What makes you think GCPD is underfunded (anymore than say the NYPD or Chicago PD are)? They don't have the tank that Bruce stole from his company, but again Gotham's problems can't really be solved by throwing money at the police department.
It also misses the whole point of the first movie. Like completely misses it. And the point of the opening of TDK.
Batman is a SYMBOL. That's his power. It's not about having the best, most expensive toys, it's about the way he makes criminals feel afraid and ordinary people feel safe.
A donation to the police department can't solve that.
What makes you think GCPD is underfunded (anymore than say the NYPD or Chicago PD are)? They don't have the tank that Bruce stole from his company, but again Gotham's problems can't really be solved by throwing money at the police department.
It also misses the whole point of the first movie. Like completely misses it. And the point of the opening of TDK.
Batman is a SYMBOL. That's his power. It's not about having the best, most expensive toys, it's about the way he makes criminals feel afraid and ordinary people feel safe.
A donation to the police department can't solve that.
Didn't see Begins.
...
So you are judging this whole thing based upon incomplete information and you somehow missed all the "I want to be a symbol" stuff in the Dark Knight?
What makes you think GCPD is underfunded (anymore than say the NYPD or Chicago PD are)? They don't have the tank that Bruce stole from his company, but again Gotham's problems can't really be solved by throwing money at the police department.
It also misses the whole point of the first movie. Like completely misses it. And the point of the opening of TDK.
Batman is a SYMBOL. That's his power. It's not about having the best, most expensive toys, it's about the way he makes criminals feel afraid and ordinary people feel safe.
A donation to the police department can't solve that.
Didn't see Begins.
...
So you are judging this whole thing based upon incomplete information and you somehow missed all the "I want to be a symbol" stuff in the Dark Knight?
1) A movie should stand on its own, and
2) Symbol/schmymbol. The police have shitty equipment, Wayne has super technology.
What makes you think GCPD is underfunded (anymore than say the NYPD or Chicago PD are)? They don't have the tank that Bruce stole from his company, but again Gotham's problems can't really be solved by throwing money at the police department.
It also misses the whole point of the first movie. Like completely misses it. And the point of the opening of TDK.
Batman is a SYMBOL. That's his power. It's not about having the best, most expensive toys, it's about the way he makes criminals feel afraid and ordinary people feel safe.
A donation to the police department can't solve that.
Didn't see Begins.
...
So you are judging this whole thing based upon incomplete information and you somehow missed all the "I want to be a symbol" stuff in the Dark Knight?
1) A movie should stand on its own, and
2) Symbol/schmymbol. The police have shitty equipment, Wayne has super technology.
That first point has nothing to do with it.
We are not discussing anything that has to do with the plot of the movie at all. You are making a broad claim about the setting. One that the movie didn't need to deal with.
The police don't have shitty equipment and Batman is giving them better equipment.
And the movies shows you that that new equipment does no good.
A new helicopter wouldn't have helped the Police Catch the Joker.
Well that's an incredibly baffling choice that about half explains everything.
I should clarify. Got halfway through a couple of times, but Bale's stupid gravel voice COMBINED with Katie Holmes's ability to be less of a charismatic entity than a cardboard ghost killed it both times.
In numero dos, the sheer number of great actors outweighed Bale's voice.
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
Mad King George on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Prometheus started so good, then it jumps the shark and gets silly.
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What is outclassing them then? Cause it seemed to be "planning" and "brains".
And, like, do you not get that the Joker is not (or was not) the main problem with Gotham? Like, this isn't even subtext in the movie, it's outright text.
shryke on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What? You mean in the middle of the movie?
The part where the Police capture The Joker?
Not that anything you're saying really matches with what you are saying but it's the only highway scene in the movie.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
George did you read my post above at all.
Barring that, did you notice the entire first third of TDK at all.
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What is outclassing them then? Cause it seemed to be "planning" and "brains".
And, like, do you not get that the Joker is not (or was not) the main problem with Gotham? Like, this isn't even subtext in the movie, it's outright text.
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.
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What is outclassing them then? Cause it seemed to be "planning" and "brains".
