|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 20:44:29 GMT
Why was Williams recast, by the way? I was never clear on that. I recall they even postponed the release of The Dark Knight. At the time, I assumed they WERE rewriting and adjusting things to accommodate for his tragic passing, but then I watched the film and realized they'd done nothing of the sort. Still killing Dent, Joker's line about fighting Batman forever, I almost couldn't believe they'd left either of those things in. I can't imagine Eckhart refusing them, either, and it's not like he's a super-expensive actor. Not sure about Billy Dee. I used to half-know. Something about his contract being voided when Burton left, is all I remember. Anyway: they literally left the Joker character hanging, if I recall correctly. I remember having a sinking feeling in my stomach walking out of the theater because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 20:49:02 GMT
Well, then, Williams dodged a bullet.
Then four years later, we got a retread of Batman Begins with a Russian Bane who only had the resources to wreak havoc because they were given to him by Raas al Ghul. Oh, and Batman quit for eight years, and the League of Shadows just left him alone that long... for reasons... ? Oh, and Gotham's just magically a cleaned-up tourist town now... ? Okay... What the hell?
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 21:28:33 GMT
Well, then, Williams dodged a bullet. Then four years later, we got a retread of Batman Begins with a Russian Bane who only had the resources to wreak havoc because they were given to him by Raas al Ghul. Oh, and Batman quit for eight years, and the League of Shadows just left him alone that long... for reasons... ? Oh, and Gotham's just magically a cleaned-up tourist town now... ? Okay... What the hell? It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, yeah. Just an anti-Batman Begins, where I'd give Begins an 8/10 and the third one a 2/10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 1:48:33 GMT
Well, then, Williams dodged a bullet. Then four years later, we got a retread of Batman Begins with a Russian Bane who only had the resources to wreak havoc because they were given to him by Raas al Ghul. Oh, and Batman quit for eight years, and the League of Shadows just left him alone that long... for reasons... ? Oh, and Gotham's just magically a cleaned-up tourist town now... ? Okay... What the hell? It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, yeah. Just an anti-Batman Begins, where I'd give Begins an 8/10 and the third one a 2/10. To say the least. It was mindless in the worst way imaginable: thinking it was brilliant, but actually being pure sophistry. At least the Schumachar stuff can be seen on a "so bad its good" level.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 24, 2017 2:21:19 GMT
It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, yeah. Just an anti-Batman Begins, where I'd give Begins an 8/10 and the third one a 2/10. To say the least. It was mindless in the worst way imaginable: thinking it was brilliant, but actually being pure sophistry. At least the Schumachar stuff can be seen on a "so bad its good" level.Yeah, I don't mind them now. I seem to catch Forever more frequently than B&R for whatever reason, but I'm not opposed to either being on in the background. The third Nolan film, I've basically purged from my mind. Saw it once, thought it was abysmal; no desire to ever watch it again.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 24, 2017 2:30:03 GMT
Not really, that stuff could apply to plenty of other movies. It's just that MCU has a lot of success and success breeds professional envy. Formulaic better defines the X-Men movies. They haven't evolved since 2000, even Logan was just more of the same. There is more divergence in half of the things on that list between the first and second X-movies than all of the MCU films, How? X2 is the same basic plot of X1...in fact all the X-Men movies are just rehashes of X1 when you get down to it. And anyways, if you make the villains the stars of the show it just means you had no faith in the hero. X-Men's reliance on Magneto is a good example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 2:38:44 GMT
Well, B&R is the more disliked of the two, so it makes sense for it not be reaired on TV as much.
Sad, too, the third Nolan film had every reason to succeed and no excuse to fail as a third act despite Ledger's death. They had four years to rethink their endgame and a seventy year backlog of stories and villains to play with, and... that's what they came up with. I wasn't crazy about Bane being chosen as the third and final villain, but I could lived with it if he wasn't associated with the League of Shadows and they didn't just retread the first film's plot, and if they had let him remain Hispanic. If they absolutely HAD to kill Dent for whatever insane reason, they could at least given us a good cinematic version of The Riddler. Perhaps a modernized take on the character, the kind of criminal who'll hack a bank and just bankrupt it from within.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 24, 2017 2:39:37 GMT
There is more divergence in half of the things on that list between the first and second X-movies than all of the MCU films, How? X2 is the same basic plot of X1...in fact all the X-Men movies are just rehashes of X1 when you get down to it. And anyways, if you make the villains the stars of the show it just means you had no faith in the hero. X-Men's reliance on Magneto is a good example. I think the producers would argue they're making him an "anti-hero," especially in the last three movies, but mostly I agree with this. The time spent on his "little moments" in the originals could've been better spent on (or at least partially devoted to) the actual X-Men, particularly Scott Summers, who really gets the shaft worse than anyone. Gotta disagree about the FoX-Men flicks being rehashes. I mean, they are from a super remote standpoint (they're all Movies About the X-Men) but have lots of distinctions between themselves and also the individual trilogies. If anything, I think the most similar of the six movies would be... hmm, I really don't know. Maybe Last Stand and Apocalypse because of the over-the-top scenes of devastation and destruction?
