|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 14, 2018 20:33:03 GMT
I’m tired of telling you this but again, I must bring up that Heath Ledger has been dead for 10 years, and the movie still gets praised to this day. The movie gets praised because people think it’s a great movie, not because Heath Ledger died. Stop clinging to that excuse, especially when there actually were a fair amount of critics back in the day who bashed the movie for being too dark. I don't bash it for being too dark, I bash it for ridiculous stuff like how Joker was omnipotent, how Two Face was wasted, how the whole final act was rushed, how the philosophies fans keep thinking is gospel is full of holes, etc. I didn’t say you were one of the critics who bashed the movie for being dark. I was pointing out that contrary to what you claim, critics didn’t avoid criticizing the movie just because it was “in poor taste”. Also, there have been people who have complained about the Joker’s plans supposedly being too convoluted and about Two-Face being killed off too quickly. Most don’t have a problem with either of those things because for one, the Joker was established as being someone who takes all kinds of risks that just so happen to pay off. It’s no different from Zemo. Also, Harvey Dent received plenty of screen time in the movie, and his transformation into Two-Face was something that the film had already been building up to from the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 14, 2018 20:37:26 GMT
I’m tired of telling you this but again, I must bring up that Heath Ledger has been dead for 10 years, and the movie still gets praised to this day. The movie gets praised because people think it’s a great movie, not because Heath Ledger died. Stop clinging to that excuse, especially when there actually were a fair amount of critics back in the day who bashed the movie for being too dark. I don't bash it for being too dark, I bash it for ridiculous stuff like how Joker was omnipotent, how Two Face was wasted, how the whole final act was rushed, how the philosophies fans keep thinking is gospel is full of holes, etc.I hate when you talk about TDK. (Because we agree completely on it.) |
|
|
|
Post by Hitman's Bodyguard on Feb 14, 2018 20:43:59 GMT
Boosters? Aren't that packaged sets of collectible card games?
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 14, 2018 23:21:16 GMT
I don't bash it for being too dark, I bash it for ridiculous stuff like how Joker was omnipotent, how Two Face was wasted, how the whole final act was rushed, how the philosophies fans keep thinking is gospel is full of holes, etc. I didn’t say you were one of the critics who bashed the movie for being dark. I was pointing out that contrary to what you claim, critics didn’t avoid criticizing the movie just because it was “in poor taste”. I think some of them did. No, I've seen people who critique the Hell out of Zemo but don't have any problems with TDK Joker. Doesn't mean he wasn't ultimately wasted as a plot device in the last act instead of getting his own movie. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 15, 2018 0:07:52 GMT
I didn’t say you were one of the critics who bashed the movie for being dark. I was pointing out that contrary to what you claim, critics didn’t avoid criticizing the movie just because it was “in poor taste”. I think some of them did. No, I've seen people who critique the Hell out of Zemo but don't have any problems with TDK Joker. Doesn't mean he wasn't ultimately wasted as a plot device in the last act instead of getting his own movie. What you think has no proof behind it. People praise TDK because it’s considered a great superhero movie. That’s it. Also, if you think TDK never gets criticized for the things you say: link. By the way, why exactly did Two-Face need an entirely separate movie? TDK was his movie. |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Feb 15, 2018 0:18:45 GMT
I think some of them did. No, I've seen people who critique the Hell out of Zemo but don't have any problems with TDK Joker. Doesn't mean he wasn't ultimately wasted as a plot device in the last act instead of getting his own movie. What you think has no proof behind it. People praise TDK because it’s considered a great superhero movie. That’s it. Also, if you think TDK never gets criticized for the things you say: link. By the way, why exactly did Two-Face need an entirely separate movie? TDK was his movie. I think there's a lot you can really nitpick with it. There are definitely a lot of contrivance with the Joker being omnipotent, but that's just part of the character, and if you're asking questions of like how he did something, it means the movie did it's job. But when Harvey is burned, the third act does falter a little. For starters, they went a little too far with his burned face. Even if he survived, he wouldn't be talking and moving his face like he was. I know it's a comic book movie, but his disfigurement does undermine the grounded reality set up in Batman Begins. And I think they made a mistake of killing him off a d should have kept him for the sequel. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2018 0:47:57 GMT
