THE DARK KNIGHT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Monsterfans Forum Index :: 1990's - 2000's Horror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Joe Karlosi



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the way -- I am looking forward to QUANTUM OF SOLACE! Because CASINO ROYALE (06) was the greatest Bond film since FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE! Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Karlosi



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, Count Karnstein - I saved one of my recent posts in an email, so here goes:

Count Karnstein wrote:
I think I see the problem, Joe. You want an absolute value in a universe filled with exceptions to the rule.


I'm thinking that sounds more like you... You find absolutes about movies before you even see them, and don't understand there are always exceptions to your own "rule".

Quote:
No, it is not absolutely, carved-in-stone-by-the-hand-of-God-himself impossible for me to like a western.


Then what is this all about? Very Happy

Quote:
However, as Ben Franklin taught us, it is the definition of insanity to repeat the same actions and expect a different result. Thus, to watch a western is, for me, to repeat the same action while hoping for a different result.


I wonder what he would have thought of movies?

Quote:
Sure, in a universe of infinite possibilities, it is possible, however remotely, that a supermodel will knock on my door tomorrow, ask me to marry her, and tell me that I've inherited all of Bill Gates' fortune just before I get hit by lightning.


Here you throw in a few extreme examples at the same time -- a model at your door, Bill Gates' fortune, and getting hit by lightning! If you seriously think that the odds here in these extreme cases are exactly the same as possibly liking a movie that you expected not to like (or vice-versa) -- well, I guess you do! But I think these are very different extremes.

Quote:
I do have a better chance of winning the lottery, because there's an actual chance that I might win.


See right above.


Quote:
Really? How well did the Scooby Doo movies do? Two entire generations of kids (at least) grew up watching them. How about Charlie's Angels or Starsky and Hutch, or Josie and the Pussycats? I didn't see the fans pouring out and making them #1 movies.


BATMAN 66 came along smack at the heart of Batmania. Those other decades-later films did not.

Quote:
The numbers, to me, are meaningless. For one, we have a far higher population count now than in 1966 or in the 70's. We have far more theaters. We have movies playing on far more screens. We have people with far more disposable income and more free time. Phantom Menace made money hand over fist, and it sucked. Money and fame have nothing to do with how good a movie is.


Same with BATMAN 66 -- it's not, by any stretch or any serious critic's evaluation of film, a "good movie".

As for PHANTOM MENACE, yes I agree it sucked. But the STAR WARS fandom is bigger than Batman's - or at least on a par with it.

And don't forget that tickets are more expensive today than they were 30 or 40 years ago, as you calculate all your differences. Furthermore, we're presently experiencing an economic bind and people are actually trying to save money just, as TDK opens.

Quote:
It worked for Iron Man because I could accept his armor being more mechanical looking. With Thor, I simply will not accept a radically different costume. If the circles on his chest are tiny metal shields instead of blue colored patches, I'm ok with that. If his boots are a tannish yellow instead of a crayon yellow, again, fine. Can't have boots so loud that they make him look garish! But if they change the helmet, add the face-piece, give him a beard, give him those clunky metallic boots, change the shape or design of his hammer, give him that modern chain mail costume instead of his real one, or any other such change, it will simply not be Thor. If they merely fleshed it out like they did for Spiderman, fine.


At least you made some sort of concession at the end here.

Quote:
I'll know just by seeing trailers and reading reviews. If he doesn't speak like he does in the comics, then he's not Thor.


By that logic, I should not have expected Joker to be at all comical or flamboyant in any way, cuz the "trailer" didn't show this. Yet he was.

And as for reading reviews, bah -- I believe in judging for yourself. It's fine to get some clues, but ultimately the movie needs to be seen to arrive at a conclusion that's accurate. Or if you expect anyone to listen to what you're saying.

Quote:
It's how I came to the conclusion that Downey would make a good Iron Man, just from watching the trailers and letting it sink in until I got a real feel for it. Then I knew.


An overwhelming number of people thought the casting of Michael Keaton in BATMAN 89 was absurd. Maybe some figured "I know I'll hate it because Michael Keaton is playing Batman". I myself thought it was a disastrous casting error. When I saw the film myself -- like many, many others -- Keaton worked for me. Pleasantly surprised.

Quote:
And, of course, I was right. Wink


You admitted last time (and boy, will I forever hold you to this) that a gut feeling is USUALLY right (not ALWAYS right) --

Quote:
>>>A point which I have made before (and which I'd ask you to please address), is regarding Heath Ledger as the Joker: When I saw the new trailer, he just looked way to horrific and creepy to me... dead serious, not even an ounce of camp. Based solely on that trailer, I went into the film "convinced" that I would not like this interpretation. But then, when I actually watched the movie, I was surprised to see that Ledger DID camp it up a bit, and DID get flamboyant and laughed, and all of that stuff. I would NEVER have expected that going by the trailer. <<<

So what is your question? He's not the Joker. That whole "Tammy Faye-Baker's melted face" look is not the Joker. He doesn't look like the Joker to me. He looks like some guy who fell through the skylight of a department store and landed in the Max Factor aisle. He looks like an idiot.


I think what I said was clear -- no need to ask me: "so what is your question?" You want to dismiss the entire movie/performance/characterization just based on the makeup? I very nearly did the same at first, so I can relate a bit -- glad I was wrong when I allowed myself to be open minded about it though!

Quote:
You don't see it because you're not me and you seem not to understand that we think differently.


I think I've got that by now. From here on, the trick will be for me to let it go and not spend as much time on point-by-point.

Quote:
Bullshit. Nobody ever has to "sell out". He wasn't starving. He could have done other things, like write a book telling the truth. He's a pathetic, lazy, greedy moron is all. Take the quick money and who cares about integrity. I've lost all respect for Bob Kane because he's a proven liar and a whore.


Based on what I've learned and have seen of him in the BATMAN 89 DVD documentary, I think THAT is "bullshit". I think if one liked the dark Batman, he agrees with Kane. If one does nOT like the dark Batman, it is necessary to consider him a liar.

Quote:
You're evading the issue. Was DC also mocking its own creation? Were Kane and Finger mocking their own creation? Were Batman fans mocking their favorite superhero?


Yes, I think DC was mocking its own creation after the first year or so by "making Batman something he was not originally intended to be". Batman became a lighter, silly comic figure. And I think the artists and writers went with it. The cast of LOST IN SPACE (all except Jonathan Harris) didn't like the comical turn the show took after its more serious start, but yet they stayed on, made their money, and did not violate their contracts or find some way to get out of it. In recent days, the cast admits they'd always preferred the show had remained as serious as it had started out early on. Same thing.

When Batman's costume was changed to BLUE, wasn't THIS changing the original conception of the character's "look"? You're very big on costumes.

Quote:
I don't give a damn about mass audiences. They can all go to hell for all I care.


Fine. Then you may sit in the theater alone for your Bat-Mite movie, with mayve a handful of others (me too probably; I'll take both types of Caped Crusader). But to Hollywood, it's not al about you and me. I say "me" because I was disappointed by the latest HULK movie, as a big fan of the comics. My "gut" was right on the money this time in thinking the HULK film would suck. But I was open to it and had it pleased me anyway despite certain "changes I didn't want", I would have enjoyed it on its own terms. But there was too much else wrong with it.

Quote:
Most of them are too stupid for me to care about what they think anyway. All I care about is whether I am going to like the film. To hell with modern audiences and their ignorance.


CK, wouldn't it be fair to say you sometimes are ignorant too?

Quote:
It'd be tragic if you succumbed to the kumbayah crowd that claims things are all right. It's going to hell in a handbasket, more and more each day. Anyone, and that includes you, who says it isn't is burying his head in teh sands of denial.


Oh, I'm nowhere near thinking things are "all right" today! But I'm getting a little tired of painting everyone with a broad brush. Besides, the cynicism and hate is not healthy.

Even if Batman was only portrayed "REALLY DARK" in recent times (I don't totally accept this, as I've seen panels from the earliest DETECTIVE COMICS, and Batman is pretty dark there compared to his goofy transition of 30+ years).. I ask you, what's wrong with that? Why can't there be BATMAN 66 and BATMAN 89? Different take son the character? Why can't there be BATMAN AND ROBIN and THE DARK KNIGHT?