And, like, do you not get that the Joker is not (or was not) the main problem with Gotham? Like, this isn't even subtext in the movie, it's outright text.
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.
Wait, at what point were the police "outclassed" by only having a standard police helicopter? That never happens.
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What is outclassing them then? Cause it seemed to be "planning" and "brains".
And, like, do you not get that the Joker is not (or was not) the main problem with Gotham? Like, this isn't even subtext in the movie, it's outright text.
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.
Wait, at what point were the police "outclassed" by only having a standard police helicopter? That never happens.
What movie did you actually see?
There's a chase and the police helicopter gives up. Goddamn, people, I don't remember every single detail but that stood out to me. I didn't see the thing 5 times in theatres.
Mad King George on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
For fuck's sake, the Joker burns a giant pile of money because the tools of his terrorist trade are "cheap"! He literally says that. He brings the police force to its knees with a pack of lunatics, some guns, knives, cell phones and cheap explosives. He uses outlandish schemes to compensate for the fact that the police are better funded than he is.
In that highway scene he's driving around in a freaking semi.
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What is outclassing them then? Cause it seemed to be "planning" and "brains".
And, like, do you not get that the Joker is not (or was not) the main problem with Gotham? Like, this isn't even subtext in the movie, it's outright text.
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.
Wait, at what point were the police "outclassed" by only having a standard police helicopter? That never happens.
What movie did you actually see?
There's a chase and the police helicopter gives up. Goddamn, people, I don't remember every single detail. I didn't see the thing 5 times in theatres.
YOu don't remember any details.
That didn't happen.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What is outclassing them then? Cause it seemed to be "planning" and "brains".
And, like, do you not get that the Joker is not (or was not) the main problem with Gotham? Like, this isn't even subtext in the movie, it's outright text.
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.
Wait, at what point were the police "outclassed" by only having a standard police helicopter? That never happens.
What movie did you actually see?
There's a chase and the police helicopter gives up. Goddamn, people, I don't remember every single detail, but that stood out to me. I didn't see the thing 5 times in theatres.
It still doesn't explain how you missed all the hints in the TDK. The movie is still pushing the same thematic stuff as BB.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What is outclassing them then? Cause it seemed to be "planning" and "brains".
And, like, do you not get that the Joker is not (or was not) the main problem with Gotham? Like, this isn't even subtext in the movie, it's outright text.
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.
Wait, at what point were the police "outclassed" by only having a standard police helicopter? That never happens.
What movie did you actually see?
There's a chase and the police helicopter gives up. Goddamn, people, I don't remember every single detail. I didn't see the thing 5 times in theatres.
YOu don't remember any details.
That didn't happen.
You're probably right.
When the Joker does things like threaten to blow up a hospital when that one guy's gonna reveal Batman's identity because he wants Gotham to have a better class of criminal and wants to keep Batman around for the jollies, I was flat out told by people that the Joker hadn't arisen in Gotham as a reponse to Batman's presence. So apparently we did see very different movies.
Actually, Nightmarenny, WTF are you talking about?
Right after Batman's car turns into his batcycle there's a shot of a Gotham PD helicopter crashing, and it's a shitty copter and not at all like the Blackhawk he uses for party drop offs.
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
The fact that everyone's counter argument to EVERYTHING I've said is including arguing against '"explicit" shit that happened in the movie.
No, you don't even know what happened in the movie. You've repeatedly completely messed up details and your argument makes no sense because of it.
At no point in the movie is it ever mentioned or shown that the police department is underfunded or that more money would help them stop crime better.
The Joker's rise to power is very much a consequence of Batman's existence. But neither the cause or solution to that is related to a the funding or equipment the police force has.
The fact that everyone's counter argument to EVERYTHING I've said is including arguing against '"explicit" shit that happened in the movie.
No, you don't even know what happened in the movie. You've repeatedly completely messed up details and your argument makes no sense because of it.
At no point in the movie is it ever mentioned or shown that the police department is underfunded or that more money would help them stop crime better.
The Joker's rise to power is very much a consequence of Batman's existence. But neither the cause or solution to that is related to a the funding or equipment the police force has.