I think some of them did. No, I've seen people who critique the Hell out of Zemo but don't have any problems with TDK Joker. Doesn't mean he wasn't ultimately wasted as a plot device in the last act instead of getting his own movie. What you think has no proof behind it. People praise TDK because it’s considered a great superhero movie. That’s it. Also, if you think TDK never gets criticized for the things you say: link. By the way, why exactly did Two-Face need an entirely separate movie? TDK was his movie. So one youtube link, that's all. You don't see any major internet critics making videos about how TDK took the lazy way out with the Joker being omnipotent. Because TDK made him Joker's plot device. Two-Face deserves better. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 15, 2018 1:25:32 GMT
What you think has no proof behind it. People praise TDK because it’s considered a great superhero movie. That’s it. Also, if you think TDK never gets criticized for the things you say: link. By the way, why exactly did Two-Face need an entirely separate movie? TDK was his movie. So one youtube link, that's all. You don't see any major internet critics making videos about how TDK took the lazy way out with the Joker being omnipotent. Because TDK made him Joker's plot device. Two-Face deserves better. He deserved his own movie. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 15, 2018 2:05:54 GMT
What you think has no proof behind it. People praise TDK because it’s considered a great superhero movie. That’s it. Also, if you think TDK never gets criticized for the things you say: link. By the way, why exactly did Two-Face need an entirely separate movie? TDK was his movie. So one youtube link, that's all. You don't see any major internet critics making videos about how TDK took the lazy way out with the Joker being omnipotent. Because TDK made him Joker's plot device. Two-Face deserves better. The Joker wasn’t omnipotent anymore than Zemo, so I don’t see your point. The Joker was a guy who planned things out in advance (despite his claims to the contrary) and it kept working for him throughout the film, right up until the end. TDK didn’t make him a plot device. Two-Face was clearly a major part of the film, and he factored into Batman making a difficult decision at the end. He wasn’t a plot device. If anything, he had more focus than the Joker. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2018 4:07:43 GMT
So one youtube link, that's all. You don't see any major internet critics making videos about how TDK took the lazy way out with the Joker being omnipotent. Because TDK made him Joker's plot device. Two-Face deserves better. The Joker wasn’t omnipotent anymore than Zemo, so I don’t see your point. Zemo gets criticized a LOT more than Joker does. No one really complains about Jokers' omnipotence. To a ridiculous degree. At least all Zemo did was hunt down one tape in an abandoned base, he wasn't doing some elaborate scheme to terrorize a city. He was, he was there to be a figurehead for Gotham (even though, really, Gordon was more of a White Knight than Dent), he's there to romance Rachel (although it all happened off-screen), he's there to be idolized by Batman (when Batman does more work than him). He's more an object/archetype than a person. And then he's wasted as a tool of the Joker at the end. And we're supposed to see Batman's choice as some epic sacrifice when really there were other ways out. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 15, 2018 4:20:29 GMT
The Joker wasn’t omnipotent anymore than Zemo, so I don’t see your point. Zemo gets criticized a LOT more than Joker does. No one really complains about Jokers' omnipotence. To a ridiculous degree. At least all Zemo did was hunt down one tape in an abandoned base, he wasn't doing some elaborate scheme to terrorize a city. He was, he was there to be a figurehead for Gotham (even though, really, Gordon was more of a White Knight than Dent), he's there to romance Rachel (although it all happened off-screen), he's there to be idolized by Batman (when Batman does more work than him). He's more an object/archetype than a person. And then he's wasted as a tool of the Joker at the end. And we're supposed to see Batman's choice as some epic sacrifice when really there were other ways out. Again, the Joker doesn’t display omnipotence. That would imply that he never has any chance of failing, despite the fact that he