|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 13:47:28 GMT
Didn't say "unable." He just saw more in The Joker. And yes, The Joker did overshadow Batman in The Dark Knight. Heath Ledger won an Oscar for his performance. Bale wasn't even nominated. No, he's just unable. No, he didn't. I never felt like The Dark Knight wasn't Batman's story at any point while watching it. No, he's able. Just chose not to. Yes, he did. It was Batman's story, sure. But Joker overshadowed him. Like I said, everyone walked away talking about Heath Ledger's performance. Audiences were talking about The Joker the next day, not Batman. That's the very definition of overshadowing. Meanwhile, Bale was still ridiculed for his Batman voice. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jul 27, 2017 14:01:35 GMT
Every one of these statements is fucking retarded. If you don't think the hero should be the focus of their own series, maybe. Theres a fine balance. And the MCU fail to get it right consistently. Most of their heros are written to treat their opposition as if they are useless and "villain of the week". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 16:50:11 GMT
No, he's just unable. No, he didn't. I never felt like The Dark Knight wasn't Batman's story at any point while watching it. No, he's able. Just chose not to. Yes, he did. It was Batman's story, sure. But Joker overshadowed him. Like I said, everyone walked away talking about Heath Ledger's performance. Audiences were talking about The Joker the next day, not Batman. That's the very definition of overshadowing. Meanwhile, Bale was still ridiculed for his Batman voice. You seriously give Tim Burton too much credit. No, he didn't. Yeah, they went away talking about Heath Ledger's performance because he died. Only by whiny nitpickers. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 27, 2017 17:55:56 GMT
It'll be big. Bigger isn't always better, but ya, it'll be big. The trailer looks like Infinity War is going to be a BIG MESS! |
|
|
|
Post by mcufan on Jul 27, 2017 17:59:58 GMT
It'll be big. Bigger isn't always better, but ya, it'll be big. The trailer looks like Infinity War is going to be a BIG MESS! No it doesn't. Don't be a jackass. It looks fine. (You know that was a leak. The movie will not look like that all crooked. With you idiots we never know what you believe) |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 18:31:39 GMT
No, he's able. Just chose not to. Yes, he did. It was Batman's story, sure. But Joker overshadowed him. Like I said, everyone walked away talking about Heath Ledger's performance. Audiences were talking about The Joker the next day, not Batman. That's the very definition of overshadowing. Meanwhile, Bale was still ridiculed for his Batman voice. You seriously give Tim Burton too much credit. No, he didn't. Yeah, they went away talking about Heath Ledger's performance because he died. Only by whiny nitpickers. I give him just the right amount of credit. Yes, he did. People weren't talking about his death. They were talking about his performance. Hence, him overshadowing Batman. No, by a large percentage of the audience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 18:34:28 GMT
You seriously give Tim Burton too much credit. No, he didn't. Yeah, they went away talking about Heath Ledger's performance because he died. Only by whiny nitpickers. I give him just the right amount of credit. Yes, he did. People weren't talking about his death. They were talking about his performance. Hence, him overshadowing Batman. No, by a large percentage of the audience. No, you give him too much credit. No, he didn't. Uh, were you not born yet in 2008? Everyone was talking about his death. No, he did not overshadow Batman. No, that's just on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 27, 2017 19:02:11 GMT
And those stories that focus on the villain are due to the writer not caring about the hero. Batman is on that list because for the most part his movies never had serious competition out at the same time. Killing Joke has plenty of problems, ones that get ignored thanks to Moore's name on the book. Not at all. That's like saying stories that focus on the hero mean the writers didn't care about the villains. It's all about what kind of story they want to tell and who they want to make the protagonist. Not that they don't care about any of the characters. And yet, almost 30 years have passed, and Batman still makes the lists despite heavy competition since then. Disagree that it's because of Moore's name. It's because it's a good story. Again, saying anything is a success because of one specific thing ignores all the other factors that went into making it a success. Nothing is a success because of only one name. Stories that focus on the hero shouldn't care too much about the villains. Villains are there to be plot devices and obstacles for the hero to overcome. If they can't tell a story about the hero first and foremost, they shouldn't be writing about that hero to begin with. Nostalgia. It isn't even that good a story, especially in it's treatment of Batgirl. Yes, name recognition can make something mediocre look better. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 27, 2017 19:03:14 GMT
