You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was? der=0

[pancakeman]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

Eddie Murphy is the new Riddler

What in the ****ing ****?

"3:10 to Yuma"

The new one had to be better than the old one, that made two of the three people I was watching it with fall asleep and the other one just left. The only reason I watched til the end was to see if maybe it got interesting. It didn'.t

 

[Johnny]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

What in the ****ing ****?

No need for the N word. Black people have rights too.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

There aren't that many tyes of stories to begin with. The basic ideas are just recycled.

That's immaterial. Croup's got the right idea; it doesn't matter if the classic themes don't change over time. But between Hollyweird's sick political sense and the lack of originality, they aren't willing to produce anything good. Instead, they simply rehash something in hopes that brand familiarity will result in good box office returns. Hence, Universal makes two Incredible Hulks less than 5 years apart, while Narnia & its sequel are poorly done yet still result in respectable returns.

The new one had to be better than the old one, that made two of the three people I was watching it with fall asleep and the other one just left. The only reason I watched til the end was to see if maybe it got interesting. It didn'.t

Westerns are the comic books of yesteryear, which is why I mentioned that particular one. If you didn't enjoy the old one because of its actual merits, and you're not just an unrepresentative berk, then why in the world would they spend the money on a remake?

The odd thing to me is that the studios seem to generally avoid both crowd-pleasers (like National Treasure) <AND> productions that aren't politically correct (LotR, 300) in favor of "message movies". I can't imagine that they can continue to take baths like these just for the sake of peddling propaganda.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

The odd thing to me is that the studios seem to generally avoid both crowd-pleasers (like National Treasure) <AND> productions that aren't politically correct (LotR, 300) in favor of "message movies". I can't imagine that they can continue to take baths like these just for the sake of peddling propaganda.

How is LotR not politically correct flick? It's a fantasy battle between of very clearly characterised good and evil, and the racially inspired humans ("Easterlings" and "the Harad") were conveniently mostly bypassed in the flick. Sure, they were part of the host, but the stress was on the narcs... uh, orcs. And seeing the orcs as representative of anything is kind of far fetched?

 

[jmervyn]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

How is LotR not politically correct flick?

I'm sure you can use Google yourself; there's tonnes of commentary.

But as a general rule any time you have a movie about actual capital-E Evil that isn't somehow an inherent indictment of Western Civilization, then you're seeing something un-PC.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

jmerv makes a good point. Moral relativism is all the rage these days. It's bad to categorically call anything bad (except religion - the one group it's ok to unconditionally hate).

 

[WildBerry]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

I'm sure you can use Google yourself; there's tonnes of commentary.

The commentary whom your reviewer is commenting on is retarded and we should just leave it there. Orcs, Elves, Dwarves et al. are not human races, therefore the flick was no more racist than a flick that depicts dogs acting different from humans. The reviewer knows this, you know this, I know this, so let's not adhere to the half-witted stuff movie critics spew.

The reviewer did a great job turning a reasonable critique of movie critics into saying that if you hesitate to go to a useless war because innocents die, it's an excuse. Yeehaw.

But as a general rule any time you have a movie about actual capital-E Evil that isn't somehow an inherent indictment of Western Civilization, then you're seeing something un-PC.

Narnias? Jan Guillou's Evil? The movies with metaphysical evil (The Exorcists, The Omens, Nightmares at Elm Street, the whole package)? You're just being martyr again, and I'm kind of surprised to see Aero follow suit.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

I still like 1989 Batman best

waiting on Watchmen

Moosashi is friggin insane, have you seen any older movies? or are you just guessing and failing horribly

Yah, that's a classic.

Hard to see how a movie could do Watchmen justice. There's just not enough time for one thing, and then there's the history of lousy adaptations of Moore's work.

Zach Snyder is apparently directing, hard to tell what that means, as far as I'm concerned his record consists of one hit and one miss.

Still, the upcoming movie that's really chilling me to the bone is The Spirit... how dare they...

