may be crazy on this, but he's not exactly wrong, and I'm not certain Nolan disagrees.
Cracked.com actually had a recent After Hours episode devoted to the fact that Nolan's Batman is, on paper, a narcissistic sociopath who is incontrovertibly making Gotham worse despite his many resources and abilities to make it better through legal means.
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.
It comes in cycles. Stuff starts out silly, then we get dark deconstructions, then we get a sinking pit of grimdark because the swearing makes it more real, then we get the over the top explosions of id powered by awesome, then we get samey unsubtly explosions, then we get levity-driven comics to cut the fat, then we get unabashed silliness, then we're back.
In comics, we're starting with the ridiculousness of the silver age, followed by the unabashed grimdark of the 80's, followed by the more daka 90's, followed by the current era of Atomic Robo and Runaways. We're starting to see some attempts at deconstruction now, although everyone seems way to taken with self-referential humour as false deconstruction to try really taking the stuff apart.
In giant robot anime, the general history is that things got complex and needlessly arcane after Evangelion, and are now drifting into the "fuck it, why not" storytelling of Gurran Lagann.
The Dark Knight Returns will end with Batman getting into increasingly ridiculous action sequences, culminating in him blowing up a van full of bad guys with a single batarang and a half-insane phone call to Commissioner Gordon in which he confesses that he's been Batman all along.
The final scene will be Gordon running into Bruce at a fundraiser and telling him that Batman doesn't actually exist.
I'll be really interested to see how TDKR plays out. MKG may be crazy on this, but he's not exactly wrong, and I'm not certain Nolan disagrees.
Cracked.com actually had a recent After Hours episode devoted to the fact that Nolan's Batman is, on paper, a narcissistic sociopath who is incontrovertibly making Gotham worse despite his many resources and abilities to make it better through legal means.
I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just saying that I don't feel like this is especially a Nolan invention. In the other incarnations we saw more of the charity side, so I think that might be where the Nolanverse seems worse.
Bane spent his entire adolescence in a South American prison. He survived shankings and inhumane conditions by being the alpha dog over all other prisoners. Bane comes to Gotham because he sees Batman as an alpha dog.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm also not especially interested in the idea that Bruce Wayne should just give all his money to the cops when the entire point was the government and police were super corrupt.
It seems like you're ignoring the entire opening third of this trilogy (and we need to see the last third before we start making calls like this anyway.)
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.
I'm sure the next reboot will be lighter in tone than Nolan's.
I'll be really interested to see how TDKR plays out. MKG may be crazy on this, but he's not exactly wrong, and I'm not certain Nolan disagrees.
Cracked.com actually had a recent After Hours episode devoted to the fact that Nolan's Batman is, on paper, a narcissistic sociopath who is incontrovertibly making Gotham worse despite his many resources and abilities to make it better through legal means.
That's true. I don't think he's a sociopath. Nor is Bruce exactly sane.
I'll be really interested to see how TDKR plays out. MKG may be crazy on this, but he's not exactly wrong, and I'm not certain Nolan disagrees.
Cracked.com actually had a recent After Hours episode devoted to the fact that Nolan's Batman is, on paper, a narcissistic sociopath who is incontrovertibly making Gotham worse despite his many resources and abilities to make it better through legal means.
I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just saying that I don't feel like this is especially a Nolan invention. In the other incarnations we saw more of the charity side, so I think that might be where the Nolanverse seems worse.
It has nothing to do with not seeing Bruce donate Tom's Shoes to African kids.
I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.
That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.
I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.
In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.
I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.
That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.
I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.
In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.
I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.
That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.
I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.
In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.
I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.
Exactly. But it also is not (so far) the main thrust of the series that Bruce Wayne should give all this money to the GCPD and sit quietly at home.
Posts
I'm not sure to what extent that's true. He's had so much influence on Western cinema that I'd think it might be more fair to say that Western cinema is more similar to Kurosawa.
I meant inconsistent in that Spielberg doesn't seemingly know how smart he wants E.T. to actually be. He has a character that can create an interstellar communicator out of a Speak-N-Spell and an umbrella, but is dumb enough that he gets sick from eating candy off the ground like a dog.
That is exactly how I interpreted the moment as well. The writer might as well have literally stepped out of the screen to say "sorry, folks! I sold the sizzle but there's no steak to be had here!"
Criterion has a lot of love for him.
http://www.criterion.com/explore/3-akira-kurosawa
I want to find/order The Idiot based on the Dostoevsky novel, part of criterion's postwar Kurosawa collection.
It's kind of both. He was very influenced by early westerns, but then he sort of made the template for a lot of Western film.
Throne of Blood is great, and Mifune just rampages through that entire goddamn movie, it's fantastic. The ending sequence is ridiculous, so perfectly done.
Ikiru is wonderful. I actually find Rashomon a little overrated.
It definitely goes both ways, I suppose, but I feel like Kurosawa gave more to American westerns than he took away.
Maybe I'm blanking here. When did he get sick from the Reese's Pieces?
Isn't that assumably what sends him on his downward spiral?
Please tell me you're serious.
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 been years since I've seen the film, man. The last time was the "walkie-talkie" version which basically started pushing it out of my head. Either way, he's super smart, but eats off the ground like a dog.
Well I think there's your mistake. It's not a "rather".
I'm a fan of many flavors, but if I'm out shopping and I see a new vanilla, I might try it out.
I'd agree with that.
He picked candy off the carpet with his hands. Candy that Elliot had put on the carpet.
I see my metaphor fell flat.
Vanilla=Indiana Jones by Spielberg
Chocolate Chip=A new, Indy-like film
Off-Brand X Vanilla=More Indiana Jones with a completely different cast and director
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.
Didn't Elliot coax him into the house from the woods with candy?
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?"
Well, no, I can stick with mine. It isn't a "I want this more than that" thing. It's a "I wouldn't mind if this existed".
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.
That's a novel take on TDK.
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.
That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.
In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.
I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
Cracked.com actually had a recent After Hours episode devoted to the fact that Nolan's Batman is, on paper, a narcissistic sociopath who is incontrovertibly making Gotham worse despite his many resources and abilities to make it better through legal means.
It comes in cycles. Stuff starts out silly, then we get dark deconstructions, then we get a sinking pit of grimdark because the swearing makes it more real, then we get the over the top explosions of id powered by awesome, then we get samey unsubtly explosions, then we get levity-driven comics to cut the fat, then we get unabashed silliness, then we're back.
In comics, we're starting with the ridiculousness of the silver age, followed by the unabashed grimdark of the 80's, followed by the more daka 90's, followed by the current era of Atomic Robo and Runaways. We're starting to see some attempts at deconstruction now, although everyone seems way to taken with self-referential humour as false deconstruction to try really taking the stuff apart.
In giant robot anime, the general history is that things got complex and needlessly arcane after Evangelion, and are now drifting into the "fuck it, why not" storytelling of Gurran Lagann.
The final scene will be Gordon running into Bruce at a fundraiser and telling him that Batman doesn't actually exist.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just saying that I don't feel like this is especially a Nolan invention. In the other incarnations we saw more of the charity side, so I think that might be where the Nolanverse seems worse.
It seems like you're ignoring the entire opening third of this trilogy (and we need to see the last third before we start making calls like this anyway.)
I'm sure the next reboot will be lighter in tone than Nolan's.
That's true. I don't think he's a sociopath. Nor is Bruce exactly sane.
It has nothing to do with not seeing Bruce donate Tom's Shoes to African kids.
Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?
Exactly. But it also is not (so far) the main thrust of the series that Bruce Wayne should give all this money to the GCPD and sit quietly at home.