If you don't think the hero should be the focus of their own series, maybe. Theres a fine balance. And the MCU fail to get it right consistently. Most of their heros are written to treat their opposition as if they are useless and "villain of the week". Which is how it should be. Did you go to watch "The Thing" to care solely about the alien shapeshifter and not the humans? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 19:29:41 GMT
Theres a fine balance. And the MCU fail to get it right consistently. Most of their heros are written to treat their opposition as if they are useless and "villain of the week". Which is how it should be. Did you go to watch "The Thing" to care solely about the alien shapeshifter and not the humans? Exactly. The alien menace is interesting as an alien menace. We're not watching the beast undergo some kind of deep character arc, but rather we're observing the paranoia and mistrust it creates in people who otherwise got along fine for years living in the same space. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 19:42:32 GMT
Not at all. That's like saying stories that focus on the hero mean the writers didn't care about the villains. It's all about what kind of story they want to tell and who they want to make the protagonist. Not that they don't care about any of the characters. And yet, almost 30 years have passed, and Batman still makes the lists despite heavy competition since then. Disagree that it's because of Moore's name. It's because it's a good story. Again, saying anything is a success because of one specific thing ignores all the other factors that went into making it a success. Nothing is a success because of only one name. Stories that focus on the hero shouldn't care too much about the villains. Villains are there to be plot devices and obstacles for the hero to overcome. If they can't tell a story about the hero first and foremost, they shouldn't be writing about that hero to begin with. Nostalgia. It isn't even that good a story, especially in it's treatment of Batgirl. Yes, name recognition can make something mediocre look better. That's not the story Burton was telling. A filmmaker can tell whatever story they want. The studio agreed with it. And audiences agreed with it. They still do. You're assuming there's only one way to tell a story. There isn't. There are many. Besides, that's predicated on Batman's character not having his own story arc. He does. His relationship with Vale is a huge factor in his development. Wait, so first Batman was on the lists because it had no competition, and now it's because of nostalgia? Gotta disagree with both. After all, people love to point out how things "haven't aged well." Batman has never been on one of those. Fans and industry experts disagree. It's a good story. What happens to Batgirl is just one part of it. Again, one single factor doesn't make a story. The conflict between Batman and Joker is very well done. Gordon's torment is also crucial to the story. And of course, the theme of "one bad day." It can make it look better, but it doesn't automatically make it better. It was the story that caught people's attention, not just the name. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 19:45:48 GMT
I give him just the right amount of credit. Yes, he did. People weren't talking about his death. They were talking about his performance. Hence, him overshadowing Batman. No, by a large percentage of the audience. No, you give him too much credit. No, he didn't. Uh, were you not born yet in 2008? Everyone was talking about his death. No, he did not overshadow Batman. No, that's just on the internet. No, just the right amount. I don't think he's the greatest, nor the worst. A perfect balance. Yes, he did. People talked about his death prior to the film's release. After the movie came out, the conversation was all about his performance and how he stole the show. You can't change history just because it proves you wrong. You have to accept it. Exactly. And a large percentage of the American viewing public has internet. Besides, it's not just the internet. Television, movies, magazines, and even comic books also ridicule the Batman voice. Again, a large percentage of the audience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 19:47:54 GMT
Stories that focus on the hero shouldn't care too much about the villains. Villains are there to be plot devices and obstacles for the hero to overcome. If they can't tell a story about the hero first and foremost, they shouldn't be writing about that hero to begin with. Nostalgia. It isn't even that good a story, especially in it's treatment of Batgirl. Yes, name recognition can make something mediocre look better. That's not the story Burton was telling. A filmmaker can tell whatever story they want. The studio agreed with it. And audiences agreed with it. They still do. You're assuming there's only one way to tell a story. There isn't. There are many. Besides, that's predicated on Batman's character not having his own story arc. He does. His relationship with Vale is a huge factor in his development. Wait, so first Batman was on the lists because it had no competition, and now it's because of nostalgia? Gotta disagree with both. After all, people love to point out how things "haven't aged well." Batman has never been on one of those. Fans and industry experts disagree. It's a good story. What happens to Batgirl is just one part of it. Again, one single factor doesn't make a story. The conflict between Batman and Joker is very well done. Gordon's torment is also crucial to the story. And of course, the theme of "one bad day." It can make it look better, but it doesn't automatically make it better. It was the story that caught people's attention, not just the name. Actually, plenty of people have spoken at length about how the Tim Burton Batman films did not age well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 19:51:28 GMT