This just in:
Eddie Murphy is the new Riddler
Shia LeBeouf will be Robin

All I can say is "WTF?"

Yeah, as soon as I heard that I thought "is this series Joel Schumachering itself already?".

You failed to mention your "rumor" originated from The Sun.

Really? Phew.

1989 Batman is the sole reason the crappy sequals sold at all. Without 1989 Batman, The Dark Knight would just have small audience numbers because Batman movies suck without the greatness of the first one.

Don't confuse Burton Batmans with Schumacher Batmans.

they would throw a remake at you and claim it to be "great"

How's the original? I haven't seen either yet.

There aren't that many tyes of stories to begin with. The basic ideas are just recycled.

That's fine, part of the creative churn, but doing nothing but remakes is something else.

jmerv makes a good point. Moral relativism is all the rage these days. It's bad to categorically call anything bad (except religion - the one group it's ok to unconditionally hate).

Oh please, he's just dragging politics into this thread like he does in all the others.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

People really seem to like remakes. Maybe as the price of movie tickets goes up, people don't want to take as many chances at the theater, so they go for sequels and remakes, where they already know some of what they are going to get?

 

[jmervyn]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

The reviewer knows this, you know this, I know this, so let's not adhere to the half-witted stuff movie critics spew.

Yet there it is. :smug: The same happens for pretty much any Good v. Evil movie that's not totally cartoonish, and even some that are (300).

You're just being martyr again, and I'm kind of surprised to see Aero follow suit.

While you apparently don't realize just how far-gone the situation is. Moral relativism <is> stock-in-trade for Hollywood; there's almost no heroic figures outside of a few cartoons, and they much prefer producing things about flawed heroes - or more preferably anti-heroes, like Ghost Rider, The Punisher or Hancock.

Oh please, he's just dragging politics into this thread like he does in all the others.

Well, the job of spectacularly demonstrating myself an idiot while shooting my mouth off incessantly is quite obviously taken. :coffee:

 

[WildBerry]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

While you apparently don't realize just how far-gone the situation is. Moral relativism <is> stock-in-trade for Hollywood; there's almost no heroic figures outside of a few cartoons, and they much prefer producing things about flawed heroes - or more preferably anti-heroes, like Ghost Rider, The Punisher or Hancock.

Does that make them morally relativist? They're still struggling with something that is worse than themselves, and doing so based on moral choices.

Even if they would be real anti-heroes, which I don't think they are (with the exception of The Punisher, they're not really Raskolnikovian - even Hancock is more related to John McClane than a really bad guy), they not adhere to some sort of morals, but verily, the ones you and I know. Yes, they're all in stories that seek to answer the question whether the Good Guy is still a Good Guy after he have done some Bad Things. But such movies, as far as I can tell, not only deal in moral issues, but in the end of the day also handle them in a somewhat traditional way.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

People really seem to like remakes. Maybe as the price of movie tickets goes up, people don't want to take as many chances at the theater, so they go for sequels and remakes, where they already know some of what they are going to get?

It's brand recognition, plus nostalgia. Hollywood banks on that. Although I wouldn't say they like them... most of them have been horrible flops.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

Even if they would be real anti-heroes, which I don't think they are (with the exception of The Punisher, they're not really Raskolnikovian - even Hancock is more related to John McClane than a really bad guy), they not adhere to some sort of morals, but verily, the ones you and I know.

I don't agree (though I've not seen Hancock, so I probably shouldn't have thrown that in there simply based on the commercials). There's a difference between making the hero be a nobody or an Everyman, and making the hero be a nasty piece of work.

Far too often the former is the choice now, and (here's the part I hate) at the same time the hero makes the noble choice despite having supposedly lived immorally up until that point. "Riddick" is a fine example of this trend, and there are others; the case where the 'cool' villain decides to capitulate is another. The aforementioned "3:10" was pitiful in this fashion; the baddie has everything going for him yet suddenly is working <with> the hero for no really substantiated reason.

