The Dark Knight VS Batman '89 - The Dark Knight (2008) Discussion

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FMT 8 years ago

"Batman '89 is a fun movie for the kids but The Dark Knight is a masterpiece made for the grown ups."

Only a kid with delusions of maturity would say that.

reply

[–] FriendlyPsychopath 8 years ago

The Dark Knight (in my opinion). Still like Batman '89 though.

reply

[–] ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony 8 years ago

The Dark Knight is easily my preference.

Roger Waters and David Gilmour watch My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

reply

[–] Chris-Au 8 years ago

Both are great movies.

The idea that 'B89' is a children's movie while 'The Dark Knight' is an adult movie is a bit silly.

Both targt the same demographic. When 'B89' was released some of the criticism it received was that it was too adult, too serious, and too dark.

In many ways it's a darker movie than 'The Dark Knight' although I don't think either movie is particularly dark.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/chrisau214/Scribbles-Ep04.jpg

Chris

reply

[–] drose-25359 8 years ago

In what ways is it darker than The Dark Knight?

reply

[–] d_myerss 8 years ago

The scene in Batman89 where The Joker burns a guy alive down to a skeleton while laughing and keeping contact with him via handshake the entire time, only to have a conversation with the corpse once everybody leaves the room seems darker and more disturbing than anything I can think of in The Dark Knight.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

And is something which you'd expect from Joker as opposed to being so well trained that he can smash a hired thug's head down onto a pencil to kill him.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Batman '89.

It was the first time in modern cinema Batman was on the big screen. And, he wasn't just on it, he EXPLODED off of it.

There are so many things about Batman that we remember. All we remember about Baleman is his voice.

And Nicholson's Joker fit "The Clown Prince of Crime" perfectly, as opposed to, "Why so serious?"

It's also difficult to compare the two because of the extreme limitations of what they could and could not do, and what they could and could not show in 1989.

Also, Batman 1989 stands on its own merits.

The Dark Knight is propped up by people's claims about how it is so grounded in realism. Yet, when you scrutinize it like that, it falls apart.

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

I so agree! I'll take "Batman '89" anytime of the sequels of "Begins" even though I do like the reboot a lot! 

- - http://scifiblogs3.blogspot.com/2012/12/batman-forever.html - -

- http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/batman-forever.html - Batman Homage

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

And Nicholson's Joker fit "The Clown Prince of Crime" perfectly

You mean that he just played himself in clown make-up? Not really.

There are so many things about Batman that we remember.

Yeah, That he was overshadowed by the Joker.

Also, Batman 1989 stands on its own merits.

Tim Burton himself considers it to be more a cultural phenomenon than a great movie in and of itself.

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

You mean that he just played himself in clown make-up? Not really.

Yeah, because you completely need to change yourself to play the Joker. You see all these people suggesting... say, Jon Hamm, or Jim Caviezel, to play Batman, do you really think they are expecting them to change themselves, or are they suggesting them because they are right for the role, they look the part and as such people expect them to bring all that makes them right for the role and just run with it? Heath Ledger had to change himself because he was not right for the role, he was a very unconventional choice, that's why everybody hated his casting, but he was the exception to the rule. Should Clint Eastwood have changed himself to play Dirty Harry? Pierce Brosnan to play James Bond? Arnold Schwarzenegger to play the Terminator? Ben Affleck to play Batman? Jack Nicholson played a lot of psychos, but I dare you to find one which he played like he did the Joker. Also, if you're going to keep spreading that bullsh!t, keep in mind that, according to your own standards, Aaron Eckhart, Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Anne Hathaway, Morgan Freeman, and most others, they all played themselves in Nolan's movies. Even Christian Bale, he only changed his accent, but he was still pretty recognizable, and apparently great acting means becoming unrecognizable, right? (Mostly through makeup, but still...) Hell, accents aside I never saw Meryl Streep becoming unrecognizable, I guess she's not that good...! Also, don't forget to consider Eddie Murphy the best actor of all time, he sure changed himself a lot in those Nutty Professor movies...!

Yeah, That he was overshadowed by the Joker.

Well, they pretty much shared the movie's screen time. Isn't it funny how people say the same about TDK, though? And the Joker had not even half an hour of screen time in that one. Yet not only people say the same, the initial blu ray covers not even featured Batman, only the Joker. Imagine that...

Tim Burton himself considers it to be more a cultural phenomenon than a great movie in and of itself.

Nobody claims otherwise, the marketing was insane and its influence felt to this day, but as much as, for some insecure, twisted reason, it pains you, that doesn't say anything bad about the movie itself. Not to mention any director would say that when the movie he made was not the movie he wanted to make, as he saw his creative freedom very limited.

reply

[–] d_myerss 8 years ago

You mean that he just played himself in clown make-up? Not really.