Quote:
They like what they're told to like,


Here's a way I am changing. You speak here in absolutes, but I've talked to people who LOVED the new TDK, and those who did NOT like it -- and NONE of them relied on "what they were told to like or not".

Quote:
The bottom line is inevitable, Joe. Dozier simply put Batman on the screen in the same manner in which he appeared in the comics, then did the same for the Green Hornet. The simplest answer tends to be the right one. No need to get into some psuedo-deep philosophical diversion trying to ask "why".


So then by your own logic, Nolan (the new director) and Burton simply put Batman on the screen in the same manner he appeared in the comics (of the time).

Quote:
Like I said, I don't give a damn about a mass of stupid audiences. I only care about myself.


I think the majority agree that "stupid audiences" would be those who like the stupid Batman, not the ones who prefer a more complex and layered Batman. Just trying to be down the middle.

Quote:
Nobody said they're "all" screwed up. The quote means society in general, obviously.


Oh, OK. Yes, I still believe that too in general... but the brush is getting less broad as I try to judge more folks as individuals. Same thing with movies.

Quote:
You suggest based on what? Explain then why Batman 1989 was a big hit when supposedly intelligent people enjoyed Keatons' bumbling one-note Bruce Wayne and mute Batman?


1.) Better a mute Batman than Batman doing things like going into a bank to cash a check and saying "The name is Batman -- with one 'T' ".

2.) I don't know what movie you saw, but Burton's 89 Batman was not mute.

3.) How is Keaton's Batman "bumbling" when you compare him to the silly West clown?

4.) On the contrary -- Keaton's Bruce Wayne was a complex man with problems and yes, personal demons and a troubled psyche. Keaton was able to convey this brilliantly. I can't see how you could have seen the movie and not noticed that this Batman - at the very least - was more of an enigma, more of a fleshed-out character and person. You don't have to LIKE that take, but at least admit it was more for audiences to click with than just a guy making jokes and going ZAP! WHAM! POW!

Quote:
Tony Stark was not an alcoholic back in the "good old days". That happened later, when comics were already rapidly sliding downhill.


But you don't deny that Parker had problems, or other Marvel characters as well. This was aways why I liked Marvel better than DC.

Quote:
I don't need to see it. I know it won't work for me.


With that attitude, you're right - it cannot and will not.

Quote:
Because:

1. I consider Max Shreck's and Bela Lugosi's portrayals to be definitive regardless of the book's description.


I think it's more that you may have a double standard because you just hate most new movies. Yet OLD movie inconsistincies are fine with you in films like NOSFERATU or DRACULA. There is no difference between these characters' APPEARANCES being unfaitful to their original source material, just like Thor's costume or Flash Thompson's hair.

Quote:
2. I don't like how Dracula is described in the book because I think it makes him look stupid on screen. I do enjoy Thor's iconic costume and do not want to see it changed.


And I think many of the famous superheroes have a great potential to look stupid on screen. And ESPECIALLY Thor.

Quote:
>>>Here you are picking on Spiderman because they break tradition by giving Parker organic webshooters --- but in HORROR OF DRACULA, it's actually claimed that it's a myth that vampires can turn themselves into bats and animals!!!. And yet -- you and Wearealldeadhere probably LOVE the Christopher Lee film, and the Lugosi Dracula!<<<

Again, first we have to understand that making Dracula unfaithful does not excuse or exonerate making Spiderman inaccurate.


But you'll allow it to go in the case of the older films, and criticize the newer ones for doing the same exact things. By your own admission, Lugosi and Max Shreck work for you and you call them "definitive". Yest when we get right down to it, this is no different than changing Thor's costume or changing Spidey's webshooters. So yeah -- I think it exonerates making Spiderman inaccurate. It should to anyone with a sense of fair play and an open mind.

Quote:
Following your logic, I should be free to kill someone just because someone else has killed someone. Two wrongs don't make a right.


One of the most extreme analogies! So you equate taking cinematic liberties with a story or charcater comparable to actually killing someone??

Quote:
>>>Sorry, but MANY people who ARE diehard Spidey fans felt this movie captrured the heart of the comic, the soul. <<<

My response is that those people merely call themselves Spiderman fans. They are not, in reality, true fans. They don't like Spiderman the character for who and what he is, only the concept of a guy called Spiderman who can shoot webs and to hell with how he shoots them.


Me too? I had a collection of Spidey comics -- read 'em, knew the character, etc. I still thought the ESSENCE of the book was captured onscreen. Your webshooter changes are the same thing as Dracula not being able to change into a bat in HORROR OF DRACULA (even worse, actually - because at least the Spidey films do not claim that Spidey CANNOT shoot webs at all!). Your Flash Thompson hair worries are akin to Lugosi not having a moustache ("what's such a big deal about giving him a moustache?"). Your feelings about the Uncle Ben situtation are not very different from changing Harker visiting the castle to Renfield in the Lugosi movie; or suddenly changing Harker into a VAMPIRE HUNTER (!!?!) at the start of HORROR OF DRACULA, when in the novel Harker does not know Dracula is a vampire.

Quote:
Careful Joe. You're succumbing to the subtle hypnosis of society. People are not at all more health conscious these days. They've simply been fooled into believing they are. They buy a salad at McDonald's instead of a Big Mac, but the salad is sprayed with insecticide and preservative chemicals and contains genetically modified food and then the consumer pours on a salad dressing that contains health-destroying white salt and high fructose corn syrup. But hey, they just had a "healthy" meal, right? Rolling Eyes


Do people smoke as much as they used to?

Quote:
People understand that sugar is bad for them, so they drink "sugar free" sodas, which contain neuro-toxic artificial sweeteners. Most fools still believe that coconut and palm oil are bad for you and prefer their popcorn popped in "safe" hydrogenated soy oil, which is harmful in the extreme while coconut oil is one of the most health-promoting oils on the planet. They switched the fries to being fried in an oil that supposedly reduces the amount of trans-fats, but they ignore the fact that there is a ton of toxic white salt (pure sodium chloride, not true salt as the human body is designed to assimilate). Nor do they realize (or care) that the frying process still generates acrylamide (cancer causing) chemicals or that the bun (white wheat) and french fries have a very high glycemic index that turns them diabetic.

No, Joe, people have no clue about health whatsoever, trust me. I've spent the last 20 years of my life studying the field and can out-debate any MD on the matter. So let's not even go down that road. Wink


I'm pretty knowledgabe on food and its relation to health myself. Why? Because I was very ill from 1984 until I found answers in 1989. The doctors knew nothing.. I almost died... years of life with illness. But then I discovered I was suffering from a condition which was the result of what I'd been eating and missing in my diet (man, were those doctors dumb!!), and after 5 years of unspeakable suffering, I stopped eating refined sugar, junk, and white flour, and I got well again. Bought many books and have read all about nutrition for 20 years myself. It saved my life, literally.

Quote:
Completely moot as well as irrelevant point. Dracula (the novel) is a single story. A comic book character's 60 year history is a series of hundreds or even thousands of stories. A movie likewise is a single story. You can't honestly make the comparison you are trying to make.


I sure can, as superhero movies often contain elements from different stories.

DRACULA needs to have Harker visiting the castle, Dracula going to England, biting some victims, Van Hesling stepping in, Renfield eating bugs, and Dracula found and destroyed. That's the crux of the story. Along the way, Dracula says very few lines. The other characters need not read their entire letters. It's a very basic storyline -- but my whole point anyway is that certain "looks" and "powers" for Dracula need not be changed or overlooked - same as you. You probably also love FRANKENSTEIN (as do I) but that's not the book either.

Quote:
Great! So we'll just watch the actors sitting in silence for 3 hours pretending to read a letter!


Who's talking about WORDS? It's the plot -- the characterizations -- key incidents....

Quote:
Which of course does not invalidate my response about superhero movies. It is perfectly logical, for the sake of argument, to say that I insist in accuracy in my superhero movies but not in my horror movies. One does not invalidate the other.


Well, at least this is a better excuse.

Quote:
Joe, I don't know how to explain this any simpler. You're simply obfuscating the issue with needless complications. A western is a western and it feels like a western because that's what it is. If you cook brussel sprouts and overpower them with the taste of something else, that does not mean I like brussel sprouts. It means I can't taste them!


Did you like WESTWORLD?

Quote:
Maybe you just don't know yourself as well as I know myself, or maybe you're just overlooking the difference in wording that each of us is using. Compare these two sentences and tell me what the difference is:

Joe: I generally don't like westerns.
Count Karnstein: I don't like westerns.