Actually, I just rewatched the chase online. I was right about the copter.
So in the time since I last posted in this thread and now I've watched a shitton of films. Random thoughts on random films I've seen:
La Jetée - Very good. I think it's striking that one of my favorite parts of a film made up of still images had nothing to do with the visual aspect: the sound was pretty amazing. Some of the rhythmic noises especially were extremely compelling.
Raising Arizona - Funny, fun, not amazing but still worthwhile. Nicholas Cage is not a bad actor and people who say he is are silly. Especially because:
Adaptation - Is so good. SO GOOD. FUCK IT WORKS ON SO MANY LEVELS. It is on so many levels. I mean... oh man. Just so good. I guess maybe it's a movie for people who like screenplays or the idea of screenplays or the act of writing or the act of creation or... okay forget it, this movie is great no matter what you like but there are many reasons why it might be even better than great. This is the second Charlie Kaufman movie I've seen and he's now rocketed up to the top of my "must watch" list.
Full Metal Jacket - Kubrick can do no wrong. I've heard a lot of people say that this breaks down after the beginning part in boot camp but I don't share that sentiment at all. I mean yeah, the boot camp part is amazing, but I really thought the rest of it was stupendous too. Great use of music and that ending scene was haunting in the best kind of way.
Once Upon a Time in the West - My favorite Leone western is still For a Few Dollars More but I really like this one too. I think comparing it to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly kind of misses the point: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is definitely about spectacle and capping off the Dollars Trilogy, whereas Once Upon a Time in the West is much more directly about westerns.
City of Gode/Cidade de Deus - Beautifully shot, gritty as anything, and compelling to watch with another haunting ending. I didn't particularly like the nonlinearity in there but the rest of this movie worked, and worked well. A good study in the craft: how to do everything right, basically.
High Fidelity - I love how John Cusack's character is such an asshole in this movie. Every time I see someone review a film who says "I didn't like this movie because I couldn't relate to the main character because he/she was [a jerk/an asshole/self-centered/etc.] I just want to point to movies like this. Art can be about people who are flawed! Art can be about people who are deeply flawed! Art can be about people who are terrible and yet who aren't serial killers. Cusack's character in this film is terrible in the most realistic, pedestrian, potentially-redeemable-but-not-Disney-movie-redeemed, down to earth terrible that you can really find in fiction, and the movie's all the better for it.
A Woman Is a Woman/Une Femme est une femme - The first Godard I've ever seen. Wonderful send-up of musicals and funny even aside from that. I could see someone getting pissed off with what later generations have fine-tuned into whimsy but I have no problem eating that shit up, let alone tolerating it, when it shows up in Wes Anderson or whatever, so when Godard more or less invents it I have no issues either.
Videodrome - Fantastic. A little fuzzy near the end but still great. I can't tell Peter Weller apart from James Woods, and I can't tell James Woods apart from Richard E. Grant, but I can tell Richard E. Grant apart from Peter Weller. Does this mean I have a brain tumor?
SO, who wants to talk about any of these films so we can all shut up about fucking Batman and Mad King George not understanding it?
The only one of those films I've seen is Full Metal Jacket.
It was pretty alright.
I actually don't remember most of it after boot camp though.
I have a problem in movies in that I tend to read the premise and then dismiss them.
Like I find it hard to decide to watch something with a description as bland as "A man sets out on a journey across the midwest to find his biological parents". It sounds boring as shit to me.
I mean, that might be the best movie ever, but I just can't invest. I feel like I'm probly missing out.
But goddamn do I hate to make it half-way through a movie and realize it's not getting any better.
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?
I do love me some Adaptation, but I love Nicholas Cage in general, and media that blends fantasy and the real world (like Tristram Shandy and The Trip, for example). It's perfect for me.