What performances, interviews or footage in general are you referring to when you bring this up?

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

What performances, interviews or footage in general are you referring to when you bring this up?

I mean that his performance is basically him just doing a variation of his usual Jack Nicholson persona. I look at him I don't really see the Joker so much as I see Jack Nicholson in clown make-up with the craziness turned up all the way.

reply

[–] d_myerss 8 years ago

I get what you're saying, but I'm wondering what makes you feel that way as I've never seen Jack act the same as he does as The Joker in B89.

Like the poster above points out, he's played variations of psychos, but like him, I'd be interested to see what performances you can find that are the same as his one in B89.

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

as I've never seen Jack act the same as he does as The Joker in B89.

Not exactly the same, but it's a variation of the way he usually acts in all of his movies, or at the very least the ones I've seen.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

Not exactly the same, but it's a variation of the way he usually acts in all of his movies, or at the very least the ones I've seen.

Please explain how his performances in The Shining, Witches of Eastwick, As Good As It Gets, The Departed, Something's Gotta Give, Wolf, The Raven, Easy Rider, and Mars Attacks( Where he plays two characters) are anything alike and can be summed as up "Nicholson just playing himself"?

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

Which couldn't be more appropriate to playing the Joker, that's what made him such a well received and praised choice, it was as perfect as casting gets.

Not to mention most actors that are considered the best, or among the best, are usually too charismatic to completely disappear inside a role, but that never stops them from being considered the best, on the contrary, as, like they say, acting is reacting, it's not necessarily about becoming unrecognizable. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it's even necessary, and most times it's impressive to see, but acting is still about reacting, and saying we could still see a lot of Jack Nicholson in his Joker like it's a bad thing... really makes no sense, you may as well say Sean Connery sucks as Bond because we could still see a lot of him in the role. That was the point, that's why he was cast in the first place.

Now admitting that, despite your constant whining, you can't even think of a role which Jack Nicholson played the same as he did the Joker... way to shoot yourself in the foot.

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

Which couldn't be more appropriate to playing the Joker, that's what made him such a well received and praised choice

It's a good Jack Nicholson performance, I've never claimed otherwise but it's certainly not the best portrayal of the character.

but that never stops them from being considered the best,

Which doesn't apply to Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker at all, especially in modern times.

which Jack Nicholson played the same as he did the Joker... way to shoot yourself in the foot.

I've never actually said that, jerkoff. my exact words were "doing a variation of his usual Jack Nicholson persona"

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

It's a good Jack Nicholson performance, I've never claimed otherwise but it's certainly not the best portrayal of the character.

Well, you certainly keep implying it. Anyway, replace "the best" with "my favorite" and I'll respect it.

Which doesn't apply to Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker at all, especially in modern times.

Really, Jack Nicholson is no longer considered one of best actors of all time and his portrayal of the Joker is no longer loved and appreciated? News to me... Anyway, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, but in the case of Nicholson's Joker it certainly did apply until the moment Heath Ledger died. Then again, the nerd crowd is known to be fickle, so you really can't depend on it to help you deduce pop culture's perception, especially in the digital age, you should depend on those who don't feel the compulsion to hate the old in order to love the new. Speaking of James Bond, you can kind of say the same about Roger Moore, but in the end trends may keep changing but that won't change how much he was loved back in the day, and that's what matters, otherwise old movies and stars would never find a new audience, and would all fade away... But the moment history is written it can not be unwritten, like it or not.

I've never actually said that, jerkoff. my exact words were "doing a variation of his usual Jack Nicholson persona"

Right, when several people started calling you out on your bullsh!t. From "playing himself" to "doing a variation of his usual Jack Nicholson persona". Also known as backtracking.

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

replace "the best" with "my favorite"

Nope, definately not the best.

Jack Nicholson is no longer considered one of best actors of all time and his portrayal of the Joker is no longer loved and appreciated?

Never actually said that. I'm stating an objective fact that Nicholson's portrayal is more often than not ranked below Ledgers and in my opinion, for good reason.

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

Nope, definately not the best.

Who are you to tell? It's completely subjective, as long as there's someone else who disagrees there goes your statement down the toilet. I can't stand Ledger's Joker, I was looking forward to it but I quickly realized that Christopher Nolan's words said with Tom Waits' voice were a perfect recipe for irritation, it's by far my least favorite, but who am I to call it the worst when so many loved it?

Never actually said that. I'm stating an objective fact that Nicholson's portrayal is more often than not ranked below Ledgers and in my opinion, for good reason.