ultimately does end up failing in proving his point. Hell, Zemo technically succeeded better than the Joker did, considering that his plan of turning the Avengers against one another ultimately worked. Not to mention that thanks to him, half of the team became criminals. Harvey Dent was established as initially being the kind of person who could possibly save Gotham better than Batman could. He was someone Batman and Gordon could rely on, but who ultimately ends up falling into a dark path as a result of the Joker’s evil having pushed him too far. He wasn’t a plot device. He was a character who was fleshed out just fine, and who played a major role in the film. He didn’t need to be the bad guy for the sequel. His arc played out perfectly fine as it did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 4:39:13 GMT
WW easily, without a doubt
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2018 13:39:45 GMT
Again, the Joker doesn’t display omnipotence. That would imply that he never has any chance of failing, despite the fact that he ultimately does end up failing in proving his point. He succeeds at absolutely everything up til the very end, and even then he still "wins" in a way. Yeah, and he gets way more criticism over it. It SAID he was this, but did little to show it except that he was a figurehead. Gordon and Batman did all the real work. His arc as a tool of the Joker, maybe. Two-Face in the comics is more than that. We could've had an awesome film of Batman vs a vigilante out to clean up Gotham in a more brutal and vicious way, with people supporting the one that kills. Instead we got Bane and Talia's silliness. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 15, 2018 17:38:20 GMT
Again, the Joker doesn’t display omnipotence. That would imply that he never has any chance of failing, despite the fact that he ultimately does end up failing in proving his point. He succeeds at absolutely everything up til the very end, and even then he still "wins" in a way. Yeah, and he gets way more criticism over it. It SAID he was this, but did little to show it except that he was a figurehead. Gordon and Batman did all the real work. His arc as a tool of the Joker, maybe. Two-Face in the comics is more than that. We could've had an awesome film of Batman vs a vigilante out to clean up Gotham in a more brutal and vicious way, with people supporting the one that kills. Instead we got Bane and Talia's silliness. The Joker doesn’t win anymore than Zemo. He wasn’t omnipotent, and I have no idea what you’re complaining about with how people perceive Zemo. CW is still a well received movie, so people hardly took any major issue with Zemo’s plan. The Joker is considered a better villain than Zemo, which is why he’s more remembered. That’s all. Also, Two-Face didn’t need to be have an additional movie to himself. His arc was played out. He was the White Knight who was corrupted by the Joker, and who went on a murderous rampage of revenge against the ones he held responsible for what happened. You don’t need to devote a separate movie to that. One movie is enough. Again, you need to stop clinging to this idea that TDK gets praised because an actor died. It doesn’t work that way. Heath Ledger was praises in the role from the trailer, an entire month before his death. People love TDK, get over it. If they only loved it because Heath Ledger died, they wouldn’t be praising it to this day, ten years after the fact. Just drop this narrative of yours. Using a person’s death as a scapegoat is disgusting. |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 15, 2018 22:44:08 GMT
Black Panther.
Let's face it. women did not go through many of the things African Americans went through and WW is a movie that has not been protected in the same way BP has been protected by the media but that is more of the disney power in full display. BP is all about race. WW was just a DC movie with a woman in the lead, it was only after a few weeks that WW became all about feminism and female empowerment.
We all (including DC fans) can agree and accept that the third arc of WW got sloppy. Would the media and MCU fans accept all the jarring flaws in BP or will they defend it stupidly till the end?
I have seen BP. gave it a 7.8/10 and I can tell you it is very similar to the first thor movie with some depth, only thanks to the black history but it had all the same flaws as your typical mcu movies, misplaced jokes, predictable rushed plot by the 2nd arc and heavy cgi third arc battles in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2018 23:20:27 GMT
I have seen BP. gave it a 7.8/10 That must have hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2018 23:41:47 GMT
I'd say WW by a small margin, simply because I think feminism has a slightly bigger media presence than BLM.
|
|