Anything there catch your eye? Wink


Yes - what catches my eye here is that I DON'T LIKE WESTERNS either. The reason I add "generally' is because, unlike you, I haven't been close-minded about it and have come to learn that I CAN enjoy some. Hence, the new addition of the word "generally".

Quote:
Joe there is a huge, fatal flaw in your argument that you're not seeing. Nobody can know whether they hate something unless they either experience it or understand it. In other words, if I've never watched a western or don't even know what the genre is about, then you are right, I cannot have any concept of whether or not I hate westerns. However, I have seen plenty of westerns as I have seen plenty of medical dramas. I hate them with a passion. I didn't arbitrarily wake up one day and decide (before I'd ever seen or even heard of western films)
"Oh, I just know I don't like westerns!".


Doesn't matter - there are HUNDREDS of westerns. American westerns, spaghetti westerns, some with cowboys, some without.

NOT ALL GENRE FILMS ARE ALWAYS CREATED EQUAL.

Quote:
And roadkill. It's sitting there rotting. We know what rotting meat smells like, not to mention the festering entrails smeared all over it. There is no need to be indecisive over whether or not I'd like to take a bite of it. I don't need to taste it in order to know I won't want to eat it.

We know that shit is mainly bacteria mixed in with undigested waste material. For all I know, shit tastes like chocolate, nice and sweet. However, eating shit is abnormal, and regardless of what it may taste like, the very concept of putting it in my mouth is disgusting.

You could soak it in chocolate sauce, but the fact that is it shit means I do not want to eat it regardless of the taste or manner of "masking" or prepartion because I do not even want to conceptualize eating shit.

Now by your own logic, you must admit that you may well like the taste of literal shit and unless you eat some, you won't know. In which case, I challenge you to live up top your ideas and find out.


Sorry, but eating shit (or roadkill) is not the same thing as watching a movie and possibly getting something out of it. The former is much more all-conclusive.


Quote:
Just as every large city contains large buildings and sidewalks and lack of wide open spaces (compared to the country), and lots of densely packed people, all westerns contain the same elements...the wild west, people living in wood buildings western-style, wearing cowboy hats and using six-shooters and riding horses. We call it a genre for a reason. Do you even know what a genre is? It comes from a French word meaning "kind or sort" and is considered a loose set of guidelines used to define a particular kind of composition.

Hence, all westerns share the same basic characteristics...cowboy, horses, often Indians, frontier life, shoot outs, and so on. BORING!

If you take out the elements that cause it to be categorized as a western, it is no longer a western. But I do not like the common elements that make up a western. Hence, I can accurately say that I do not like westerns.


Try opening your mind a bit, and enjoying cinematography, acting, writing, music, characters, etc. If you can't or voluntarily refuse to get past the basic western setup, then at least don't talk about a film you haven't seen.

Quote:
I cannot understand how this could possibly be so hard for someone to fathom. It seems to simple and logical to me.


Of course it does, because you're you!. But not so to practically anyone else whom you've had these discussions with.

Quote:
I am not attracted to red-heads, they creep me out and I would never fall in love with a red-head for that reason.

You're just obfuscating simple concepts, Joe.


I think this really shows the impenetrable brick walls you set up for yourself (in this case, RED bricks). Smile

Quote:
>>>Yes, I know what gut feeling is. Most of the time it's right. But sometimes, it is not.<<

It's always right for me.


That does not compute, as you yourself admitted that gut feelings are only "USUALLY" accurate.

Quote:
>>>"USUALLY"? Finally -- A BREAKTHROUGH!!! Laughing

So then after all this time WE AGREE!! -- sometimes a person's gut feeling may be wrong!! I think this one admission of yours settles this thing forever. So there ARE times where someone's gut was wrong, pure and simple. !! <<<

Sigh. I knew you were going to jump on that .


Now and forever! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wearealldeadhere



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:22 pm    Post subject: RE: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

CASINO ROYALE (06) was the greatest Bond film since FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE!


Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Count Karnstein
Site Admin


Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joe wrote:

Quote:
I'm thinking that sounds more like you... You find absolutes about movies before you even see them, and don't understand there are always exceptions to your own "rule".


I live in a world of black and white. It makes things easier. Especially when so many people seem lost in a sea of "relativism".

Quote:
Then what is this all about?


It's about trying to get you to understand a point. No, it would be unfair for me to claim that in a universe of infinite possibilities I will never like a western movie as long as I live. But we aren't infinite beings with infinite lives, and the chances are so remote that if I'm going to "take a chance" on liking a western, I might just as well play the lottery in the hopes of getting enough cash to build a rocket ship so that I can escape when a doomsday meteor hits the earth.

Quote:
Here you throw in a few extreme examples at the same time -- a model at your door, Bill Gates' fortune, and getting hit by lightning! If you seriously think that the odds here in these extreme cases are exactly the same as possibly liking a movie that you expected not to like (or vice-versa) -- well, I guess you do! But I think these are very different extremes.


I'm being outrageously extreme to make a point. The odds are not as far off as you think. Look at the facts. I despise every aspect of westerns. I don't like western towns, cowboys, six-shooters, cowboys riding horses, Indians (as portrayed in the movies at least), western plots, western sets (old west saloons and what not), the clothing, the manner of speaking, etc. I don't like the setting. But you seem to believe that somehow, somewhere, someone is going to magically create a movie that manages to be so good that it gets me to like all those aspects I hate.

It's akin to saying that...even though I despise the taste of beef, that the taste of beef broth makes me ill, that I loathe carrots, that I cannot stomach potatoes, that celery makes me cringe, that onions make me nauseous, that spices give me headaches, and that I really, really don't enjoy sloppy, wet, watery meals...somehow you're going to throw all that crap into a crock pot and miraculously generate a beef stew which I'll actually enjoy. It just defies common sense, logic, and reality.

Quote:
BATMAN 66 came along smack at the heart of Batmania. Those other decades-later films did not.


They still have fan followings. So why not a successful movie?

Quote:
Same with BATMAN 66 -- it's not, by any stretch or any serious critic's evaluation of film, a "good movie".


I hate most critics. They're usually insufferable asses who irritate me with their haughty attitude. That bloated windbag Roger Ebert is one of the worst. They over-think films. Hell, they probably don't even understand the appeal of Batman 66 or why it's so great!

Quote:
As for PHANTOM MENACE, yes I agree it sucked. But the STAR WARS fandom is bigger than Batman's - or at least on a par with it.


Which is precisely my point. Big money does not equate with big quality. If I made a Top Ten Movies of All Time list, very few if any would be blockbusters or movies with big budgets. Probably none of them would come from the 90's or later. Super-low budget ones that aren't that popular would dominate...Phantasm, Lemora, The Dark, etc.

Quote:
And don't forget that tickets are more expensive today than they were 30 or 40 years ago, as you calculate all your differences. Furthermore, we're presently experiencing an economic bind and people are actually trying to save money just, as TDK opens.


Oh please! Tell me you're not trying to claim that movies are making less because people are tightening their belts, when the ticket prices have quadrupled since the 70's while the population has doubled?

Quote:
At least you made some sort of concession at the end here.


I just don't understand why you seem obsessed with me "giving concessions" or "admitting" something. What's the big deal? Why not just accept that I know what I like and what I don't like?

Quote:
By that logic, I should not have expected Joker to be at all comical or flamboyant in any way, cuz the "trailer" didn't show this. Yet he was.


Not a proper comparison. Characters act differently throughout a film. Look at Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi. Look at Anakin throughout the new trilogy. If you only saw Anakin murdering Sandpeople in the trailer, you'd assume he was violent throughout the movie, only to be shocked when he was being kind and gentle with Amidala. But if a person is using modern English in the scenes in the trailer, that same character will not be using Old English in other scenes. Characters in movies have consistent speech patterns. In other words, no way will Thor be saying in one scene "Verily, Loki, thou hast offended me!" and in another scene saying "Hey dude, this party is over!:.

Quote:
And as for reading reviews, bah -- I believe in judging for yourself. It's fine to get some clues, but ultimately the movie needs to be seen to arrive at a conclusion that's accurate. Or if you expect anyone to listen to what you're saying.


Reviews are good only if you know how to read between the lines. And only if you know how to extract objective information that is not attached to subjective opinion. So reviews work for me, as one source of information, not as a reliable recommendation.