Yeah, go ahead and ignore the initial overwhelming reception, 20 years of popularity and the controversy and sensationalism surrounding Ledger's popularity fall and rise, tell yourself some lies to diminish Nicholson's, as usual, and don't even bother rating it for itself, make sure you look at it only as a competition on internet message boards made by a crowd of insecure kids known for bashing the old in order to praise the new. Under those circumstances Ledger's definitely wins (even though there's really nothing to win). Or should I say Leto, because as much as that movie was disliked it sure gave birth to a lot of threads and comments claiming Ledger's version "wasn't really the Joker", all for some 5 minutes of screen time. I can only imagine how Ledger's reputation will go down when or if Leto ever actually stars on a Batman movie. But hey, what goes around comes around, and at least Nicholson didn't had to die to be appreciated, nor was his popularity ever dependent on the confrontational comic book store guy crowd that's so prevalent on message boards, since it didn't even exist back then. Hell, even Heath Ledger's casting boosted its popularity, up until the moment he died. Like I said, as much as it pains you you just can't rewrite history.

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

I quickly realized that Christopher Nolan's words said with Tom Waits' voice were a perfect recipe for irritation

How the hell does Ledger's performance have anything to do with Tom Waits? and what exactly was so "irritating" about him?

I've never said Nicholson's Joker was objectively bad, I'm saying that he's more often no longer considered the best Joker. I'm saying that's it's objective in that it's a popular opinion. Of course he still has a prevalent fan base and people who do consider his portrayal the best but the popular opinion is still very much on Ledger's side and probably will be for the foreseeable future even if Leto gets a "starring role" in the next Batman movie.

I liked Nicholson's performance just fine but the way he was written held some things back for me. I hated his whole Vicki Vale stalking sub-plot which really added nothing to the movie, I hated how he kept wearing flesh colored make-up and I hated his boring rivalry/dynamic with Batman

it's by far my least favorite

Even less than Leto's boring, pimp portrayal? Really?

you just can't rewrite history

Seriously, get over yourself. No ones who has criticized the 89 movie has tried to rewrite history or say it wasn't a cultural phenomenon or say that it didn't have impact, It most certainly did but that doesn't mean it's exempt from criticism or that it did everything perfectly.

. I can only imagine how Ledger's reputation will go down when or if Leto ever actually stars on a Batman movie.

As if Ledger can ever be touched by Leto AKA the most boring, underwhelming version of the Joker we've had so far.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

How the hell does Ledger's performance have anything to do with Tom Waits?

Wow you are young,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETgh7I6TEeI

Even less than Leto's boring, pimp portrayal? Really?

Do...Do you even know what a "pimp" is? Because that wasn't Leto's Joker.

As if Ledger can ever be touched by Leto AKA the most boring, underwhelming version of the Joker we've had so far.

You got all that from barely even five whole minutes of screen time? Most of Leto's work ended up on the cutting room floor. That's not enough to label him "the most boring, underwhelming version" of the character.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] vinnytimmler 8 years ago

Who are you to tell? It's completely subjective, as long as there's someone else who disagrees there goes your statement down the toilet. I can't stand Ledger's Joker, I was looking forward to it but I quickly realized that Christopher Nolan's words said with Tom Waits' voice were a perfect recipe for irritation, it's by far my least favorite, but who am I to call it the worst when so many loved it?

The only reason you know about Tom Waits is because the internet exists and you are searching for things to complain about and to try and discredit the film. Ledger actually played a character he had not played before where as Nicholson played a role we had seen him play many times before. Name a role Ledger did that was even remotely close to the Joker before TDK.

Yeah, go ahead and ignore the initial overwhelming reception, 20 years of popularity and the controversy and sensationalism surrounding Ledger's popularity fall and rise, tell yourself some lies to diminish Nicholson's, as usual, and don't even bother rating it for itself, make sure you look at it only as a competition on internet message boards made by a crowd of insecure kids known for bashing the old in order to praise the new. Under those circumstances Ledger's definitely wins (even though there's really nothing to win). Or should I say Leto, because as much as that movie was disliked it sure gave birth to a lot of threads and comments claiming Ledger's version "wasn't really the Joker", all for some 5 minutes of screen time. I can only imagine how Ledger's reputation will go down when or if Leto ever actually stars on a Batman movie. But hey, what goes around comes around, and at least Nicholson didn't had to die to be appreciated, nor was his popularity ever dependent on the confrontational comic book store guy crowd that's so prevalent on message boards, since it didn't even exist back then. Hell, even Heath Ledger's casting boosted its popularity, up until the moment he died. Like I said, as much as it pains you you just can't rewrite history.