{EDIT - I had to share this}.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

I don't agree (though I've not seen Hancock, so I probably shouldn't have thrown that in there simply based on the commercials). There's a difference between making the hero be a nobody or an Everyman, and making the hero be a nasty piece of work.

Far too often the former is the choice now, and (here's the part I hate) at the same time the hero makes the noble choice despite having supposedly lived immorally up until that point. "Riddick" is a fine example of this trend, and there are others; the case where the 'cool' villain decides to capitulate is another. The aforementioned "3:10" was pitiful in this fashion; the baddie has everything going for him yet suddenly is working <with> the hero for no really substantiated reason.

With the possible exception of To Yuma, doesn't that make the story to be about absolution, second chances and capability to good even in the wicked?

I still fail to see any of the titles as praise to moral relativism. If they were that way, you wouldn't say that the anti-heroes had been wicked and started doing good things - you'd see the director portraying their unsavourable deeds as what we should reach for - or whatever, but point is they wouldn't have a clearly identifiable "bad guy" turn a clearly (by his deeds) identifiable "good guy". You'd probably have hard time making those calls with a real deal relativist flick.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

With the possible exception of To Yuma, doesn't that make the story to be about absolution, second chances and capability to good even in the wicked?

Only the last, IMO, since the themes are rarely linked to any kind of absolution. They more tend to the "whore with the heart of gold" model, where a thoroughly iniquitous individual spontaneously turns into a paladin for no identifiable reason or trigger. "Riddick" certainly wasn't turning over a new leaf. The theme isn't that of a conflicted hero, nor of a flawed one (both of which I think are creditable, whether in the recent Batmans or in Firefly), nor even of the far-too-overused damned somehow trying to earn reprieve or salvation through acts ("Constantine" or "Ghost Rider"). It's of a bad man being the heroic figure.

<Could> they be about better nature? Sure. Could they be about pure randomness? Sure again. But without any exposition, and given the mind-numbingly repetitive nature of the theme, the underlying moral is simply "Evil is good/cool". And not even with the oversexed teen excuse that "Twilight" has (vampires being sexxay, etc.) where at least there's a nod given to the original Nosferatu concept.

you'd see the director portraying their unsavourable deeds as what we should reach for - or whatever, but point is they wouldn't have a clearly identifiable "bad guy" turn a clearly (by his deeds) identifiable "good guy". You'd probably have hard time making those calls with a real deal relativist flick.

That's exactly what I'm saying is <becoming> the norm, nor does the black hat suddenly turn from his life's road; he simply saves the day - almost as if his actions were due to boredom.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

God, you're incredible. You were probably whining about Han Solo when Episode IV came out, weren't you?

Whatever Hollywood is putting out, no matter how you look at it, is still better and more morally sound than heroes of Homeros or Brothers Grimm, so I'd cut with the O tempora O mores before you really get on the roll. Even barring the comparison with the past, I still argue the heroes of today are as traditional as heroes come. The only thing that can be morally relativist is the fact that the new "darker heroes" are often the best their poor, broken and brutal world has to offer. I don't think that makes them worse candidates, however.

Let me reiterate: no matter what they were like before, the essential thing is they're still heroes. They're still saving the world and doing the deed.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

Dumbest argument in a movie thread ever.

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

You've read the forums at IMDB before right?

 

[jmervyn]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

God, you're incredible.

You've been talking to the ladies again? It'll only make you envious. :yes:

In closing, the fact that a particular character occupies the protagonist's role does nothing to dilute my claim that Hollywood only regards a sullied hero as a proper one, and that they consider others to be less worthy. The last story I can recall that had a relatively "clean" hero was the animated Beowulf, which is hardly a novel storyline.

You've read the forums at IMDB before right?

Donny doesn't need to read; he already knows. :crazyeyes:

 

[Dondrei]

Re: You know what the only good thing about The Dark Knight was?

You've read the forums at IMDB before right?

Nah... I looked at the top movies list at places like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and so on and guessed what the forums must be like.