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
It's the League of Shadows' who are responsible IMO. Without them Batman wouldn't have been created, trained or fought against all they'd have is a city that torn itself to pieces for an unknown reason (they're not going to figure out the fear gas plot device). The police sure as shit didn't stand a chance without Batman. I don't think they even realized the LOS existed, unless I'm remembering it wrong.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
It's the League of Shadows' who are responsible IMO. Without them Batman wouldn't have been created, trained or fought against all they'd have is a city that torn itself to pieces for an unknown reason (they're not going to figure out the fear gas plot device). The police sure as shit didn't stand a chance without Batman. I don't think they even realized the LOS existed, unless I'm remembering it wrong.
Well, the members of the LOS who infiltrated the police sure did.
The fact that everyone's counter argument to EVERYTHING I've said is including arguing against '"explicit" shit that happened in the movie.
No, you don't even know what happened in the movie. You've repeatedly completely messed up details and your argument makes no sense because of it.
At no point in the movie is it ever mentioned or shown that the police department is underfunded or that more money would help them stop crime better.
The Joker's rise to power is very much a consequence of Batman's existence. But neither the cause or solution to that is related to a the funding or equipment the police force has.
Actually, I just rewatched the chase online. I was right about the copter.
You mean the copter they take out with wire strung between 2 buildings?
Which:
a) wasn't what you said
b) does nothing to support your point about underfunding
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
It's the League of Shadows' who are responsible IMO. Without them Batman wouldn't have been created, trained or fought against all they'd have is a city that torn itself to pieces for an unknown reason (they're not going to figure out the fear gas plot device). The police sure as shit didn't stand a chance without Batman. I don't think they even realized the LOS existed, unless I'm remembering it wrong.
Well, the members of the LOS who infiltrated the police sure did.
Once again - corruption, not underfunding.
Nice sting, but I never once even brought this up as a theme of the film. I never even talked theme. But nice going getting another one in.
The fact that everyone's counter argument to EVERYTHING I've said is including arguing against '"explicit" shit that happened in the movie.
No, you don't even know what happened in the movie. You've repeatedly completely messed up details and your argument makes no sense because of it.
At no point in the movie is it ever mentioned or shown that the police department is underfunded or that more money would help them stop crime better.
The Joker's rise to power is very much a consequence of Batman's existence. But neither the cause or solution to that is related to a the funding or equipment the police force has.
Actually, I just rewatched the chase online. I was right about the copter.
You mean the copter they take out with wire strung between 2 buildings?
Which:
a) wasn't what you said
b) does nothing to support your point about underfunding
I said the copter was outclassed in the chase scene. I would think being done in by a piece of high tensile wire indicates it was not as good a helicopter as a Blackhawk, along with the fact that it looks like a news chopper, but ymmv.
Also, I never spoke about funding as a theme. I never even spoke about theme. At all, period, full stop. I spoke about it in relation to Bruce's character. Half a dozen non- (not even mis-) readings of me and a dozen or so soapboxes about theme and what the film is really about later, people are still not even talking about what I originally said. G'night on this particular topic, everybody!
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
It's the League of Shadows' who are responsible IMO. Without them Batman wouldn't have been created, trained or fought against all they'd have is a city that torn itself to pieces for an unknown reason (they're not going to figure out the fear gas plot device). The police sure as shit didn't stand a chance without Batman. I don't think they even realized the LOS existed, unless I'm remembering it wrong.
Well, the members of the LOS who infiltrated the police sure did.
Once again - corruption, not underfunding.
Weren't they posing as regular criminals? I don't think the LOS likes to reveal itself to much. Hell, I'm unclear whether Scarecrow or Falcone knew exactly who and what they were only very scary people like a random terrorist organization.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
It's the League of Shadows' who are responsible IMO. Without them Batman wouldn't have been created, trained or fought against all they'd have is a city that torn itself to pieces for an unknown reason (they're not going to figure out the fear gas plot device). The police sure as shit didn't stand a chance without Batman. I don't think they even realized the LOS existed, unless I'm remembering it wrong.
Well, the members of the LOS who infiltrated the police sure did.
Once again - corruption, not underfunding.
Weren't they posing as regular criminals? I don't think the LOS likes to reveal itself to much. Hell, I'm unclear whether Scarecrow or Falcone knew exactly who and what they were only very scary people like a random terrorist organization.