Quote:
An overwhelming number of people thought the casting of Michael Keaton in BATMAN 89 was absurd. Maybe some figured "I know I'll hate it because Michael Keaton is playing Batman". I myself thought it was a disastrous casting error. When I saw the film myself -- like many, many others -- Keaton worked for me. Pleasantly surprised.


Case in point...Keaton as Batman! I heard all the outcry and what not. I'd seen very, very little of his work to that point. I thought I'd enjoy his acting, and that he'd be fun to see in the role. And he was. Problem is, he wasn't Bruce Wayne. He was a bumbling parody. So yes, there's a perfect example. I enjoyed Keaton's acting as Batman/Bruce Wayne, and intuitively thought I'd enjoy it. However, I thought at the time that it meant I'd enjoy the movie itself, which I did not. And I did not like him as Bruce Wayne because the Bruce Wayne that Keaton portrayed in the movie never existed in the comics. So it was unfaithful and helped to ruin the movie for me. Same situation for Superman. I really love Christopher Reeve's acting as Superman, but the movie makes me want to eat my own vomit luke-warm! Shocked

So I can clearly enjoy some aspect of a film. Some of the sets in Batman were cool. I liked a lot of the scenery in Batman II (the one with nasty Danny Devito as some aberrant distortion of the Penguin). I hated the movie.

I don't go to movies to work at finding something to like, or to see a couple of cool scenes or to admire the sets. I go to enjoy a movie.

Quote:
You admitted last time (and boy, will I forever hold you to this) that a gut feeling is USUALLY right (not ALWAYS right) --


Yes, because sometimes the situation changes between the time the intuition sends a signal and the time it is acted upon. Sometimes some people aren't aware of what they're feeling or whatever. Nothing is 100% unless someone is God Almighty. That's all I'm admitting, is that there is no perfect 100% guarantee. But it's foolish to waste money time and time again on something where the odds of me liking it are so small as to be nothing more than an exercise in theoretical metaphysics.

Quote:
I think what I said was clear -- no need to ask me: "so what is your question?" You want to dismiss the entire movie/performance/characterization just based on the makeup? I very nearly did the same at first, so I can relate a bit -- glad I was wrong when I allowed myself to be open minded about it though!


I'm not dismissing it at all. What I'm saying is that I cannot enjoy a Joker who looks like a motorcycle accident at a Max Factor factory. He looks retarded!

Quote:
I think I've got that by now. From here on, the trick will be for me to let it go and not spend as much time on point-by-point.


I actually don't think you've "gotten it" yet, because you still seem focused on getting concessions or on trying to prove that I've "admitted" to something that I never admitted to.

Quote:
Based on what I've learned and have seen of him in the BATMAN 89 DVD documentary, I think THAT is "bullshit". I think if one liked the dark Batman, he agrees with Kane. If one does nOT like the dark Batman, it is necessary to consider him a liar.


He's been proven a liar, because we see that the twisted Batman was nothing like how he originally appeared, nor how he appeared in later stories done by Kane. Bottom line, he got caught selling out.

Well, it's 3 AM. The rest gotta wait till tomorrow.

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Joe Karlosi



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:50 am    Post subject: Re: RE: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

wearealldeadhere wrote:
>>>CASINO ROYALE (06) was the greatest Bond film since FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE! <<<


Why?


"Why"? Hey, I thought we're not supposed to be coerced around here! Wink I also thought different subjects are supposed to have their own separate folders?? Wink Wink

Oh, okay. Since you asked....


CASINO ROYALE (2006) ***1/2

All good things must comes to an end, and after the formulaic DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002) went through its usual motions it was evident that the long-running James Bond series had become a caricature of itself and hardly seemed fresh or cutting edge after forty years and 20 films. So Eon Productions took a major gamble in starting from square one with a different-looking blond actor, Daniel Craig, to play a new type of 007. The results are outstanding.

Beginning as though there never was a previous James Bond in existence, Craig here is on his first mission as he plays a multi-million dollar game of "Texas Hold Em" poker against the villainous Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) to put this friend of terrorists out of operation. Along the way there aren't any of those overblown comic book gadgets, so instead we have Bond slugging it out with thugs, and uncharacteristically doing a lot of physical running and lunging in order to take on the bad guys. Daniel Craig immediately slips into the James Bond persona like a comfortable pair of shoes, but at the same time completely makes the character his own type of secret agent; complicated and hard-edged, fresh and hungry for confrontation, and yet occasionally soft-hearted. Though the film is the longest Bond to date (2 hours and 24 minutes) the movie doesn't "feel" long, as there are just the right amounts of action, talk, banter, suspense, and then more action to keep things nicely balanced. Oh, and there are plenty of surprises too.

Bond gets his best leading lady in many years with Eva Green as Vesper Lynd. She is the perfect companion for 007 to become involved with, and they undergo a professional and private relationship that rivals all others in this series. At first I was a bit taken aback, however, by seeing Judi Dench returning as "M" in this rebooted franchise. While I've always enjoyed her very much in the last four Pierce Brosnan entries, it's a bit of a strange mixing of two separate universes to have her associating with this new Craig Bond, as though she's stumbled onto the wrong set in the wrong timeline. All the same, Ms. Dench is very good as Bond's frazzled superior who frequently must put him in his place.

The initial reaction to CASINO ROYALE has been largely positive, and that's a great sign. I've always enjoyed the other installments in this saga, but have to concede it was indeed high time for some sort of re-vamping. Daniel Craig is a tough and exciting new James Bond, and it's my hope that this series may continue and remain its own entity apart from the original lineup of Bond films. All those going in to this film should try to wipe the old slate fresh and clean from their minds and approach this movie as a whole new start on its own terms. It will be very rewarding.


(P.S> -- Now, WAADH -- would you mind addressing the other point-by-point post I wrote on the previous page, in response to your other obervations (MEGALON and so on)? Much appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Karlosi



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, CK -- while you are resting and getting ready to continue your postings, I'll tackle the part you've written so far:

Count Karnstein wrote:

I live in a world of black and white. It makes things easier. Especially when so many people seem lost in a sea of "relativism".


I think this is a major reason -- perhaps the only reason? -- that we are different on this subject. I have NEVER, even from when I was a small child, seen the world as black and white. Reality is that there are shadings of gray here and there, and things are complex and multi-sided. Sure, you can choose to be more "black and white" in thinking just to make it easier on yourself, but that's not reality.

I always recall a scene in THE WOLF MAN when Claude Rains talks of this very subject to his son Chaney. He agrees with me, essentially, while the narrow-minded character played by Ralph Bellamy is completely one-note, and too wrapped up in his own stubborn belief system to let anything else penetrate. Even as a kid this scene spoke to me and made me realize that Rains was the most wise of the group.

Quote:
>>>Then what is this all about? <<

It's about trying to get you to understand a point.


And then likewise, it's about trying to get you to understand a point (s) .

Quote:
No, it would be unfair for me to claim that in a universe of infinite possibilities I will never like a western movie as long as I live. But we aren't infinite beings with infinite lives, and the chances are so remote that if I'm going to "take a chance" on liking a western, I might just as well play the lottery in the hopes of getting enough cash to build a rocket ship so that I can escape when a doomsday meteor hits the earth.


Once again, the latter example is extremely blown out of proportion in relation to trying out a movie. Since for you these are comparable, then it says you are closed-minded in the extreme (and I know that this comes off rather nasty, but I'm sorry in that I have no other way to express it).

Quote:
I'm being outrageously extreme to make a point. The odds are not as far off as you think.


Think about it. Any rational human being will agree that a man waking up in the morning and expecting that Marilyn Monroe will be alive and well at the foot of his bed, who will have sex with him and cook him breakfast, and then take him outside to her flying saucer to take a trip to Jupiter and back in time for dinner, is NOT the same odds as going into a film and either liking or disliking it. The only way the analogy may be similar is if that same man is completely closed off to openly entertain any fair and unbiased possibility, through stubborness and thick close-mindedness. And that's all it comes down to - being closed off.

Quote:
Look at the facts. I despise every aspect of westerns. I don't like western towns, cowboys, six-shooters, cowboys riding horses, Indians (as portrayed in the movies at least), western plots, western sets (old west saloons and what not), the clothing, the manner of speaking, etc. I don't like the setting. But you seem to believe that somehow, somewhere, someone is going to magically create a movie that manages to be so good that it gets me to like all those aspects I hate.


