|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 20:48:11 GMT
No, they're all good. Heck, they're rated higher than Sleepy Hollow.
No, his performance.
History proves you wrong. Over 40 people nominated for an Oscar after their deaths did not win. Numbers. Data. Facts. You lose.
You made it up. It's an imagined scenario, not one that actually happened. Hence, "making it up."
No, they mock it.
Oh, little pot, I don't need to be right. I am right. The numbers prove it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 20:53:35 GMT
No, they're all good. Heck, they're rated higher than Sleepy Hollow. No, his performance. History proves you wrong. Over 40 people nominated for an Oscar after their deaths did not win. Numbers. Data. Facts. You lose. You made it up. It's an imagined scenario, not one that actually happened. Hence, "making it up." No, they mock it. Oh, little pot, I don't need to be right. I am right. The numbers prove it. No, Sleepy Hollow's the only good one. No, his death. History proves me right. He died tragically, gave a final good performance people loved, plus the academy had been wanting to give him. Numbers. Data. Facts. You lose. Wrong again. No, they like it. You'd say the sky's green if I said it was blue just to argue with me. Heck, you'd deprive human beings of the right to be judged on an individual level just to spite me.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 21:03:01 GMT
Nope. Their numbers are higher than Sleepy Hollow. So if it's good, then they're better.
Oh, no. You don't know what any of those words means. Well, at least now I know why you're so confuse.
You think I'm wrong when I said Heath Ledger being alive and not winning is an imaginary scenario?
Nope. They mock it.
Silly rabbit. I only argue with you when you're wrong. Which is a lot, but that's really your fault for being wrong so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 21:10:34 GMT
Nope. Their numbers are higher than Sleepy Hollow. So if it's good, then they're better. Oh, no. You don't know what any of those words means. Well, at least now I know why you're so confuse. You think I'm wrong when I said Heath Ledger being alive and not winning is an imaginary scenario? Nope. They mock it. Silly rabbit. I only argue with you when you're wrong. Which is a lot, but that's really your fault for being wrong so much. "Nope. Their numbers are higher than Sleepy Hollow. So if it's good, then they're better." Just keep telling yourself that. "Oh, no. You don't know what any of those words means. Well, at least now I know why you're so confuse." Thank you putting your pettiness on public record again. The fact you think Ledger had a chance at an Oscar if he had still been alive speaks volumes about how naive you really are. Nope. They like it. "Silly rabbit. I only argue with you when you're wrong. Which is a lot, but that's really your fault for being wrong so much." Translation: I can't stand differing opinions and I need to have the last word.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 27, 2017 22:11:45 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. Burton doesn't even look back on the films fondly, he had little love for Batman to begin with. Just because people at the time agreed doesn't mean they would if the film came out today. And no, Batman hardly has anything of an arc. Fans and Industry both are in awe of Alan Moore, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 27, 2017 22:24:55 GMT
There are plenty of artists that don't care for some of their earlier work. That doesn't take away from the quality of said work.
And while it's true people agreeing at the time doesn't mean they'd agree today, that also doesn't take away from the film's quality.
Batman does have an arc. Bruce starts out as a loner. He only mingles with people to keep up appearances. But he grows closer with Vikki Vale. He even has a scene where he's conflicted with coming clean that he's Batman to her.
And again, it's not just one thing that makes a particular work a success. If all it took was a name, then All Star Batman would be revered. It's not.
Not mention, a lot of fans and industry people think Moore is a crabby grouch and don't really care for his attitude and personality.
So it's not about just being in awe.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 27, 2017 23:54:02 GMT
formersmsmshdmhmshmskjkhdoahoisanfakljkaljioahfahahdsajkhmghmdhmdhdmd, you should've been a blow job. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 1:05:32 GMT
There are plenty of artists that don't care for some of their earlier work. That doesn't take away from the quality of said work. And while it's true people agreeing at the time doesn't mean they'd agree today, that also doesn't take away from the film's quality. Batman does have an arc. Bruce starts out as a loner. He only mingles with people to keep up appearances. But he grows closer with Vikki Vale. He even has a scene where he's conflicted with coming clean that he's Batman to her. And again, it's not just one thing that makes a particular work a success. If all it took was a name, then All Star Batman would be revered. It's not. Not mention, a lot of fans and industry people think Moore is a crabby grouch and don't really care for his attitude and personality. So it's not about just being in awe. It DOES mean that he didn't care about the lead and didn't think Batman could carry a story on his own, though. That isn't much of an arc. Frank Miller had already become controversial before ASBAR. Back in the 80s he was untouchable.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 28, 2017 1:17:50 GMT
There are plenty of artists that don't care for some of their earlier work. That doesn't take away from the quality of said work. And while it's true people agreeing at the time doesn't mean they'd agree today, that also doesn't take away from the film's quality. Batman does have an arc. Bruce starts out as a loner. He only mingles with people to keep up appearances. But he grows closer with Vikki Vale. He even has a scene where he's conflicted with coming clean that he's Batman to her. And again, it's not just one thing that makes a particular work a success. If all it took was a name, then All Star Batman would be revered. It's not. Not mention, a lot of fans and industry people think Moore is a crabby grouch and don't really care for his attitude and personality. So it's not about just being in awe. It DOES mean that he didn't care about the lead and didn't think Batman could carry a story on his own, though. That isn't much of an arc. Frank Miller had already become controversial before ASBAR. Back in the 80s he was untouchable. You didn't respond to my contribution to the discussion!
