No movie is perfect, but this tribology is really good...
I've seen the dark Knight rises more than 20 times and I can't get enough of it...
Me too, it was one of the greatest theater experiences I have ever had, I didn't want the movie to end. I do have some minor nitpicks but overall the movie is as perfect as any movie could get.
shareWhat's the movie that is underrated?
shareYou can't say the movie with 8.4 score is underrated. I agree there's unusually high amount of haters, but the score proves they're a vocal minority.
shareYes when the film first came out it became the "cool thing" to invent bitchy little nitpicks about it. I have two theories on why this happened either A) They were sad and bitter that the film was successful yet the Joker wasn't in it or B) They are too stupid to understand it. Either way they are utterly pathetic.
shareI think 8.4 is overrated for this film. It has its moments, but it has some big flaws.
shareNot at all, if anything TDKR deserves more than an 8.4, it's underrated and very unfairly bashed and nit picked. No one would ever nit pick any other film the way TDKR has been.
shareIt's not nitpicking, it's gaping flaws and plot-holes. And a shitty lead performance from Christian Bale.
shareI agree it's got some pretty big problems/plot holes, but I thought Bale was okay. I can't say as I disliked any of the performers in and of themselves.
shareYou didn't find his Bat voice distracting? He sounds like he's straining himself to the point of getting a hernia every time he opens his mouth. I understand he's trying to disguise his voice but the execution is terrible.
shareOkay, yeah, I didn't like his bat-voice. For TDKR I'm thinking of his Howard Hughes routine, which I thought was done decently well. I was never over the moon with Bale's performance, but I did like it overall.
Yes, the bat-voice I mocked since The Dark Knight. It worked in BB when he was screaming at Flass (VERY intimidating), but it became a little silly sounding when he was trading philosophical arguments with the Joker in part 2.
We've already been through this, when TDKR haters complain about "plot holes" that's just a buzz word they use for something they don't fully get.
shareThere's nothing to get genius, we've been through that already. Stop acting like this movie has any depth, it's as shallow as a toddler pool.
shareLike Ace _Spade says; 8.4 and roughly an over 85% average rating for this film despite its many obvious plot and immersion breaking flaws (not to mention some just flat out bad writing) is definitely over rated, not underrating. but in addition to that; I don't think this film has too many 'haters' what there are is legitimate criticism of the film that gets meet with extremely hostile and venomous fanatic fans; this of course causes the critic to become more aggressive in asserting the negative aspects of the film and make it seem like 'the haters' are the vocal minority; when in actuality most people (except the ravenous Nolanites) thought the film was okay but flawed and the weakest of the trilogy. Most people still gave it an average rating of around 6 or 7 out of 10 and then the nolanites and extreme fan boys created thousands of sock account and inflated the score (more than it was already inflated just by the hype on release and the fact that out of the few million or so people that rated the film online very few go back and amend their score after the hype dies down).
Like TFA if this film was rated in a bubble (negating the scores from before and taking new polls today) and you got thousands to respond (and excluded the crazed nolanites that rate anything he does 10/10) the Rises would have a more 'accurate' and deserved score of around 7.5/10 or so. Less than that would be probably underrating it but anything more is grossly overrating it.
Ok kid once again I have debunked all of your alleged plot holes and “lazy writing”, you didn’t even understand how Bruce was able to get out of the pit. Comparing it to TFA is one of the most moronic comparisons I’ve ever heard, TDKR has deep themes, complex characters and a compelling story, TFA is nothing more than a soulless rehash of a much better movie. You have yet to present a “legit criticism” to me. The haters are a vocal minority they are just pissed off because Nolan was able to repeat the success of the 2nd film without the Joker, the plot holes are fabricated and only show the haters inability to understand the film. And FYI you people need to learn some new material other than “plot holes”, “lazy writing” , it’s been debunked and you sound like a broken record.
share[deleted]
Lol chill the heck out kid. if you put me on ignore then why are you responding to me? Lol right, I responded to someone on moviechat that is the sign of a “crazy person” hahahahahahaha
shareNo begins is the weakest and tdkr is rated highly everywhere
shareI myself am not crazy about Begins (it felt like a long prologue that was building to something instead of an independent film) but it did end up producing a sequel that is arguably one of the most perfect action films ever made.