Keep deluding yourself. I was alive during 1989 when it came out. Learn the difference between cultural phenomenon and critical reception. Leto will not surpass Ledger's Joker I can guarantee you that. Just because something is new does not always mean it surpasses the old critically. Batman Begins surpassed all the Burton Batman films critically. Even though Batman 1989 came out before Rottentomatoes or metacritic was released it still was never loved by critics. Lukewarm reception at best. It was more of a cultural phenomenon than a good film. Even Burton admitted that. Star Wars as well as Donner's Superman have better critical reception than Batman 1989 did. Those also came out before rottentomatoes or metacritic existed. That shows you can score high on rottentomatoes and metacritic even if it was released before the site was out.

Batman 1989 did not. The Amazing Spider-man series is newer than Raimi's Spider-man movies obviously. Did it surpass Raimi's films critically? Nope it did not. Raimi's Spider-man films are still superior critically even though they are older. Sometimes the old does get surpassed though. Nolan surpassed Burton's Batman critically and you are salty about it. Proof that my initial assumption of you being a Burtonite was right on target.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

I have suspicions Spencer hasn't seen many Nicholson movies outside of Batman '89 except for perhaps The Shining or The Departed, since his generation still talks aplenty about them.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

Yeah, That he was overshadowed by the Joker.

Which is pretty much what happened in TDK, if you ask a lot of people. Sure, Bale gets more screen time than Ledger but Ledger's performance is considered the more shining of the two and when the movie came out most couldn't stop talking about this version of the character. Batman less so, and the negative perception of his bat voice was ridiculed quite a bit in the time after.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

Which is pretty much what happened in TDK,

The Dark Knight is very much about the impact of Batman on Gotham city and how his presence drives the characters to do what they do across the board. Bruce himself also has a very distinct character arc.

Batman 89 pretty much has him as a guest star in what is supposed to be his own movie. That's what I mean in that he's overshadowed by the Joker. I'm not talking about public perception, I'm talking about how the movie is more about the Joker than it is about Batman.

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

Batman 89 pretty much has him as a guest star

Like "cold blooded murder", you clearly don't know what a guest star is. Batman was a guest star in SS, in B89 if anything you could say the movie was as much about him as it was about the Joker. Although I still fail to see how a movie being as much about its villain as about its hero is a bad thing, but whatever...

in what is supposed to be his own movie.

"Supposed to"? What's your source? What gives you the impression the movie was supposed to be more about the character of Batman than it ended up being? (Other than your own personal preference, that is.)

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

in B89 if anything you could say the movie was as much about him as it was about the Joker.

It clearly wasn't. The Joker gets way more character and development than Batman ever does.

What gives you the impression the movie was supposed to be more about the character of Batman

How about the fact that it's called "Batman"?

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

The Joker gets way more character and development than Batman ever does.

Other that having his origin story told in the present, unlike Batman, which we first meet in medias res, in the shadows, he actually didn't get any more development, you're just not very good at reading between the lines. Where's that Nolan exposition when we need it...?

How about the fact that it's called "Batman"?

Really, the title, that's the basis for all your complaints? Please, tell me how Goldfinger is not what it was supposed to be, as the story is not centered around its title character. Or Dr. No, Octopussy, The Man with the Golden Gun... What about Dexter, with every season developing the villain enough for a parallel with the (anti) hero to be formed, B89 style? B89 is a Batman movie, like it or not, it simply develops its villain as much as its hero (even if in a different way), like many others do. And it does it for a reason, as these two characters are deeply connected. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it a flaw.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

You mean that he just played himself in clown make-up? Not really.

No, that he did stuff that the Joker would do, such as killing people in such a way they look like him, as opposed to being an annoying jaq off like JINO was.

Tim Burton himself considers it to be more a cultural phenomenon than a great movie in and of itself.

Bale didn't think he got Boreman correct, Collard wasn't all that happy, etc.

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

that he did stuff that the Joker would do

Like constantly wearing flesh-color make-up and stalking random journalist's he randomly develops obsessions with.

Bale didn't think he got Boreman correct

Good thing he didn't actually say that.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Like constantly wearing flesh-color make-up and stalking random journalist's he randomly develops obsessions with.

Thank you for proving, once again, how incredibly stupid you are since you can't even grasp basic reading comprehension.

such as killing people in such a way they look like him,

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

Like constantly wearing flesh-color make-up and stalking random journalist's he randomly develops obsessions with.

That actually sounds like something your average version of the Joker would do. In fact he has done here and there...

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

In fact he has done here and there...

Care to elaborate when?

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TUtnqzxSy5I/AAAAAAAABJc/zs1nvga9z20/s320/rekoj.PNG

One of several results achieved with a 5 second google search. I said it once I'll say it again, the Batman universe doesn't revolve around TDK, stop acting like it does!

reply

[–] vinnytimmler 8 years ago

One of several results achieved with a 5 second google search. I said it once I'll say it again, the Batman universe doesn't revolve around TDK, stop acting like it does!