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 28, 2017 12:56:00 GMT
There are plenty of artists that don't care for some of their earlier work. That doesn't take away from the quality of said work. And while it's true people agreeing at the time doesn't mean they'd agree today, that also doesn't take away from the film's quality. Batman does have an arc. Bruce starts out as a loner. He only mingles with people to keep up appearances. But he grows closer with Vikki Vale. He even has a scene where he's conflicted with coming clean that he's Batman to her. And again, it's not just one thing that makes a particular work a success. If all it took was a name, then All Star Batman would be revered. It's not. Not mention, a lot of fans and industry people think Moore is a crabby grouch and don't really care for his attitude and personality. So it's not about just being in awe. It DOES mean that he didn't care about the lead and didn't think Batman could carry a story on his own, though. That isn't much of an arc. Frank Miller had already become controversial before ASBAR. Back in the 80s he was untouchable. Unless, he's specifically said that, no, it doesn't mean that at all. Just that he had more interest in The Joker. Preferring one thing doesn't mean you think the other isn't any good. People prefer pizza over burgers. Doesn't mean they think burgers aren't delicious. It's an arc. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. It's there. Just as I said it was. In fact, it's the same arc from The Dark Knight. Batman wrestles between his mission and the woman he loves. Then Miller's Robocop 2 comic should also be revered. It's not either. And that was before he become controversial. This isn't the 80s, and the Killing Joke is still beloved by fans and industry insiders. Moore isn't liked as much, but his stories still are. Again, the name doesn't mean as much in the long run. It's the story that holds up.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 13:02:33 GMT
It DOES mean that he didn't care about the lead and didn't think Batman could carry a story on his own, though. That isn't much of an arc. Frank Miller had already become controversial before ASBAR. Back in the 80s he was untouchable. Unless, he's specifically said that, no, it doesn't mean that at all. Just that he had more interest in The Joker. Preferring one thing doesn't mean you think the other isn't any good. People prefer pizza over burgers. Doesn't mean they think burgers aren't delicious. It's an arc. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. It's there. Just as I said it was. In fact, it's the same arc from The Dark Knight. Batman wrestles between his mission and the woman he loves. Then Miller's Robocop 2 comic should also be revered. It's not either. And that was before he become controversial. This isn't the 80s, and the Killing Joke is still beloved by fans and industry insiders. Moore isn't liked as much, but his stories still are. Again, the name doesn't mean as much in the long run. It's the story that holds up. If the director admitted he didn't care about the hero as much as the villain, he shouldn't have done the movie. It's irrelevant if it's a lame arc compared to the other characters. And Batman wasn't really the star of the Dark Knight movies either, his villains were. Not a lot of people even knew Miller did Robocop 2 and he was public with all the changes they made. Nostalgia has that effect, but at least NOW some people are willing to see the flaws in the story they didn't before (the holes in Joker's philosophy, the treatment of barbara, etc) Nope, names can do a lot. Personalities sell works just as much.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 28, 2017 13:14:19 GMT
Incorrect. After all, it's the story he wanted to tell. And the studio liked it. And audiences liked it. I'd say, he was the perfect guy for the job. At the time.
Yes. My point was it was there. I didn't say it was the greatest arc. Just that he had one.
Exactly the point I made to raptor. Thank you.
I agree. It's still highly praised though.