Also making an argument based on ratings is a fallacy (appeal to popularity AKA Argumentum ad populum). Popularity is not an indication of quality in all cases (although they do often align). Usually a film has to be very high quality before it will get a high rating but with established franchises the popularity is already a given and, unless there is 'bad' feelings going into the film's release a la Batman v Superman, an inflated score is almost inevitable.
TDKR and TFA are examples of which very poor writing quality (but very high production quality) ended up leading to mass popularity due to hype as well as several other external factors that had nothing to do with the quality of the films themselves. TDKR was riding the hype of TDK and the death of Ledger and Nolan had a cult like following at that point. TFA was 'rebounding' from the unpoparity of the Prequel trilogy and basically marketed itself and built up the hype perfectly. None of these factors has to do with quality of the film or the film's writing. In both cases it was not good. TDKR wasn't nearly as bad as TFA but it is also vastly, vastly inferior to TDK.
Not even close, TFA is nowhere near the level of TDKR, you are being disingenuous. TDKR had great writing, compelling characters, deep psychological themes that I've even had to explain to you since you didn't get it, top notch acting and overall a great story. TFA was a soulless rehash of a much better film that had all of the fun and excitement sucked out of it and replaced with identity politics. The prequels were also the freaking Godfather Trilogy compared to TFA, the prequels at their worst was still better than TFA at its best. TDKR on the other hand is on the same level as TDK and in my opinion it is a little bit higher as it focused more on Bruce and gave us a fulfilling end to his journey, that's great writing. I'm surprised you didn't like TFA, that seems like the kind of movie you'd love, very easy to follow and doesn't require a lot of thinking.
shareGet ready, since I don't want to put you ignore and allow you to block my conversations with users who aren't rabid crazed fanatics I will now reply to you with the same message for every single time you post me:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Serious this will by my reply to you from now on. So have fun ready the same comment over and over again. You'd be better off not replying to me.
" I'm surprised you didn't like TFA, that seems like the kind of movie you'd love, very easy to follow and doesn't require a lot of thinking."
side note on this: Maybe your stupid assumption that anyone that doesn't like TDKR is just "too stupid" to understand it is totally incorrect and based on faulty premises. That being said; at least you are not such a crazed fan of franchises you like TFA as well. Although the way you argue in defense of TDKR is almost EXACTLY like the TFA (and Rey) defenders. So maybe you should think about your approach on this subject.
As an additional note of concession from my part; TFA is far, far worse than TDKR; the several examples 'bad' writing of TDKR is Shakespearean masterpieces compared to soulless, lore breaking, insulting mess that undermines the heroes and plot of the originals just to rehash it with same plot (only worse executed) and worse character, and completely relies on empty unanswerable mystery boxes in place of world building. To be fair I would rate TDKR somewhere around a 6/10 (maybe if I was being harsh I would give it a 5). TFA I would rate less than 1/10 if it just didn't have extremely high production value (for a 250 million dollar budget it better have high production). TDKR for me was just underwhelming and disappointing. TFA was like getting slapped in the face repetitively.
LOL you seriously need to see someone because it's obvious that this discussion is really stressing you out, I'm kind of worried about you. No one twisted your arm to A) read my message and B) respond to it, you did it because you like the attention. There are several people that I have on ignore and it doesn't bother me but apparently it really bothers you that I have a different opinion than you, it's kind of sad.