No, you give him too much credit. No, he didn't. Uh, were you not born yet in 2008? Everyone was talking about his death. No, he did not overshadow Batman. No, that's just on the internet. No, just the right amount. I don't think he's the greatest, nor the worst. A perfect balance. Yes, he did. People talked about his death prior to the film's release. After the movie came out, the conversation was all about his performance and how he stole the show. You can't change history just because it proves you wrong. You have to accept it. Exactly. And a large percentage of the American viewing public has internet. Besides, it's not just the internet. Television, movies, magazines, and even comic books also ridicule the Batman voice. Again, a large percentage of the audience. No, you give him too much credit. The man's talents are few and his good films are even fewer. No, he didn't. No, people were talking about his death both during and after the film's theater run. You're the one trying to change history here, and you have yet to ever prove me wrong. You have to accept it. Of course, you refuse to ever accept any kind of fault in yourself or even consider others' points of view. I shouldn't be surprised by your insipid stubbornness, since you also believe that revenge, irrational fear and hatred, and paranoia should take priority over forgiveness. And yet for all the noise the internet makes about Transformers, those films just keep making money. It's almost like the internet reflects very little of real life conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 20:01:18 GMT
No, just the right amount. I don't think he's the greatest, nor the worst. A perfect balance. Yes, he did. People talked about his death prior to the film's release. After the movie came out, the conversation was all about his performance and how he stole the show. You can't change history just because it proves you wrong. You have to accept it. Exactly. And a large percentage of the American viewing public has internet. Besides, it's not just the internet. Television, movies, magazines, and even comic books also ridicule the Batman voice. Again, a large percentage of the audience. No, you give him too much credit. The man's talents are few and his good films are even fewer. No, he didn't. No, people were talking about his death both during and after the film's theater run. You're the one trying to change history here, and you have yet to ever prove me wrong. You have to accept it. Of course, you refuse to ever accept any kind of fault or even consider others' points of view. And yet for all the noise the internet makes about Transformers, those films just keep making money. It's almost like the internet reflects very little of real life conversation. No, it's the right amount of credit. He's got several good films, not any recent ones. He's really put out some stinkers the past ten/fifteen years. But the beginning of his oeuvre is filled with plenty of gems. Yes, he did. Sorry, but as usual, you're just wrong, raptor. It was his performance people talked about. Unless, you think audiences came out of the theater saying, "Man, Heath Ledger sure is dead." Nope. The conversation was, "Man, Joker was awesome." You have to accept fact. You don't get to choose how history happened. And again, he won an Oscar. Bale wasn't even nominated. You have to accept history. Man, it's almost like Americans aren't the only ones who go to the movies to make Transformers a success. Besides, like I said, it's not just the internet. Bale's voice is ridiculed in all media.
Personal attacks. The last bastion of someone who's been proven thoroughly wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 20:08:01 GMT
No, you give him too much credit. The man's talents are few and his good films are even fewer. No, he didn't. No, people were talking about his death both during and after the film's theater run. You're the one trying to change history here, and you have yet to ever prove me wrong. You have to accept it. Of course, you refuse to ever accept any kind of fault or even consider others' points of view. And yet for all the noise the internet makes about Transformers, those films just keep making money. It's almost like the internet reflects very little of real life conversation. No, it's the right amount of credit. He's got several good films, not any recent ones. He's really put out some stinkers the past ten/fifteen years. But the beginning of his oeuvre is filled with plenty of gems. Yes, he did. Sorry, but as usual, you're just wrong, raptor. It was his performance people talked about. Unless, you think audiences came out of the theater saying, "Man, Heath Ledger sure is dead." Nope. The conversation was, "Man, Joker was awesome." You have to accept fact. You don't get to choose how history happened. And again, he won an Oscar. Bale wasn't even nominated. You have to accept facts. Man, it's almost like Americans aren't the only ones who go to the movies to make Transformers a success. Besides, like I said, it's not just the internet. Bale's voice is ridiculed in all media.