There were LOS members posing as cops driving (IIRC) a SWAT van onto the island that contained the microwave emitter. Also the cops that busted into the asylum, gave Scarecrow his mask back, and told him "Time to play" were LOS members.
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
It's the League of Shadows' who are responsible IMO. Without them Batman wouldn't have been created, trained or fought against all they'd have is a city that torn itself to pieces for an unknown reason (they're not going to figure out the fear gas plot device). The police sure as shit didn't stand a chance without Batman. I don't think they even realized the LOS existed, unless I'm remembering it wrong.
Well, the members of the LOS who infiltrated the police sure did.
Once again - corruption, not underfunding.
Nice sting, but I never once even brought this up as a theme of the film. I never even talked theme. But nice going getting another one in.
The fact that everyone's counter argument to EVERYTHING I've said is including arguing against '"explicit" shit that happened in the movie.
No, you don't even know what happened in the movie. You've repeatedly completely messed up details and your argument makes no sense because of it.
At no point in the movie is it ever mentioned or shown that the police department is underfunded or that more money would help them stop crime better.
The Joker's rise to power is very much a consequence of Batman's existence. But neither the cause or solution to that is related to a the funding or equipment the police force has.
Actually, I just rewatched the chase online. I was right about the copter.
You mean the copter they take out with wire strung between 2 buildings?
Which:
a) wasn't what you said
b) does nothing to support your point about underfunding
I said the copter was outclassed in the chase scene. I would think being done in by a piece of high tensile wire indicates it was not as good a helicopter as a Blackhawk, along with the fact that it looks like a news chopper, but ymmv.
Also, I never spoke about funding as a theme. I never even spoke about theme. At all, period, full stop. I spoke about it in relation to Bruce's character. Half a dozen non- (not even mis-) readings of me and a dozen or so soapboxes about theme and what the film is really about later, people are still not even talking about what I originally said. G'night on this particular topic, everybody!
You do realize that helicopters cannot fly if their rotors are damaged, right?
I mean, Bruce may have been trying to portray the whole "superficial playboy" persona thing, but it had absolutely nothing to do with how he treated Gotham or its institutions.
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
It's the League of Shadows' who are responsible IMO. Without them Batman wouldn't have been created, trained or fought against all they'd have is a city that torn itself to pieces for an unknown reason (they're not going to figure out the fear gas plot device). The police sure as shit didn't stand a chance without Batman. I don't think they even realized the LOS existed, unless I'm remembering it wrong.
Well, the members of the LOS who infiltrated the police sure did.
Once again - corruption, not underfunding.
Nice sting, but I never once even brought this up as a theme of the film. I never even talked theme. But nice going getting another one in.
The fact that everyone's counter argument to EVERYTHING I've said is including arguing against '"explicit" shit that happened in the movie.
No, you don't even know what happened in the movie. You've repeatedly completely messed up details and your argument makes no sense because of it.
At no point in the movie is it ever mentioned or shown that the police department is underfunded or that more money would help them stop crime better.
The Joker's rise to power is very much a consequence of Batman's existence. But neither the cause or solution to that is related to a the funding or equipment the police force has.
Actually, I just rewatched the chase online. I was right about the copter.
You mean the copter they take out with wire strung between 2 buildings?
Which:
a) wasn't what you said
b) does nothing to support your point about underfunding
I said the copter was outclassed in the chase scene. I would think being done in by a piece of high tensile wire indicates it was not as good a helicopter as a Blackhawk, along with the fact that it looks like a news chopper, but ymmv.
Also, I never spoke about funding as a theme. I never even spoke about theme. At all, period, full stop. I spoke about it in relation to Bruce's character. Half a dozen non- (not even mis-) readings of me and a dozen or so soapboxes about theme and what the film is really about later, people are still not even talking about what I originally said. G'night on this particular topic, everybody!
You do realize that helicopters cannot fly if their rotors are damaged, right?
Again, that has nothing to do with my initial point. I don't care.
Mad King George on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
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.
Posts
Didn't see Begins.
...
So you are judging this whole thing based upon incomplete information and you somehow missed all the "I want to be a symbol" stuff in the Dark Knight?