You strawmanned me by the way, you said that I said that anyone who doesn't like TDKR is just "too stupid", that's not my premise, if a legit criticism was presented to me I would consider it in an objective manner, the problem is no legit criticism has ever been presented and I've found that most of the blind haters like yourself if you understood the movie then that would solve alot of your complaints, just like you thinking that it was the rope that was weighing Bruce down and that's the reason why he fell the first time. Him getting out of the pit is representative of his entire character arc from the first film to the third: He regained his fear of death and now cared about his life and that gave him the extra adrenaline to make it across the jump, without the rope he knew he was dead if he didn't make it but now that he has the fear of death back he was able to rise out of the pit and now had the skills needed to defeat Bane and save Gotham. He was reborn into the Batman character we are familiar with, he wasn't like that when he first went into the pit. Again I had to explain this to you, and you have no business calling TDKR a bad movie when you don't understand it, like seriously that scene is representative of the entire point of the movie.
I agree with you, TFA is a piece of garbage however it is mindless and soulless and all it did was bank on other people's creative geniuses, the same cannot be said for TDKR, TDKR stands on its own and it's a deep, thought provoking film that wraps up the entire trilogy in a very satisfying way.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen stop replying I don’t need your permission, better yet just use the ignore button if it makes you so unhappy.
shareand allow you derail and hide all conversations from other users, you know damn well how the ignore feature works on this site, which is why you kept replying to my posts with other users even after I told repetitively I had you on ignore, I went back and checked and you keep messaging me anyway to block other my view of other conversation. I know your game now:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
you don't like my repetitive reply then YOU put ME on ignore.
Uhhhh no you’d just not see my posts, something tells me you really enjoy talking to me, you sure seem to get a kick out of me putting you in your place, either that or you’re just really immature.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen put me on ignore like you said you would, I bet you won’t though
shareI did and you kept replying to me blocking my conversations with others, I found this out when I unblocked you to find your threat you made so I could report, I saw you had been mass replying to me which hide me from seeing all other users' replies in the conversation.. You know damn well what you were doing. Again you don't like my generic reply then you can put me on ignore OR STOP freaking replying to me; I am not forcing you:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
First of all no one threatened you so can it with the persecution complex , secondly no one is twisting your arm and forcing you to reply, you have no one to blame for this but yourself
shareAsking for my personal address on an online discussion when the conversation is heated is a form of a threat; it is basically saying that if you knew where I lived you would come do me or my family harm. That is how it is taken when you ask where someone lives. Secondly, "no one is twisting your arm and forcing you to reply," right back at you jackass:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Except I made it quite clear I wanted to send you a VHS that’s not an act of harm that’s just sending you a VHS and anyone with more than a two year olds education would know I wasn’t being serious.you weren’t threatened you’re just playing the victim. Also flaming and spamming is against group rules just an FYI, I’m trying to help you kid.
shareYou know damn well what you were doing; you were making a passive vague sort of threat; that is what asking for someone's (who you are having a heated exchange with) is. If you don't know that you don't know what appropriate conversation is. Oh I was not threatened, trust me; I was enraged by your pathetic vague attempt at intimidation. I would love to see how intimidating you try to be if we did ever meet face to face.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
All of that is an assumption you made, you have no evidence at all and I never actually wanted your address. The problem is you knew you couldn’t debate the facts so you just deflected to something else you thought you stood a chance with. Oh you want to meet face to face that sounds like a threat to me
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareBy your logic you just threatened me, I should report you to the authorities.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareBy your logic you threatened me, shouldn't I report you to the authorities?
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareTDKR is a 10/10
TFA is a 0/10 (I'd rate it in the negatives if I could)
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen stop replying, I don’t need your permission.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen stop replying I don’t need your permission, also spamming the boards with the same message is against group rules just an fyi
shareI have cleared it already with moderator5 so screw you:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
You got permission to spam the board? Also I don’t need your permission I can post wherever I want
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen don’t kid but a friendly warning spamming the board is against the rules
shareI have cleared it with moderator5 and was told there was nothing wrong with this. It is a better option than putting you on ignore and allowing you to mass reply to me hiding the other conversations I am having:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Lol I don’t believe he gave you permission to spam and flame the board. The moderators would have PMed me if I were the problem. Just stop replying if I’m really bothering you that badly
sharehow about you stop replying to me? I already tried to ignore you but you kept replying to me anyway blocking my conversations with other users:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
I’m not the one pitching a fit about being threatened you are, if you’re going to keep replying and refuse to use the ignore button then you lose the right to play the victim. Grow up kid.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen quit replying it’s that simple or maybe you enjoy this???? Sure seems like you do
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen stop replying genius
shareyou are fully capable to stop replying as well:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
I’m not the one claiming I’m being threatened you are. You are the one claiming you are being subjected to some kind of mental trauma and not replying is a perfect solution.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen stop replying genius
shareyou can too.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
I'm not the one complaining and playing the victim genius.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareJust stop replying or put me on ignore then the mean old troll on moviechat can't hurt you anymore. But I'm betting you won't.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareI totally agree, the trilogy started out strong with Begins and only got better. Nolan is a genius.