I have to take a moment here to tell you that I DO understand what you mean. I really do .... the very settings, the very "look and feel" of a western.

But my main issue is not so much about trying to make you do something you don't want to do, but that if you choose not to like a western, than you have no business judging the film (though you can judge a trailer or clips, which will never be the same thing when it comes to serious film discussions and analysis). You can say "I don't like westerns so I have every expectation that I will not like this new one, and I refuse to go and see it". Case closed, no problem. -- But it's when someone like this starts a thread on a new western, or goes off against it sight-unseen and starts speaking as though he's actually watched the thing, that people will question him.

Let me turn this on its side a bit. What if a person sees all the recent Batman movies and says "I just do not like Batman". You tell him -- "well, there's this 1966 version of BATMAN which is not really like those other new Batman films!"..? He tells you "nope, I just don't enjoy Batman -- the 'black' suit, the grim atmosphere... the dark and forboding aura and seriousness of it all. I know what I like and don't like, so don't even bother telling me I'll like the 1966 version, when I know I won't".

I do not like political films... or war films... much for the same reasons as you and westerns (well at least with regard to the War movies). I hate the tanks, the explosions, the armies, the uniforms, the entire look and feel and trappings. I don't really care about politics, am bored by the subject. I've explained however that I managed to like PATHS OF GLORY, in spite of these settings. I still avoid films like SANDS OF IWO JIMA like the plague. But I realize that all I can say is "I probably will not like that film and I choose not to see it". I still have no right to go on a tear about how "SANDS OF IWO JIMA sucks!". So if a discussion on this film should arise and someone asks me "What did you think of SANDS OF IWO JIMA?" I should say "I have no idea. I have no interest in seeing it".

Quote:
It's akin to saying that...even though I despise the taste of beef, that the taste of beef broth makes me ill, that I loathe carrots, that I cannot stomach potatoes, that celery makes me cringe, that onions make me nauseous, that spices give me headaches, and that I really, really don't enjoy sloppy, wet, watery meals...somehow you're going to throw all that crap into a crock pot and miraculously generate a beef stew which I'll actually enjoy. It just defies common sense, logic, and reality.


I am the master of common sense and logic and reality, m'boy! Laughing

But your example here is again absurd. You're talking about physical reactions to foods. And yet I'll still challenge you that yes, there are MANY times when a cook can take food (I'm not talking about foods which make you physically ill here; justthe ones you don't enjoy the taste of) and prepare them in such a way that you'd be surprised. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. I've given you very true and valid examples of how the kids got fooled into enjoying liver when it was dressed up with sauce and cheese as veal parmiagina.... I've told you how an uncle of mine got fooled into loving a meal of carrots when he thought he was eating sweet potatoes.... and I've told you how I've gotten some people with a lifelong aversion to fish to actually love sushi (RAW fish, no less!!). These are facts, nothing conjured up in my imagination.

Quote:
BATMAN 66 came along smack at the heart of Batmania. Those other decades-later films did not. >>>

They still have fan followings. So why not a successful movie?


Sorry, but the fan followings you claim there are for Josie and the Pussycats or Scooby Doo are practically nil, if they exist at all. Certainly when compared to Batman, at any rate. Part of debate is to admit when a point has been made. I certainly do it on occasion - can't you? Of course BATMAN (the 66 movie) would do well at the time the hit series is a smash. A HARD DAY'S NIGHT did bigger business when released at the height of Beatlemania in 1964 than it would do in 2008.

Quote:
I hate most critics. They're usually insufferable asses who irritate me with their haughty attitude. That bloated windbag Roger Ebert is one of the worst. They over-think films. Hell, they probably don't even understand the appeal of Batman 66 or why it's so great!


Well, I very often feel the same way - though usually when it comes to my sticking up for a movie I like that most don't enjoy! Wink And this is a key thing to be aware of.

Quote:
>>>As for PHANTOM MENACE, yes I agree it sucked. But the STAR WARS fandom is bigger than Batman's - or at least on a par with it.<<<

Which is precisely my point. Big money does not equate with big quality.


Well, duh. Of course you're right. But that was my whole point about BATMAN 66 . You're talking about what abig hit it was and so on. Means nothing about quality, just as you've said here.

Quote:
If I made a Top Ten Movies of All Time list, very few if any would be blockbusters or movies with big budgets. Probably none of them would come from the 90's or later. Super-low budget ones that aren't that popular would dominate...Phantasm, Lemora, The Dark, etc.


PHANTASM is one of the greatest movies of all time? Okay. But let's meet elsewhere in the folders to address that. Of course you are not wrong, as it's all about opinion.

But I will say I find it unfortunate that you entirely close off the idea of the 90s and later so sweepingly. It shows that you refuse to ever give anything a chance, and NOT that "I know what I like".

Look, I am not a fan of 90's films, that's for sure. But I think PULP FICTION is a masterpiece (sorry, WAADH! Razz ) and it would easily make it into my Top List. However... Quentin Tarantino is a fan of '70s exploitation films and so forth, so in a way I wonder if it's fair to praise it "as a 90s film" when it's really just a glorified tribute to other movies of other genres and decades? That's what I loved about THE DEVIL'S REJECTS... it perfectly captures the look and feel of 70s exploitation movies.

Oh, and KILL BILL 1 and 2 (the complete saga as a whole) is one of the greatest epics of all time.

Quote:
Oh please! Tell me you're not trying to claim that movies are making less because people are tightening their belts, when the ticket prices have quadrupled since the 70's while the population has doubled?


No, just the opposite. I am saying that newer movies (and I referred to THE DARK KNIGHT specifically) are making a TON of money, in spite of the fact that the economy is poor now and people are trying to taper their extra spending!

Quote:
I just don't understand why you seem obsessed with me "giving concessions" or "admitting" something. What's the big deal? Why not just accept that I know what I like and what I don't like?


Because it's fair once in awhile to be able to say "OK, I see your point", or "OK, I'll grant you that, BUT..." now and then. Not just to dismiss everything and wear blinders. I'm still waiting for Wearealldeadhere to respond to many points I've made about Godzilla and Sherlock Holmes and Friday the 13th and Horror of Dracula and Lugosi and SAW and HOSTEL and Ledger's Joker. A lot of points he's dodging there, and a lot of concessions he's unwilling to make! Laughing It's because he knows I've got him over a barrel.

And I do accept that you "know what you like or don't like", only I feel it's due to being closed-off and stubborn.

Quote:
>>By that logic, I should not have expected Joker to be at all comical or flamboyant in any way, cuz the "trailer" didn't show this. Yet he was.<<<

Not a proper comparison.


It is VERY apt when you always go on about how you judge films by trailers and what you've heard. I told Wearealldeadhere that I've seen the DARK KNIGHT and SAW and HOSTEL, and the Joker is NOT like those other films. But I'd be able to make the call, having actually seen the films.

Quote:
Characters act differently throughout a film. Look at Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi. Look at Anakin throughout the new trilogy. If you only saw Anakin murdering Sandpeople in the trailer, you'd assume he was violent throughout the movie, only to be shocked when he was being kind and gentle with Amidala.


Right, so this part is consistent with my saying one cannot properly evaluate Ledger's Joker simply by a trailer or from stills ...

Quote:
But if a person is using modern English in the scenes in the trailer, that same character will not be using Old English in other scenes. Characters in movies have consistent speech patterns. In other words, no way will Thor be saying in one scene "Verily, Loki, thou hast offended me!" and in another scene saying "Hey dude, this party is over!:.


Okay for THOR... But I would doubt this is blatantly true for ALL films, and it's the very type of generalization I am against. There are films where people will have different speech patterns during the running time, if different things happen to them. If a trailer focuses only on a drooling drunken ARTHUR's speech, are we to say Dudley Moore never speaks with a sober pattern else where (or vice versa)? How about in MY FAIR LADY? I know you'll have ways around this one too, but it's a valid point.
Yes, THOR would probably be correct in your example, though (see? another concession!)

Quote:
Reviews are good only if you know how to read between the lines. And only if you know how to extract objective information that is not attached to subjective opinion. So reviews work for me, as one source of information, not as a reliable recommendation.


Even though you were just blasting critics above!

But sure, we may extract objective information from them. But it wil never be the same as going to see it for yourself.