1) A movie should stand on its own, and
2) Symbol/schmymbol. The police have shitty equipment, Wayne has super technology.
That first point has nothing to do with it.
We are not discussing anything that has to do with the plot of the movie at all. You are making a broad claim about the setting. One that the movie didn't need to deal with.
The police don't have shitty equipment and Batman is giving them better equipment.
And the movies shows you that that new equipment does no good.
A new helicopter wouldn't have helped the Police Catch the Joker.
I should clarify. Got halfway through a couple of times, but Bale's stupid gravel voice COMBINED with Katie Holmes's ability to be less of a charismatic entity than a cardboard ghost killed it both times.
In numero dos, the sheer number of great actors outweighed Bale's voice.
I mean, the entire Batman/Joker/Dent threeway that anchors the movie is built on the idea of symbolism and the way they motivate and inspire people.
It also heavily covers the corruption of the police force. The entire point that movie works off is that this is not a problem that can be solved with money. If it was, they'd be talking about the underfunding of the police force, not it's corruption.
Okay, again, when the police are chasing Batman and the Joker down the freeway/whatever it is, what is outclassing them isn't some dude at the office taking graft.
What is outclassing them then? Cause it seemed to be "planning" and "brains".
And, like, do you not get that the Joker is not (or was not) the main problem with Gotham? Like, this isn't even subtext in the movie, it's outright text.
What? You mean in the middle of the movie?
The part where the Police capture The Joker?
Not that anything you're saying really matches with what you are saying but it's the only highway scene in the movie.
Barring that, did you notice the entire first third of TDK at all.
Yeah, with the bank heaist, intro to Dent, so forth et al.?
Wait, at what point were the police "outclassed" by only having a standard police helicopter? That never happens.
What movie did you actually see?
There's a chase and the police helicopter gives up. Goddamn, people, I don't remember every single detail but that stood out to me. I didn't see the thing 5 times in theatres.
In that highway scene he's driving around in a freaking semi.
YOu don't remember any details.
That didn't happen.
the movie in his head really sucked.
You're probably right.
The fact that everyone's counter argument to EVERYTHING I've said is including arguing against '"explicit" shit that happened in the movie.
TDK is very much about Batman dealing with the consequences of becoming Batman - things becoming worse before they become better, pretty much as a direct result of his existence.
So you could say he's a huge dick because everything in TDK is his fault, and it's kinda true.
No, you don't even know what happened in the movie. You've repeatedly completely messed up details and your argument makes no sense because of it.
At no point in the movie is it ever mentioned or shown that the police department is underfunded or that more money would help them stop crime better.
The Joker's rise to power is very much a consequence of Batman's existence. But neither the cause or solution to that is related to a the funding or equipment the police force has.
Actually, I just rewatched the chase online. I was right about the copter.
So in the time since I last posted in this thread and now I've watched a shitton of films. Random thoughts on random films I've seen:
La Jetée - Very good. I think it's striking that one of my favorite parts of a film made up of still images had nothing to do with the visual aspect: the sound was pretty amazing. Some of the rhythmic noises especially were extremely compelling.
Raising Arizona - Funny, fun, not amazing but still worthwhile. Nicholas Cage is not a bad actor and people who say he is are silly. Especially because:
Adaptation - Is so good. SO GOOD. FUCK IT WORKS ON SO MANY LEVELS. It is on so many levels. I mean... oh man. Just so good. I guess maybe it's a movie for people who like screenplays or the idea of screenplays or the act of writing or the act of creation or... okay forget it, this movie is great no matter what you like but there are many reasons why it might be even better than great. This is the second Charlie Kaufman movie I've seen and he's now rocketed up to the top of my "must watch" list.
Full Metal Jacket - Kubrick can do no wrong. I've heard a lot of people say that this breaks down after the beginning part in boot camp but I don't share that sentiment at all. I mean yeah, the boot camp part is amazing, but I really thought the rest of it was stupendous too. Great use of music and that ending scene was haunting in the best kind of way.