Personal attacks. The last bastion of someone who's been proven thoroughly wrong.
No, you overrate him. He has one good movie. Only one. No, he didn't. Sorry, but as usual, you're just wrong, PreacCaleb. It was his death people talked about. It made everyone less likely to judge his last performance harshly and gave him a huge artificial booster. No, the conversation was, "Man, a very promising actor is gone." You have to accept fact. You don't get to choose how history happened. He won an Oscar because he was a dead. He wouldn't have if he had been alive still at the time. You have to accept facts. ...When did I say I was only talking about America? Yes, media does tend to latch onto nothing and go a mile with it. Meanwhile, at the ground-level, Bale's Batman is very well-liked. No, I'm just telling the truth about your pettiness and inability to actually have conversations with people. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 20:26:20 GMT
No, I rate him just fine. Good, not great, but in decline.
Incorrect, he has several good movies: Beetlejuice, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Batman, Batman Returns, Ed Wood.
Again, you're mixing up events. All the talk about his death was prior to film's release. Afterwards, the conversation was all about his performance. Hence the Oscar win.
And once again, actual history proves you wrong. Out of the over 60 posthumous Oscar nominations, only 16 have actually won. So, no, people do not get Oscars just for being dead. So that theory is debunked.
A hypothetical scenario is not a fact.
I didn't say Bale's Batman isn't well-liked. He is very well-liked. But his voice is a laughing stock. Even on the ground level. Bale's Batman voice is a punchline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 20:31:04 GMT
No, I rate him just fine. Good, not great, but in decline. Incorrect, he has several good movies: Beetlejuice, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Batman, Batman Returns, Ed Wood. Again, you're mixing up events. All the talk about his death was prior to film's release. Afterwards, the conversation was all about his performance. Hence the Oscar win. And once again, actual history proves you wrong. Out of the over 60 posthumous Oscar nominations, only 16 have actually won. So, no, people do not get Oscars just for being dead. So that theory is debunked. A hypothetical scenario is not a fact. I didn't say Bale's Batman isn't well-liked. He is very well-liked. But his voice is a laughing stock. Even on the ground level. Bale's Batman voice is a punchline. Incorrect. He has exactly one good film: Sleepy Hollow. No, people were still talking about his death both during and after the film's release. No, he only won that Oscar because he died. The academy knew they had to give it to him, because of how beloved his performance was. Plus, he was already the academy's sweetheart and they'd been wanting to give him one for a while at that point. So once again, actual history proves you wrong. There is nothing hypothetical about it. The Oscar would have gone to someone had Ledger still been alive. No, on the ground level, people don't mind his voice. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 20:36:48 GMT
Incorrect. All those others I mentioned are also good.
No, they were discussing his performance.
No. Again, history proves you wrong. A death does not guarantee an Oscar. Otherwise all 60 of those posthumous nominations would've resulted in winners. Sorry, but I've got actual numbers and facts on my side. Hence why you're wrong.
It's the very definition of hypothetical. You're supposing something that never occurred. Essentially, you made something up. Not to mention it's also wrong. Living people win Oscars all the time.
No, on the ground level, they laugh at it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 20:41:47 GMT
Incorrect. All those others I mentioned are also good. No, they were discussing his performance. No. Again, history proves you wrong. A death does not guarantee an Oscar. Otherwise all 60 of those posthumous nominations would've resulted in winners. Sorry, but I've got actual numbers and facts on my side. Hence why you're wrong. It's the very definition of hypothetical. You're supposing something that never occurred. Essentially, you made something up. Not to mention it's also wrong. Living people win Oscars all the time. No, on the ground level, they laugh at it. Yes, those others are considered good, but Sleep Hollow is the only one that's actually good. No, they were discussing his death. Actually history proves me right. He was dead AND he gave a popular performance AND the academy had been wanting to give him for a while at that point. He was a shoe-in. I made nothing up. I know how the academy members think. They only ever throw general audience favorite films or performances a bone when they have to. No, on the ground, they like it. Just keep displaying your obsessive need to have the last word and to be right about everything, though. I love it when petty little trollops like you make my point for me. |
|