Quote:
Case in point...Keaton as Batman! I heard all the outcry and what not. I'd seen very, very little of his work to that point. I thought I'd enjoy his acting, and that he'd be fun to see in the role. And he was.


Hold on for a moment. You say you liked Keaton in the role, but you do say that you saw very little of him before BATMAN 89. I wonder if you would have NOT liked him, had you been more familiar with his other comedies and things?

Quote:
I enjoyed Keaton's acting as Batman/Bruce Wayne, and intuitively thought I'd enjoy it. However, I thought at the time that it meant I'd enjoy the movie itself, which I did not.


Then if I am reading you correctly here, your instinct let you down. So maybe you are only batting 999 and not 1000 .

Quote:
Problem is, he wasn't Bruce Wayne. He was a bumbling parody.


I don't agree at all. Keaton's Wayne was anything BUT "bumbling". I addressed that somewhere else, which I don't think you got to yet.

Quote:
And I did not like him as Bruce Wayne because the Bruce Wayne that Keaton portrayed in the movie never existed in the comics. So it was unfaithful and helped to ruin the movie for me.


That's because you're closed off. Hey, I can relate -- the Hulk was not the Hulk of the comics in Ang Lee's HULK, and I didn't like it. But had the film been any good otherwise, I could have enjoyed it. THE INCREDIBLE HULK movie came closer, but no cigar.

How about Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson in the 1940s Sherlock Holmes films? Many fans love him in those, and he's a buffoon -- not at all like the true Watson of the original stories. But they still like the movies for what they are. They also take place in modern (1940s) time, even though the character is supposed to be in Victorian times!

Back to BATMAN 89 -- I'm not up to speed on this, but was the Keaton Wayne at least more in tune with the current comics of its time?

Quote:
So I can clearly enjoy some aspect of a film. Some of the sets in Batman were cool. I liked a lot of the scenery in Batman II (the one with nasty Danny Devito as some aberrant distortion of the Penguin). I hated the movie. I don't go to movies to work at finding something to like, or to see a couple of cool scenes or to admire the sets. I go to enjoy a movie.


Same here in wanting to enjoy a film as a whole, but this I guess is just a difference we have in that it's not a total loss for me if something impresses me. I am happy to have seen TDK for Ledger's Joker, even though it left me cold as a whole. I don't regret seeing it though; at the very least I may discuss the film. And remember that while I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, I only gave the movie **1/2 . I think it is insanely Overrated.

Quote:
Nothing is 100% unless someone is God Almighty. That's all I'm admitting, is that there is no perfect 100% guarantee.


That's enough for me - it proves my point.

Quote:
But it's foolish to waste money time and time again on something where the odds of me liking it are so small as to be nothing more than an exercise in theoretical metaphysics.


You're right that when you are so closed off and stubborn about it, it makes no sense to waste your money.

Quote:
I'm not dismissing it at all. What I'm saying is that I cannot enjoy a Joker who looks like a motorcycle accident at a Max Factor factory.


I say it's more like "Will" not.

Quote:
I actually don't think you've "gotten it" yet, because you still seem focused on getting concessions or on trying to prove that I've "admitted" to something that I never admitted to.


You have indeed admitted that people USUALLY are right about their gut feeling. What is more is that you used "scientific evidence" to state that conclusion.

But what I said "I get" is that we are different. And also that we do not agree.

Quote:
He's been proven a liar, because we see that the twisted Batman was nothing like how he originally appeared, nor how he appeared in later stories done by Kane. Bottom line, he got caught selling out.


I've seen the earliest DETECTIVE COMICS. They're close enough to the 89 Batman characterixation for me. No matter how you twist it though, once Batman got comical and dopey (despite how long that interpretation endured) this was NOT the original conception of the character. Just like how even though Bela Lugosi's Dracula is iconic, he is not the original conception of Dracula either. And where's his mustache? Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wearealldeadhere



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:19 am    Post subject: Re: RE: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

[quote="Joe Karlosi"]
wearealldeadhere wrote:
>>>CASINO ROYALE (06) was the greatest Bond film since FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE! <<<


Why?


"Why"? Hey, I thought we're not supposed to be coerced around here! Wink I also thought different subjects are supposed to have their own separate folders?? Wink Wink

This was tired the first post. It is beyond tired now. Is it at all possible to respond to any post without making it some personal attack in some way??

Thank you for your response to the question.

I will respond..or not to your posts in whatever way I see fit. Instructions or orders on how to do so are not required.

Wink. Wink. Laughing Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wearealldeadhere



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:23 am    Post subject: Re: RE: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

[i]CASINO ROYALE (2006) ***1/2

All good things must comes to an end, and after the formulaic DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002) went through its usual motions it was evident that the long-running James Bond series had become a caricature of itself and hardly seemed fresh or cutting edge after forty years and 20 films. So Eon Productions took a major gamble in starting from square one with a different-looking blond actor, Daniel Craig, to play a new type of 007. The results are outstanding.........................



I assume you wrote the above review yes??? Interesting but I still do not understand how the film is suppoesdly the best since FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Karlosi



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:43 am    Post subject: Re: RE: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

wearealldeadhere wrote:

This was tired the first post. It is beyond tired now. Is it at all possible to respond to any post without making it some personal attack in some way??


Tired, perhaps - but very appropriate. My point was made.
As for your idea of "personal attack", you are unaware that you do the same. Almost every post of yours gets somehow personal (about board members or others), even calling Matthew Broderick a "moron" in another thread, or referring to people as "peasants". You kept making "addressed envelopes" and "civil service exam" remarks to me, even though I have not worked in that capacity for a few years now.

Quote:
I will respond..or not to your posts in whatever way I see fit. Instructions or orders on how to do so are not required.


Same here. I Gotta Be Me, and I'll act accordingly. I'll communicate however I feel and choose.

I'm going to stop addressing your points if you don't respond to mine, though.

Quote:
I assume you wrote the above review yes??? Interesting but I still do not understand how the film is suppoesdly the best since FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE???


First, this is only my opinion.

It's got a deadly and serious Bond like Sean Connery for one thing. No gadgets and gizmos required as in the Roger Moore era (which I still enjoy too BTW -- including MOONRAKER). Whether it's FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, ot LICENSE TO KILL, it's still a more straight-forward and seriously no-nonsense Bond. The Daniel Craig films are injecting a much-needed shot of adrenaline into this played out franchise at this point in time. CASINO ROYALE was a success.

Not to put you asleep again, but are you sure we should be going into such detail in the DARK KNIGHT thread? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wearealldeadhere



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:13 am    Post subject: Re: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

( I'm still waiting for Wearealldeadhere to respond to many points I've made about Godzilla and Sherlock Holmes and Friday the 13th and Horror of Dracula and Lugosi and SAW and HOSTEL and Ledger's Joker. A lot of points he's dodging there, and a lot of concessions he's unwilling to make! It's because he knows I've got him over a barrel.)

And you will keep waiting. I have already addressed the issue being tossed about here quite sucinctly. Either one understands what I have said or one does not but the post has already been posted.


(You're right that when you are so closed off and stubborn about it, it makes no sense to waste your money.)

You know if someone posted this about you you would throw a tantrum start insulting people and threaten to leave again. Is it required? It was not even addressed to me and it makes me tired reading it. If the Count does not like something then he does not like something. If he has his reasons then he has his reasons. It is not an open challenge to badger him until you somehow "triumph" by forcing him to waste time on something he does not want to do. THAT was the point of the GODZILLA VS MEGALON story--the point of which seems to have flown by you. I simply do not understand this attitude that people can ONLY talk about something if Joe Kalosi gives them permission and they MUST watch something whether they want to or not because Joe Karlosi says so.

I really dislike how this thread keeps getting personalized. I really dislike how Joe is unwilling to let the matter drop, discuss subjects in the appropriate threads, concede that people have the free will to make informed choices and decide what or what not to do with their time.

I REALLY dislike even having to type the above since I can predict the response it will get. I simply do not see the point of this thread. The Count has no interest in DK. The end.

To be fair, the Count should have given up trying to explain his position long ago. It is a waste of time. I doubt very much that the Count is going to see DK and I doubt very much that he will be persuaded otherwise. Joe should welcome this since it will allow him to dismiss anything the Count says in future by pulling out the "Oh well i have seen and you have not card." which allow joe to claim victory and put people over barrell and all that other stuff he lives for.