Once Upon a Time in the West - My favorite Leone western is still For a Few Dollars More but I really like this one too. I think comparing it to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly kind of misses the point: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is definitely about spectacle and capping off the Dollars Trilogy, whereas Once Upon a Time in the West is much more directly about westerns.
City of Gode/Cidade de Deus - Beautifully shot, gritty as anything, and compelling to watch with another haunting ending. I didn't particularly like the nonlinearity in there but the rest of this movie worked, and worked well. A good study in the craft: how to do everything right, basically.
High Fidelity - I love how John Cusack's character is such an asshole in this movie. Every time I see someone review a film who says "I didn't like this movie because I couldn't relate to the main character because he/she was [a jerk/an asshole/self-centered/etc.] I just want to point to movies like this. Art can be about people who are flawed! Art can be about people who are deeply flawed! Art can be about people who are terrible and yet who aren't serial killers. Cusack's character in this film is terrible in the most realistic, pedestrian, potentially-redeemable-but-not-Disney-movie-redeemed, down to earth terrible that you can really find in fiction, and the movie's all the better for it.
A Woman Is a Woman/Une Femme est une femme - The first Godard I've ever seen. Wonderful send-up of musicals and funny even aside from that. I could see someone getting pissed off with what later generations have fine-tuned into whimsy but I have no problem eating that shit up, let alone tolerating it, when it shows up in Wes Anderson or whatever, so when Godard more or less invents it I have no issues either.
Videodrome - Fantastic. A little fuzzy near the end but still great. I can't tell Peter Weller apart from James Woods, and I can't tell James Woods apart from Richard E. Grant, but I can tell Richard E. Grant apart from Peter Weller. Does this mean I have a brain tumor?
SO, who wants to talk about any of these films so we can all shut up about fucking Batman and Mad King George not understanding it?
It was pretty alright.
I actually don't remember most of it after boot camp though.
I have a problem in movies in that I tend to read the premise and then dismiss them.
Like I find it hard to decide to watch something with a description as bland as "A man sets out on a journey across the midwest to find his biological parents". It sounds boring as shit to me.
I mean, that might be the best movie ever, but I just can't invest. I feel like I'm probly missing out.
But goddamn do I hate to make it half-way through a movie and realize it's not getting any better.
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?
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
It's the League of Shadows' who are responsible IMO. Without them Batman wouldn't have been created, trained or fought against all they'd have is a city that torn itself to pieces for an unknown reason (they're not going to figure out the fear gas plot device). The police sure as shit didn't stand a chance without Batman. I don't think they even realized the LOS existed, unless I'm remembering it wrong.
Well, the members of the LOS who infiltrated the police sure did.
Once again - corruption, not underfunding.
You mean the copter they take out with wire strung between 2 buildings?
Which:
a) wasn't what you said
b) does nothing to support your point about underfunding
Nice sting, but I never once even brought this up as a theme of the film. I never even talked theme. But nice going getting another one in.
I said the copter was outclassed in the chase scene. I would think being done in by a piece of high tensile wire indicates it was not as good a helicopter as a Blackhawk, along with the fact that it looks like a news chopper, but ymmv.
Also, I never spoke about funding as a theme. I never even spoke about theme. At all, period, full stop. I spoke about it in relation to Bruce's character. Half a dozen non- (not even mis-) readings of me and a dozen or so soapboxes about theme and what the film is really about later, people are still not even talking about what I originally said. G'night on this particular topic, everybody!
Weren't they posing as regular criminals? I don't think the LOS likes to reveal itself to much. Hell, I'm unclear whether Scarecrow or Falcone knew exactly who and what they were only very scary people like a random terrorist organization.
There were LOS members posing as cops driving (IIRC) a SWAT van onto the island that contained the microwave emitter. Also the cops that busted into the asylum, gave Scarecrow his mask back, and told him "Time to play" were LOS members.
You do realize that helicopters cannot fly if their rotors are damaged, right?
I mean, Bruce may have been trying to portray the whole "superficial playboy" persona thing, but it had absolutely nothing to do with how he treated Gotham or its institutions.
Again, that has nothing to do with my initial point. I don't care.