Then you need to quit acting like it revolves around Burton's version. There are many versions and ways to do these characters in comic books. You prefer Nicholson's and a large portion prefers Ledger's Joker. I myself find Burton's films to be trash and a disgrace to cinema. I am glad that idiot never got to do a third Batman film. Nolan got to finish out his trilogy where as Burton did not. Goes to show you Nolan was good while Burton is trash.

reply

[–] FMT 8 years ago

Then you need to quit acting like it revolves around Burton's version.

I would need to, if I ever did. That's just your usual paranoia talking, good luck finding a post of mine that suggests otherwise.

There are many versions and ways to do these characters in comic books.

That's what I keep saying.

You prefer Nicholson's and a large portion prefers Ledger's Joker.

I just said that a few posts ago.

I myself find Burton's films to be trash and a disgrace to cinema.

To each his own, there's no account for taste, but your choice of adjectives only goes to show you don't know jack about cinema.

I am glad that idiot never got to do a third Batman film. Nolan got to finish out his trilogy where as Burton did not. Goes to show you Nolan was good while Burton is trash.

Jesus, how old are you...?!

reply

[–] vinnytimmler 8 years ago

I would need to, if I ever did. That's just your usual paranoia talking, good luck finding a post of mine that suggests otherwise.

The fact that you constantly align yourself with justanicknamed proves my point. Both of you are the worst kind of Burtonites.

To each his own, there's no account for taste, but your choice of adjectives only goes to show you don't know jack about cinema.

I know cinema better than you I promise you that. Justanicknamed thinks TDK is trash and you do not say a word. However when I say something about your beloved trash film that is Batman 1989 you get all salty.

Jesus, how old are you...?!

I am 37 buddy.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

You...You are a Batman fan, yes? Then you should notice these references in the '89 movie, particularly number 14...

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/comic-book-references-in-movies-part-i.html

14. Joker uses flesh color makeup to conceal his white skin, but his inhumane, frozen grin is still clearly dominating his appearance (panels from 1940's Batman #45 , two 1970's Joker comic books and 1988's Batman #427)

And this sort of thing has been done in later years, too, even in relation to Joker related characters like Harley Quinn.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

It's really no contest for me either.

TDK just has a way more compelling story, cast of characters and it handles the Batman/Joker dynamic in a much more compelling fashion than the boring one in the 89 film.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

So you share your general opinion on the thread's topic now instead of earlier, interesting...

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Spencer is a Nolantard. nothign you do or say can ever get him off of his knees for Nolan.

reply

[–] vinnytimmler 8 years ago

Spencer is a Nolantard. nothign you do or say can ever get him off of his knees for Nolan.

Justanicknamed is a Burtonite. Nothing you say or do can get him off of his knees for Burton. Also for Pete's sake learn how to spell.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

I know how to spell, vinnyc0cktumbler. And you are such a retard that you "think" because a person likes a movie or two, yet admits to the actual flaws of the movie, that it makes them a fan of the director, come breath.

Oh, and

Justanicnamed is a Burtonite. Nothing you say or do can get him off of his knees for Burton. Also for Pete's sake learn how to spell.

when you are as stupid as you are, you should never make a comment about spelling or the such, sh!t head.

reply

[–] vinnytimmler 8 years ago

I know how to spell, vinnyc0cktumbler. And you are such a retard that you "think" because a person likes a movie or two, yet admits to the actual flaws of the movie, that it makes them a fan of the director, come breath.

I admit to the flaws of Nolan's Batman films. It is rather obvious you are a Burtonite. Any change and liberation from the source he makes gets swept under the rug. The second Nolan does it you lose your sh!t.

when you are as stupid as you are, you should never make a comment about spelling or the such, sh!t head.

Getting someone's imdb name wrong is not as ignorant as misspelling a common word. So I will comment on it all day. Someone should slap you, you truly are a different type of dumbass.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Any change and liberation from the source he makes gets swept under the rug. The second Nolan does it you lose your sh!t.

No, you AIDS infected retard. I don't. I view Burton's movies as being enjoyable and exciting. He used characters which we know and stayed true to the basic stories without making changes which would make a person say, "Who is that annoying jakhoff with makeup on his face" or "Batman looks like a statue the way he fights."

It is the come drinking Nolan morons who try to elevate The Dull Knight trilogy to something beyond comic book movies. They drone on and on about how they are so great because they are grounded in realism, but when Nolanhack does some stupid sh!t they say you have to suspend disbelief.

Just like you sex life, you want it both ways. Realism which isn't realistic.

If the movies are that great, then they shouldn't have tons of sh!t in them.

Getting someone's imdb name wrong is not as ignorant as misspelling a common word.

Keep telling yourself that, you retarded come drinker.