Somewhere during the course of this thread it would be nice to actually read about the film. Spoilers are not an issue since no one here at present intends to see it and those who intend probably have already. Since Joe likes the assume the position of Great Seer having seen the film then why not share various plot points/moments/performances/direction etc etc etc that either make the film so great and wonderful or do not?

In short in a thread about DK, it would be good to actually read about DK and/or the character Batman.

Or is that beyond reasonable expectations??

(No matter how you twist it though, once Batman got comical and dopey (despite how long that interpretation endured) this was NOT the original conception of the character.)

And when did Batman supposedly get "comical and dopey"? I am interested in learning this so I can go back to that issue and read it again with this new understanding?? And hey it actually has to do with Batman!! What a ground breaking concept!!!!

And incidentally Nolan---just like Burton--has hardly gone back to Batman's first year either. In Batman's first year, he did NOT wear armor. There was no Batmobile or Lucius Fox or Wayne Foundation. There was no Joker, Scarecrow or Two Face. There was no Harvey Dent. Bruce Wayne was NOT tortured over the death of his parents. There was no Katie Holmes character. Wayne was dating an actress named Julie Madison(who actually appeared in BATMAN AND ROBIN). There was no Wayne manor and no Alfred. Wayne lived alone in an apartment in the city and kept his costume in a trunk at the foot of his bed. He smoked a pipe. There was no cooperation between Commissioner Gordon and Batman and the later was wanted by the police initially.

Both Burton's and Nolan's Batman are simply Burton's and Nolan's Batman. They too have no relation to the current incarnation either. In fact, DC altered the books to conform to the movies and not the other way around. To see accurate portrayals of the character as he was on the screen one needs to see BATMAN(1943) which is pretty much Batman as he was from 1940-43 and BATMAN AND ROBIN(1949) which is how he was from 1944 to the early 60s. And finally to see Batman redone again fairly accurately one does need to see the West series and film.

The later films good, bad or indifferent are really directors using the property to show how clever they are and to make good career moves. Probably none of the actor's portraying Wayne---save for Kevin Conroy--in the recent films really came even remotely to getting the character--though Val Kilmer came close. Only Nicholson came close to portraying a villain as he resembled the character(I am not mentioning the animated films now). Devito, Pfeifer, Carrey, Jones, Schwarzenegger, Thurman and all the rest were just doing any old thing. Star turns or slumming.

Why do I know this?? Oh because I own the books and have read them--more than once. I can recognize when a film gets something right and when it does not.

This incidentally applies to CASINO ROYALE which is a James Bond film for people who do not like James Bond---either the literary or cinematic versions............ And just for the hell of it, I am now starting a CASINO ROYALE thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wearealldeadhere



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:32 am    Post subject: Re: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

Tired, perhaps - but very appropriate. My point was made.

Ah no. By responding the way you did, you undercut your point. I could explain in what way but it should be obvious.

As for your idea of "personal attack", you are unaware that you do the same. Almost every post of yours gets somehow personal (about board members or others), even calling Matthew Broderick a "moron" in another thread, or referring to people as "peasants". You kept making "addressed envelopes" and "civil service exam" remarks to me, even though I have not worked in that capacity for a few years now.


Did I truly call Broderick a moron?? Truly? And Broderick is on this board? He is related to you in what way??

Peasants, addressed envelopes etc etc--what posts are these again??

Re: Civil Service Exam. Joe. Not everything is about you.

(Same here. I Gotta Be Me, and I'll act accordingly. I'll communicate however I feel and choose.)

No. You don't "gotta be me." You should make an attempt to be polite and considerate AND actually address the issue rather than attempting to destroy your opponent personally. I am aware you loathe it but I attempt to address the issues at hand in a coherent manner focusing on the issues. Every disagreement I have had with the Count was a matter of explaining my position and he explaining his. Find a post where I attacked him personally calling him names. It is called manners. WE are trying to be a different post board here. What part of that do you not get?

(I'm going to stop addressing your points if you don't respond to mine, though)

God no!!!

Seriously Joe. This would be a more pleasant experience for everyone if you simply left your baggage at the other boards. No one here is your enemy that must be destroyed.

Mellow out.

And this will be the last time I address this. THIS is not why I come to this board.

Is there anything about DK can you can share with us?? You keep praising Ledger? Why? In what scene was he impressive? Can you describe it?? Any interesting quotes??? What was his best scene?

You appear to be unimpressed with the film over all? Why? What caused you discomfort??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Karlosi



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:52 am    Post subject: Re: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

wearealldeadhere wrote:
>>> I'm still waiting for Wearealldeadhere to respond to many points I've made about Godzilla and Sherlock Holmes and Friday the 13th and Horror of Dracula and Lugosi and SAW and HOSTEL and Ledger's Joker. A lot of points he's dodging there, and a lot of concessions he's unwilling to make! It's because he knows I've got him over a barrel.<<<

And you will keep waiting. I have already addressed the issue being tossed about here quite sucinctly. Either one understands what I have said or one does not but the post has already been posted.


No, you have not addressed any of this. And this is because it makes my point for me, and you do not want to be successfully refuted.

Quote:
>>(You're right that when you are so closed off and stubborn about it, it makes no sense to waste your money.)<<

You know if someone posted this about you you would throw a tantrum start insulting people and threaten to leave again. Is it required? It was not even addressed to me and it makes me tired reading it.


I type hundreds of words, and this is all you care to address. Typical.
And if you truly read it ptoperly, I made sure to say "I am sorry, but I don't know how else to word this", or words to that effect. It's how I genuinely feel -- the man (and you, by the way) tend to be stubborn and closed off to new films. It's just the truth and obvious; but I can't invent any new words which don't exist.

Quote:
If the Count does not like something then he does not like something. If he has his reasons then he has his reasons. It is not an open challenge to badger him until you somehow "triumph" by forcing him to waste time on something he does not want to do.


Several times I made it clear that this is not what I was attempting to do. I said more than once that of course anyone is entitled to watch or not watch something, based on their own personal reasons. I even offered up myself and used an example with VAN HELSING, which I am unwilling to watch - just like you fellas. I've said that my opinion though is that nobody has any business commenting on specifics about things they have not seen (including myself and VAN HELSING).

You already have Ledger's Joker pegged as "being like SAW and HOSTEL", yet you have not even seen DARK KNIGHT, SAW, or HOSTEL. Try SAW out -- you may be surprised to learn you like it, just as you came to like some FRIDAY THE 13th movies and aspects yourself, after you'd spent years of bashing them and classifying people as "peasants who only like blood" when they went to see them -- and you did that without seeing them all for yourself.

Quote:
THAT was the point of the GODZILLA VS MEGALON story--the point of which seems to have flown by you. I simply do not understand this attitude that people can ONLY talk about something if Joe Kalosi gives them permission and they MUST watch something whether they want to or not because Joe Karlosi says so.


It's only my opinion. I am not in congress, I make no laws. But I stand my opinion that all your spewing will fall on deaf ears if you haven't seen the films you're roasting. If we ever get more varied members here, I will not be alone on this.

So Godzilla does not fly. Does he dance?

Quote:
I really dislike how this thread keeps getting personalized. I really dislike how Joe is unwilling to let the matter drop, discuss subjects in the appropriate threads, concede that people have the free will to make informed choices and decide what or what not to do with their time.


Hey, as long as one person keeps responding to the other (as Count Karnstein and I are doing) then of course there wil be a consistent dialogue. I am no more personal or negative than you are. Heck, that's the reason people get banned -- It's not so much WHAT one is discussing, but it's in the WAY they discuss it. If I was doing this, I would have been banned form the several other boards I frequent a LONG time ago. And you already know I do not always subscribe to their viewpoints, so it's not a matter of what I believe in.

Quote:
I REALLY dislike even having to type the above since I can predict the response it will get. I simply do not see the point of this thread. The Count has no interest in DK. The end.


So why decree what Count and I can discuss? While it certainly sees like the horse is dead by now, Count and I have no problems talking about it. We have the same patterns of point/counterpoint; while we may have differences here and there, we do enjoy our point by point talks. Let Count decide for himself whether he wants to do this or not.

Quote:
To be fair, the Count should have given up trying to explain his position long ago. It is a waste of time. I doubt very much that the Count is going to see DK and I doubt very much that he will be persuaded otherwise.