shareHeath Ledger's tour de force notwithstanding, I enjoyed this more than The Dark Knight.
shareI did two, both TDK and TDKR are iconic films but I give a slight edge to TDKR because it focused more on Bruce and was very emotionally satisfying in the end.
shareIn what ways are TDK and TDKR iconic?
shareI think Ledger's performance brought some icon-ness to The Dark Knight. I *still* see people making "Why so serious?" jokes.
shareLedger's Joker is the only thing remotely iconic about any of The Dark Knight movies. It was a decent performance in its own right but his death brought some additional gravitas to his performance.
Hardy's Bane was meh. Couldn't even hear what he was saying half the time let alone iconic.
While the performance became more "hallowed" due to the untimely death of Ledger, I still think people would be quoting it because it was darn quotable. It was also the first "deranged punk" look for Joker that the mainstream got to see, so it kinda fused into their brains. I loved the performance (I found something new every viewing that was interesting and ballsy for the character and the actor), but whether you agree or not, I think it was definitely iconic.
shareOh no I know it's iconic. I'm asking moviechatuser497 to define it. According to him iconic can't be proven. I said Batman 1989 was iconic he then said well in my opinion it isn't. I said something being iconic is not up to a single opinion. Iconic means it is wideley recognized and well established. See with him it's only iconic of he himself likes and enjoys it. I can openly admit there are iconic films that I don't like. However just because I may not enjoy an iconic film doesn't mean it suddenly is not iconic because of my personal opinion.
shareAh! Gotcha, yes; I see where you're coming from now.
Batman '89 is totally iconic. Love that movie.
Fully Agree..
shareThe last thing this movie is, is underrated. It's above the likes of Raging Bull and There Will Be Blood in the top 250 thanks to Nolan fantards rating all of his movies 10/10. If anything it's the most overrated movie on the site considering it's a conveyor belt of plot-holes and awful dialogue.
shareexactly; anyone that things this movie deserves to be on the same list as Raging Bull is being utterly ridiculous and unreasonable. It is arguably Nolan's worse film and a bad film on its own merit. But don't tell that to the Nolanites and crazed defenders; they will threaten (ask for your home address), stalk your account and harass it by mass replying to all your discussions after you add them to ignore (thus blocking your ability to see the conversations with other users). And the moderators so far have done nothing. I was threatened with suspension and account banning because I called someone an "asshole" but threats, stalking and harassment are perfectly fine I guess. I am about ready to leave this site; I think the moderators are doing a terrible job and I am suspicious of bias; if you have the 'wrong' opinion on a movie the moderators come down like the wrath of god; if you have the 'right' opinion they treat you with kid gloves no matter how nasty and crazed you are.
Some website; who told me this was better than Imdb discussion boards? This is worse; threats and asking for users' personal information was absolutely not tolerated there.