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

Justanicknamed is a Burtonite. Nothing you say or do can get him off of his knees for Burton. Also for Pete's sake learn how to spell.

VAGINOnicknamed is a dumbass. That is the most appropriate definition of him.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

I've rarely seen him show up to discuss Nolan's other works besides his Batman movies. He did however pop up on the board for Interstellar once or twice and it was to confront me on my opinions on TDK Trilogy.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Well, he's obsessed with these cr*ppy movies so he makes sure to protect them.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

I just remembered the previously mentioned discussions from said board and timeframe - He kept arguing Anne Hathaway was as valid an action star as Scarlett Johansson, that she was the best Catwoman there has ever been, and then he asked me what other comic book roles could she take on next.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

I just remembered the previously mentioned discussions from said board and timeframe - He kept arguing Anne Hathaway was as valid an action star as Scarlett Johansson, that she was the best Catwoman there has ever been, and then he asked me what other comic book roles could she take on next.

I find it amusing that you have insulted me on many occasions, because I am, apparently, a very disrespectful, ungraceful person, because I tend to say bad things about MCU movies. However, despite being such a moralist, you have no problems with having friendly discussions with VAGINOnicknamed, who is infamous for his disrespectful behavior against people, who always attacks those who disagree with him. He always refers to people with words like "Nolantard", "Asslicker", "Fa66ot", and etc. But you are okay with that, as I see. And let's not even mention the fact that he always makes fun of Heath Ledger's death. I can't wait for your long response in which you will try to portray yourself as an innocent sheep that can't be wrong.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

I find it amusing that you have insulted me on many occasions, because I am, apparently, a very disrespectful, ungraceful person, because I tend to say bad things about MCU movies. However, despite being such a moralist, you have no problems with having friendly discussions with VAGINOnicknamed, who is infamous for his disrespectful behavior against people, who always attacks those who disagree with him. He always refers to people with words like "Nolantard", "Asslicker", "Fa66ot", and etc. But you are okay with that, as I see. And let's not even mention the fact that he always makes fun of Heath Ledger's death. I can't wait for your long response in which you will try to portray yourself as an innocent sheep that can't be wrong.

No, I think you are a disrespectful, ungraceful person because of your attitude towards others and how you project your opinion, not because you simply don't like MCU movies. Secondly, so because I didn't reply negatively to justanicknamed's post I am ultimately quite chummy and approve of their behavior here and elsewhere? Really sound logic(Not). I did not agree that Spencer is necessarily a "Nolantard" which is why I said that I've generally only encountered him in debates concerning Nolan's Batman works so I think it's sound that he's just a fan of his Batman trilogy but not much else. Finally, I must've struck a nerve or something with you as you are clearly a bit obsessed with my postings, particularly on message boards in relation to DC and Marvel comic adaptations. Pray tell, what exactly is your goal here in the grander scheme of things?

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

If that retard had actual "friendly discussions" with me, I wouldn't have put him on ignore. The truth is, he's made very bigoted posts.

Also, I've never post anything like "Fa66ot", even though I'm sure he loves kneeling at the glory hole in the men's room at the truck stop. But, I support his choice to do so.

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

If that retard had actual "friendly discussions" with me, I wouldn't have put him on ignore.

Wait, did you just called Darwinskid a retard? I thought you were mutual friends and such. (Well, seems like I was wrong.)

The truth is, he's made very bigoted posts.

Any particular examples? Do you have links to those posts? I wonder what exactly you mean by that. I wonder if you mean by that those false claims from "samhd" hypocrite, who calls me a racist for considering Communist Government of China to be a bad thing, despite the fact that he have said on multiple occasions that black people deserved to be enslaved.

Also, I've never post anything like "Fa66ot"

Yeah, sure, we believe you. A guy who never had any restriction in using words such as "asslicker", and who mocks dead people, would be resistant to use word such as "Fa66ot".

even though I'm sure he loves kneeling at the glory hole in the men's room at the truck stop.

Congratulations at disproving your own point, VAGINOnicknamed.

But, I support his choice to do so.

VAGINOnicknamed, don't project onto others your own insecurities.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

Wait, did you just called Darwinskid a retard? I thought you were mutual friends and such. (Well, seems like I was wrong.)

I believe they were addressing you, as a user cannot directly reply to one they have placed on ignore on IMDb. As evidence suggests here they have replied directly to me with ease but have not engaged into conversation with you even after you responded to them.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

I believe they were addressing you

Except, he constructed the sentence in such way, it seemed as if he was referring to you. I said that you both were having friendly conversations with each other, and his response was, "If that retard had actual "friendly discussions" with me", implying that he considers you a retard. But maybe VAGINOnicknamed is so stupid, he can't even write a proper sentence.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

Except if he had me on ignore, which he clearly does not, he would not be able to respond to my posting. And if he has a beef with me would he not have insulted me earlier in the thread before your arrival?