You insist that this is about forcing him to see DK, but the thrust of this is that I believe one should not have an opinion of a film without actually seeing it; at mostm they'll have an impression based on what they've heard about or which fragments they've come across... and that's not the same thing.

As for it being a watse of time and me not ever "getting it", this goes both ways.

Quote:
Joe should welcome this since it will allow him to dismiss anything the Count says in future by pulling out the "Oh well i have seen and you have not card." which allow joe to claim victory and put people over barrell and all that other stuff he lives for.


I think it's silly to say this is what "I live for". This is just this specific topic, not anything and everything else in my world. What's the matter, are you upset that it's not all stroking and agreement here like you prefer? The more members who join, the more disagreements you're going to get.

Quote:
Somewhere during the course of this thread it would be nice to actually read about the film. Spoilers are not an issue since no one here at present intends to see it and those who intend probably have already.


The two of you, yeah. I wonder if you're as suree as I am that nobody else will ever join up here in the near future?

In short in a thread about DK, it would be good to actually read about DK and/or the character Batman.[/quote]

I gave my brief impressions of THE DARK KNIGHT in the very first post after you began this thread. I have not formed an official and properly structured "review" yet, but I will over time.

Quote:
And when did Batman supposedly get "comical and dopey"? I am interested in learning this so I can go back to that issue and read it again with this new understanding?? And hey it actually has to do with Batman!! What a ground breaking concept!!!!


I learned this from you and others who support only the sillier version of Batman. Did you folks not say that Batman was only serious pretty much for the first year or so, but then gradually started having Robin, Bat-Mite, fought tennis rackets and so forth? You have made it a point to say that Batman as portrayed in the TV show and 66 film became the "treue" Batman, thich had endured for decades.

Quote:
And incidentally Nolan---just like Burton--has hardly gone back to Batman's first year either. In Batman's first year, he did NOT wear armor. There was no Batmobile or Lucius Fox or Wayne Foundation. There was no Joker, Scarecrow or Two Face. There was no Harvey Dent. Bruce Wayne was NOT tortured over the death of his parents. There was no Katie Holmes character. Wayne was dating an actress named Julie Madison(who actually appeared in BATMAN AND ROBIN). There was no Wayne manor and no Alfred. Wayne lived alone in an apartment in the city and kept his costume in a trunk at the foot of his bed. He smoked a pipe. There was no cooperation between Commissioner Gordon and Batman and the later was wanted by the police initially.

Both Burton's and Nolan's Batman are simply Burton's and Nolan's Batman. They too have no relation to the current incarnation either. In fact, DC altered the books to conform to the movies and not the other way around. To see accurate portrayals of the character as he was on the screen one needs to see BATMAN(1943) which is pretty much Batman as he was from 1940-43 and BATMAN AND ROBIN(1949) which is how he was from 1944 to the early 60s. And finally to see Batman redone again fairly accurately one does need to see the West series and film.

The later films good, bad or indifferent are really directors using the property to show how clever they are and to make good career moves. Probably none of the actor's portraying Wayne---save for Kevin Conroy--in the recent films really came even remotely to getting the character--though Val Kilmer came close. Only Nicholson came close to portraying a villain as he resembled the character(I am not mentioning the animated films now). Devito, Pfeifer, Carrey, Jones, Schwarzenegger, Thurman and all the rest were just doing any old thing. Star turns or slumming.


Okay - now let's see if you can apply these same rules to the inaccurate portrayals of Holmes and the "stupid" Watson in "contemporary 1940s times" in the Rathbone films, or the glaring "errors" in the FRANKENSTEIN film, the Lugosi DRACULA, HORROR OF DRACULA... or any of the other things you DO enjoy? Why do they get a free pass with you?

Quote:
Why do I know this?? Oh because I own the books and have read them--more than once. I can recognize when a film gets something right and when it does not.


Kinda like me owning all the solo John Lennon albums/interviews/etc, yet you being the one who thinks he knows it all, eh? Wink

Quote:
This incidentally applies to CASINO ROYALE which is a James Bond film for people who do not like James Bond---either the literary or cinematic versions............ .


Funny -- I love and own DVDs of all the James Bond films from DR. NO through DIE ANOTHER DAY... very expensive, those 20 films! -- and yet I also loved CASINO ROYALE 2006. Gee, I wonder how that could be? There are MANY diehard Bond fans who love Connery and think that CASINO ROYALE is the best thing to happen to Bond in ages. So it's perfectly okay for YOU to make the rules and to "judge what people shoud like or not", and decide "whether they are true fans, or not".

Oh - and by your own logic and rules - then FRANKENSTEIN, DRACULA, and HORROR OF DRACULA are films for people who do not like Dracula or Frankenstein. And the Universal Rathbone Homes movies are for people who do not like Sherlock Holmes.

(to be continued; I see you've written more since this)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Karlosi



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:09 am    Post subject: Re: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

wearealldeadhere wrote:
Did I truly call Broderick a moron?? Truly? And Broderick is on this board? He is related to you in what way??


I made sure to allow for that. You're just generally dismissive and nasty, whether it's people actively posting onthe board or someone acting in a movie.

Quote:
addressed envelopes etc etc--what posts are these again??


If this is the case, then I have to assume the Count made you edit them, as requested. Either that or you just forgot. I choose the former.

Quote:
No. You don't "gotta be me."


Oh - so now it's YOU dictating?

Quote:
You should make an attempt to be polite and considerate AND actually address the issue rather than attempting to destroy your opponent personally.


Depends on the topic. This particular thread, especially between CK and myself, has become a point/counterpoint type of debate. I know he has said he enjoys it at times.

Quote:
Find a post where I attacked him personally calling him names. It is called manners. WE are trying to be a different post board here. What part of that do you not get?


For starters, I do not get how you could possibly think the other board you're referencing actually allows people to be cruel or call people names. If anything, I thought your objection was that it was "too" monitored and restrictive? So in other words, if I was as nasty as you claim OVER THERE, I'd have been long gone.

Quote:
Seriously Joe. This would be a more pleasant experience for everyone if you simply left your baggage at the other boards. No one here is your enemy that must be destroyed.

Mellow out.


I am mellow, and the way in which I am wording these reponses is reflecting that rather nicely, I think. It's when people DON'T "mellow out" that they get banned from more easygoing places. I was not banned.

Quote:
And this will be the last time I address this. THIS is not why I come to this board.


Why do you come, exactly? To post reviews of films nobody reads, all on your own? For you to be the one man left standing on message boards? Because it just seems like you don't want interaction with people at all.

Quote:
Is there anything about DK can you can share with us?? You keep praising Ledger? Why? In what scene was he impressive? Can you describe it?? Any interesting quotes??? What was his best scene?


First - I already gave my views on THE DARK KNIGHT. Why, this was the FIRST thing I posted in the thread which YOU began. I will probably elaborate more when I get to my more structured review, but I am backlogged by a lot of movies lately.

But if I say positive things about Ledger/Joker in the film, how is that going to sway you when your mind is already made up? And all I'll hear anyway is "you just don't like Batman".

Quote:
You appear to be unimpressed with the film over all? Why? What caused you discomfort??


I thought I said that. Or am I thinking of other boards? I thought it felt dragged out and too long, too messy of a plot, action scenes confusingly handled, I hate when Bale "growls" as Batman when he speaks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Karlosi



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:28 am    Post subject: Re: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

wearealldeadhere wrote:

Did I truly call Broderick a moron?? Truly?


Sorry, my mistake, You did not call him a moron. You called him a "big dummy".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wearealldeadhere



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:16 pm    Post subject: Re: THE DARK BLIGHT Reply with quote

(I learned this from you and others who support only the sillier version of Batman. Did you folks not say that Batman was only serious pretty much for the first year or so, but then gradually started having Robin, Bat-Mite, fought tennis rackets and so forth?)

Did we??

( I have to assume the Count made you edit them)

Did he??

(If anything, I thought your objection was that it was "too" monitored and restrictive? So in other words, if I was as nasty as you claim OVER THERE, I'd have been long gone. )

Was it??

(Why do you come, exactly? To post reviews of films nobody reads, all on your own? For you to be the one man left standing on message boards? )

Full circle. Pavlov.

I made the effort. Cannot do any more. All yours Count.

Bang head
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Monsterfans Forum Index :: 1990's - 2000's Horror All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Charcoal2 Theme © Zarron Media