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 24, 2017 2:43:30 GMT
Well, B&R is the more disliked of the two, so it makes sense for it not be reaired on TV as much. Sad, too, the third Nolan film had every reason to succeed and no excuse to fail as a third act despite Ledger's death. They had four years to rethink their endgame and a seventy year backlog of stories and villains to play with, and... that's what they came up with.I wasn't crazy about Bane being chosen as the third and final villain, but I could lived with it if he wasn't associated with the League of Shadows and they didn't just retread the first film's plot, and if they had let him remain Hispanic. If they absolutely HAD to kill Dent for whatever insane reason, they could at least given us a good cinematic version of The Riddler. Perhaps a modernized take on the character, the kind of criminal who'll hack a bank and just bankrupt it from within. It's inexcusable. Seriously. And I'd argue that (a) Batman has the BEST villains of anybody and (b) even Bane in and of himself could've been cool enough if they'd just done something fucking interesting; the "retread" with the League of Shadows is pretty weak, but even that specific idea isn't inherently garbage. It was just hamfisted and executed like shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 2:48:02 GMT
Well, B&R is the more disliked of the two, so it makes sense for it not be reaired on TV as much. Sad, too, the third Nolan film had every reason to succeed and no excuse to fail as a third act despite Ledger's death. They had four years to rethink their endgame and a seventy year backlog of stories and villains to play with, and... that's what they came up with.I wasn't crazy about Bane being chosen as the third and final villain, but I could lived with it if he wasn't associated with the League of Shadows and they didn't just retread the first film's plot, and if they had let him remain Hispanic. If they absolutely HAD to kill Dent for whatever insane reason, they could at least given us a good cinematic version of The Riddler. Perhaps a modernized take on the character, the kind of criminal who'll hack a bank and just bankrupt it from within. It's inexcusable. Seriously. And I'd argue that (a) Batman has the BEST villains of anybody and (b) even Bane in and of himself could've been cool enough if they'd just done something fucking interesting; the "retread" with the League of Shadows is pretty weak, but even that specific idea isn't inherently garbage. It was just hamfisted and executed like shit. Honestly, there's no reason they couldn't have just gone with Bane's introductory story arc. He arrives in Gotham to establish himself, battles Batman and breaks his back, and while Batsy recovers, he's free to become the new Don of the Gotham mob. Heck, they could even have thrown in Tony Zucco and Dick Grayson. He doesn't even HAVE to become Robin by the end of the film, just Bruce's adoptive son after everything is said and done.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 24, 2017 3:29:26 GMT
It's inexcusable. Seriously. And I'd argue that (a) Batman has the BEST villains of anybody and (b) even Bane in and of himself could've been cool enough if they'd just done something fucking interesting; the "retread" with the League of Shadows is pretty weak, but even that specific idea isn't inherently garbage. It was just hamfisted and executed like shit. Honestly, there's no reason they couldn't have just gone with Bane's introductory story arc. He arrives in Gotham to establish himself, battles Batman and breaks his back, and while Batsy recovers, he's free to become the new Don of the Gotham mob. Heck, they could even have thrown in Tony Zucco and Dick Grayson. He doesn't even HAVE to become Robin by the end of the film, just Bruce's adoptive son after everything is said and done. This would've been so key. And they could've explored the mob/underworld stuff they hinted at in Begins in a more comprehensive way without, like you said, sort of just retelling the same story as the first Nolan film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 1:34:52 GMT
Nothing to add. You nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Mar 25, 2017 12:27:15 GMT
If they were going to go with taking over the mob, then they might as well have just used Penguin in more like a power vacuum. Bane's introductory arc would have been more like replacing Joker with Bane in The Dark Knight.
|
|
|
Post by tastytomatoes on Mar 25, 2017 13:59:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Mar 25, 2017 18:40:45 GMT
I like that they put the Avenger's tower in all of them.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Mar 27, 2017 4:51:20 GMT
Honestly, I think people aren't talking about it because it's kind of like Star Wars when it comes to Spiderman. They're both so popular and loved that no one needs to talk about it to know that everyone else wants to see it. Yes, I found the trailer to be underwhelming like many, but it was most likely because it was put on Jimmy Kimmel, which bends the trailer to fit a more comedic feel to cater towards his audience. In fact, I've yet to see a good trailer premiere on Jimmy Kimmel's show, even if the movie as a whole is good at its eventual release.
The movie will be good, and that's the general consensus of the public I'm sure. It will rake in millions (if not billions). A lack of commentary right now is nothing to worry about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 17:26:11 GMT
Honestly, I think people aren't talking about it because it's kind of like Star Wars when it comes to Spiderman. They're both so popular and loved that no one needs to talk about it to know that everyone else wants to see it. Yes, I found the trailer to be underwhelming like many, but it was most likely because it was put on Jimmy Kimmel, which bends the trailer to fit a more comedic feel to cater towards his audience. In fact, I've yet to see a good trailer premiere on Jimmy Kimmel's show, even if the movie as a whole is good at its eventual release. The movie will be good, and that's the general consensus of the public I'm sure. It will rake in millions (if not billions). A lack of commentary right now is nothing to worry about. THIS. Mello doesn't like to consider the multiple factors effect how much a film is discussed or impacts how money it'll make. He'll just focus on one thing and make very faulty assumptions without looking at all the facts, first.
|
|