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

God dam is he a retard or what? 

You'd think that things like,

If that retard

or

I wouldn't have put him on ignore. The truth is, he's made very bigoted posts.

and

I'm sure he loves kneeling at the glory hole in the men's room at the truck stop. But, I support his choice to do so.

would make it obvious I was speaking ABOUT someone other than who I was talking to. 

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

"God dam is he a retard or what?"

-Said VAGINOnicknamed while he was looking at the mirror.

You'd think that things like,
If that retard or
I wouldn't have put him on ignore. The truth is, he's made very bigoted posts.
and
I'm sure he loves kneeling at the glory hole in the men's room at the truck stop. But, I support his choice to do so. would make it obvious I was speaking ABOUT someone other than who I was talking to.

VAGINOnicknamed have insulted his buddy, yet, tries to turn tables on me, because he is an uneducated moron who can't properly construct a sentence to not make fool of himself.

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

Except if he had me on ignore, which he clearly does not, he would not be able to respond to my posting

VAGINOnicknamed said that he put me on ignore. Yet, as you can see, he have responded to my post. So I guess VAGINOnicknamed just says that he puts people on ignore, but doesn't do that, so that he can read what his internet enemies have to say about his little, insecure ass.

And if he has a beef with me would he not have insulted me earlier in the thread before your arrival?

I don't know, pal, how could I know what happens in empty head of that sick bastard? His actions very rarely have rationale behind. He may say one thing, but then will do the opposite. Again, he's a complete nutjob.

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

No, I think you are a disrespectful, ungraceful person because of your attitude towards others

My attitude towards whom? I rarely attack someone with my opinion. VAGINOnicknamed is the only IMDB user that I have no restrictions in insulting. But I have full right to do so.

and how you project your opinion

You mean how I express my opinion? Also, if that is the problem for you, again, why do you have such friendly conversations with Vaginonicknamed? If someone brings negative connotations with his opinion, there is no one worse than him.

not because you simply don't like MCU movies.

Then what else triggers you about me? My sarcastic lists in which I mock celebrities?

Secondly, so because I didn't reply negatively to justanicknamed's post I am ultimately quite chummy and approve of their behavior here and elsewhere?

Yes. You often whine about my behavior, and how you are offended by it, yet, you have no problems with having friendly conversations with a guy who's notorious for his negative attitude and bad behavior. That is a double standard right here. If you are such a moralist, then you should not have conversations like these with a guy who represents everything against what you stand, apparently.

I did not agree that Spencer is necessarily a "Nolantard" which is why I said that I've generally only encountered him in debates concerning Nolan's Batman works so I think it's sound that he's just a fan of his Batman trilogy but not much else.

Excuses, excuses, excuses... If you have so many problems with people like me, because I don't like MCU movies, and if you pretend to be some kind of a uber-moralist, then people like VAGINOnicknamed should be on your black list. If you weren't a hypocrite (which you are, don't deny it), you'd say to him: "Sorry, pal. I'm not a fan of Spencer, and I'm neither a fan of yours. I think you are a disgusting human being with some serious mental issues." If that was your response, I would actually have respect for you. But after witnessing the opposite, all I can say is that I was right - you agree with people as long as their attitude fits into your agenda, and doesn't matter how awful they might be.

Finally, I must've struck a nerve or something with you as you are clearly a bit obsessed with my postings, particularly on message boards in relation to DC and Marvel comic adaptations.

I think you have paranoia, pal, since I hang out on those message boards as much as you do, thus I see your posts and respond to them.

Pray tell, what exactly is your goal here in the grander scheme of things?

To expose your hypocrisy. Which I already did.

reply

[–] mounirrmaged 8 years ago

Justanicknamed and these trolls are stupid losers with bad taste, why argue with them?

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

VAGINOnicknamed is not even a troll. Trolls at least know what their intentions are. VAGINOnicknamed is just a brainless simpleton who can't figure out what exactly he's trying to prove.

reply

[–] mounirrmaged 8 years ago

Exactly, and he is a loudmouth idiot with no respect. He just makes himself look stupid

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

My attitude towards whom? I rarely attack someone with my opinion.

Please, you've made threads and responses calling others out because of a difference of opinion, especially in the case of the third Iron Man movie.

You mean how I express my opinion? Also, if that is the problem for you, again, why do you have such friendly conversations with Vaginonicknamed? If someone brings negative connotations with his opinion, there is no one worse than him.

I wouldn't exactly call the conversations I have had with justanicknamed "friendly", "amicable" is probably closer but I don't encounter them very often to begin with.

Then what else triggers you about me? My sarcastic lists in which I mock celebrities?