Yes, they can. But they don't do everything is my point. Just look at the examples I've listed. And that's not listing all the many other writers, directors, and artists whose names alone no longer guarantee a beloved work. A name alone is not enough. The story must be good as well.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 13:39:39 GMT
Incorrect. After all, it's the story he wanted to tell. And the studio liked it. And audiences liked it. I'd say, he was the perfect guy for the job. At the time. Yes. My point was it was there. I didn't say it was the greatest arc. Just that he had one. Exactly the point I made to raptor. Thank you. I agree. It's still highly praised though. Yes, they can. But they don't do everything is my point. Just look at the examples I've listed. And that's not listing all the many other writers, directors, and artists whose names alone no longer guarantee a beloved work. A name alone is not enough. The story must be good as well. It means that back then audiences and the studio themselves didn't think the hero could carry his own film. Then Marvel showed otherwise. It's a lame arc. And that's why the Dark Knight movies aren't' good Batman movies. That and they appeal mainly to people ashamed of comics where the hero can lead the movie. It's highly praised due to the nostalgia effect and Moore still being praised. Names can do plenty.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 28, 2017 13:45:52 GMT
Not at all. It means the audience and studio enjoyed the story. After all, they'd grown up on Batman the series and knew Batman could carry a story. But they also enjoyed Burton's version as well. People can like more than one thing.
Regardless, the arc is there.
Gotta disagree with all of that. A lot of the same fans who enjoy The Dark Knight movies also enjoy the DC animated movies where the hero does lead the story. Again, there's more than one way to tell a story. No one way is intrinsically better than the other.
Plenty is not everything. That's the point.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 28, 2017 13:47:01 GMT
Incorrect. After all, it's the story he wanted to tell. And the studio liked it. And audiences liked it. I'd say, he was the perfect guy for the job. At the time. Yes. My point was it was there. I didn't say it was the greatest arc. Just that he had one. Exactly the point I made to raptor. Thank you. I agree. It's still highly praised though. Yes, they can. But they don't do everything is my point. Just look at the examples I've listed. And that's not listing all the many other writers, directors, and artists whose names alone no longer guarantee a beloved work. A name alone is not enough. The story must be good as well. It means that back then audiences and the studio themselves didn't think the hero could carry his own film. Then Marvel showed otherwise. It's a lame arc. And that's why the Dark Knight movies aren't' good Batman movies. That and they appeal mainly to people ashamed of comics where the hero can lead the movie. It's highly praised due to the nostalgia effect and Moore still being praised. Names can do plenty. You can't prove any of this. Cite one article with any executive of any studio that released a CBM prior to Iron Man one in which an executive stated any of what you're alleging, or stop fucking saying it, you autistic little fuckface.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 28, 2017 13:48:39 GMT
Not at all. It means the audience and studio enjoyed the story. After all, they'd grown up on Batman the series and knew Batman could carry a story. But they also enjoyed Burton's version as well. People can like more than one thing. Regardless, the arc is there. Gotta disagree with all of that. A lot of the same fans who enjoy The Dark Knight movies also enjoy the DC animated movies where the hero does lead the story. Again, there's more than one way to tell a story. No one way is intrinsically better than the other. Plenty is not everything. That's the point. I mean. He's just trolling, but I don't know how you can straight-facedly pretend to "discuss" any of this arbitrary, ridiculous nonsense on his terms. You know he's, like, some idiot in a group home, right?
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jul 28, 2017 14:58:14 GMT
Samhd must be a Disney paid shill, there is no other explanation to why he defends the MCU so vehemently (using the same poor recycled rhetoric) whilst dismissing any other studios comic productions as inferior in every way, shape and form.
Or he's just completely delusional and brainwashed by the MCU PR marketing machine.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 28, 2017 15:02:44 GMT
Samhd must be a Disney paid shill, there is no other explanation to why he defends the MCU so vehemently whilst dismissing any other studios comic productions as inferior. dude, you underestimate one relevant key factor: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former (Albert Einstein). Einstein did probably not talk about the MCU, but the quote perfectly applies to the samhd guy.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 17:10:57 GMT
It means that back then audiences and the studio themselves didn't think the hero could carry his own film. Then Marvel showed otherwise. It's a lame arc. And that's why the Dark Knight movies aren't' good Batman movies. That and they appeal mainly to people ashamed of comics where the hero can lead the movie. It's highly praised due to the nostalgia effect and Moore still being praised. Names can do plenty. You can't prove any of this. Cite one article with any executive of any studio that released a CBM prior to Iron Man one in which an executive stated any of what you're alleging, or stop fucking saying it, you autistic little fuckface. Calm down Francis, you're going to make the skin failure worse.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 17:11:36 GMT
Samhd must be a Disney paid shill, there is no other explanation to why he defends the MCU so vehemently (using the same poor recycled rhetoric) whilst dismissing any other studios comic productions as inferior in every way, shape and form. Consider this payback for the years of abuse MCU fans had to endure from WB and Fox.
|
|