No, try possessing a know-it-all-my-opinion-is-the-supreme-one attitude.

Yes. You often whine about my behavior, and how you are offended by it, yet, you have no problems with having friendly conversations with a guy who's notorious for his negative attitude and bad behavior. That is a double standard right here. If you are such a moralist, then you should not have conversations like these with a guy who represents everything against what you stand, apparently.

Quite a strawman you have there. What history you have with another person should not reflect the back and forth the other has another. Justanicknamed is not a friend of mine, and I doubt they consider me such either, I don't even cross paths with them that often as you think.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...

If you say so...

If you have so many problems with people like me, because I don't like MCU movies, and if you pretend to be some kind of a uber-moralist, then people like VAGINOnicknamed should be on your black list. If you weren't a hypocrite (which you are, don't deny it), you'd say to him: "Sorry, pal. I'm not a fan of Spencer, and I'm neither a fan of yours. I think you are a disgusting human being with some serious mental issues." If that was your response, I would actually have respect for you. But after witnessing the opposite, all I can say is that I was right - you agree with people as long as their attitude fits into your agenda, and doesn't matter how awful they might be.

If an individual is going back and forth with another who may or may not have a "reputation" as being what you describe you cannot call the individual out and label them a hypocrite because you have had a bad history with the other. The user you are slamming may not be aware of what history you have with the one they are talking to and may not care if the history you and that one user has isn't a particularly chummy one at that. I have not crossed paths with Justanicknamed very often and have no business with what they might act like on other places and what bad history you have with them, and it isn't right of me to call them out for a behavior you take issue with because this is not the place for that and there is no reason for me to do such.

I think you have paranoia, pal, since I hang out on those message boards as much as you do, thus I see your posts and respond to them.

To quote yourself - excuses, excuses, excuses...Clearly you do have somewhat of an obsession with me, before we engaged in discussion on the Civil Wars boards on the topic asking which trilogy was better we've crossed paths much more frequently than prior before.

To expose your hypocrisy. Which I already did.

So you do have an obsession with me and want to aspire to turn me into some kind of joke to provide you cheap amusement. Thanks for the confirmation.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

So you do have an obsession with me

Only in your sick, hyperbolic imagination, pal.

and want to aspire to turn me into some kind of joke

Eh... I don't think I can turn joke into a joke, pal.

reply

[–] Darwinskid 8 years ago

Only in your sick, hyperbolic imagination, pal.

So why have we crossed paths with each other more frequently in recent memory when it's never been such a way before? Because last I checked we do visit similar kinds of message boards. And really, I'm the sick and hyperbolic one? Get real. Oh, and calling me out in one of your lists? Real classy. I'm guessing your the stereotypical laptop hugging loser who wants to get under the skins of people because it gives you cheap amusement because your social life sucks and you can't get a date or keep a steady job.

Eh... I don't think I can turn joke into a joke, pal.

Buddy the only joke around here is you.

And don't bother editing your post, you had your chance to respond to all of my reply and you only chose those two tiny bits.

P.S. you are on ignore, so go find somebody else to bother you little creep.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

So why have we crossed paths with each other more frequently in recent memory when it's never been such a way before?

Because I started appearing on DC/MARVEL movie boards more often, thus I respond more often to those with whom I disagree about certain things? You're the one who's trying to find some sort of pattern here, while all I do is I read posts on movie boards. It's not my fault that you appear on them all the time and say things with which I'm not always agree.

Buddy the only joke around here is you.

If we're going to be brutally honest, the real joke here is VAGINOnicknamed. I mean, even if you agree with him on The Dark Knight trilogy and Marvel movies, you can't pretend that this guy is not a clown - he is. Literally, majority of people just laughs at this imbecile's attempts at trolling.

And don't bother editing your post, you had your chance to respond to all of my reply and you only chose those two tiny bits.

Is that one of your hyperbolic, imaginative accusations, about the things that only you see but others don't?

P.S. you are on ignore, so go find somebody else to bother you little creep.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M_yhz-KlZ3Q/TnYoD5xeHXI/AAAAAAAACmM/gH8uLe42BPI/s1600/P1070759.JPG

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

Well, he's obsessed with these cr*ppy movies so he makes sure to protect them.

That's why you always hang out on message boards for crappy MCU movies (which is huge amount of movies) that you tend to protect from negativity?

reply

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

I like both Tim Burton's Batman movies, but it's mostly due to nostalgia and the atmosphere of those movies. Nolan's movies are way superior in terms of storytelling, characters, and overall themes. Burton's movies feel sort of lost with the message that they are trying to tell with the story. But then again, those movies were made solely to be entertaining, not thought-provoking.

reply

[–] spencermalley935 8 years ago

Spot-on description.

reply