Not even close, Nolan's weakest films are Insomnia and Dunkirk, his best are The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar followed closely by The Dark Knight and Memento. I like Raging Bull but it is definitely not one of Scorsese or De Niro's best. I would much rather watch TDKR and TDKR does belong on the IMDB Top 250, if anything it should be higher. It started out around 19th back in 2012 and I think it should have stayed right around there but the haters just automatically rated it a 1 because they were out to get it from the getgo. No one is stalking you or harassing you or threatening you, you're just playing the victim. You admitted that you report posts so it sounds like the moderators realized your complaints were nonsense and then just took a look at your history and saw that you like to flame the boards. Get over your persecution complex.
sharePart of the problem here, surely, is even trying to compare something like The Dark Knight Rises with Raging Bull. Raging Bull is a biopic drama. It's shot in black and white and it's a movie of the '80s and Scorsese. How do you compare that reliably with a 2010s Nolan superhero action movie? It's apples and oranges...
I mean, if somebody said, "What is the better film: Raging Bull or The Dark Knight Rises?" I'd be pretty quick to say, "Raging Bull - hands down." But that isn't always so easy...
Raging Bull is a better drama than TDKR is a superhero movie. But is Raging Bull better at doing what it does than, say, Spirited Away is at what it's trying to do? Or Airplane?
Some of the fun of "top movie" lists (or any kind of lists), Shirley, is seeing what made the cut, what didn't, and getting to debate it?
I mean, I still don't think TDKR should be in the top 250 films of all time list - that's kinda preposterous. I'm not sure how many (if any) superhero films would make that cut at all.
At least you enjoy it. Personally, I think the movie is way overhyped. Especially catwoman's fighting skills, the ability for Batman and catwoman to run away from a group of men firing at them on an open rooftop, and bane's revolution.
It's a superhero movie... so you cant expect it to be more than flashy action.
I think you can expect more than flashy action. I think the best superhero films have something to say about the world we live in and who we are, the same as any art can regardless of genre. I also think it should be well-written, well-directed, and well-edited with the result of a "tight" movie (imprecise term though that might be).
Logan is a perfect example, I think, of a movie which has a lot to say and was put together extremely well from the writing through to post production.
While I would agree that this film has something to say about the world (rich v. poor//Occupy Movement, etc.), I think it was put together in a choppy way - logic gaps, etc.
Superhero movies can also be transportive and take us to different worlds. Dick Tracy is underrated in this regard. It creates a living, breathing comic book world. Okay, it's based on a detective strip, not a "superhero" film, but I think it's close enough in the comic book movie world. I'd put Burton's films in this same category. They have a transportive quality to them. (I'd also say Burton managed to hit on some real psychological truths about the masks we wear and why we wear them).
I will say this too; maybe I am too harsh on TDKR; it does try to be more than just a flashy action film and it does attempt to touch on some themes; it just does not do it as well as films like Logan or TDK. The execution just was not quite as good and the choppy logic gaps (magic knee brace that vanishes, magic re-healing back and knee cartilage, escaping the pit and making it back to Gotham after 'months' of back healing and with no resources or identification, everyone forgetting they have guns and instead fist fighting, Bane being reduced to glorified body guard in the last 10 minutes, Bruce 'escaping' the nuclear blast and then swimming for miles after already being stabbed in the abdomen) really stretched the suspension of belief that the first 2 films set up quite nicely.
shareThat about sums it up for me.
It had a great set-up, a thrilling climax, and it clearly wanted to get at some interesting ideas, but it got too twisted up in logic gaps and slap-dash character development to stick the landing.
I really like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, though.
Yeah the 'attempt' at throwing in a Robin character like they did just did not work at all; Catwoman is underdeveloped and not nearly as back and forth between good and bad as she should been (way too simplified), Bane gets some good development but then it is undermined by him being revealed to be a glorified henchmen to the not even partially developed Talia Al Guhl. They give her entire character summary, motivation and development in one cliche villain monologue that even kids films like The Incredibles make fun of now a days (and then unceremoniously kill her of in a really oddly shot death scene). That is just way too cheesy of writing for what the dark knight series set up with the first too films.
shareThey were *this* close to me actually loving the "Robin" reveal, too. I thought he was going to say "Dick Grayson" was his real name, and I was smiling ear to ear. That would have been really cool. Instead he says, "Robin", and I'm like, "Oh, so it's... it's fan service that isn't even for fans."
shareI know right, who was seriously begging for a Robin to actually be there in this series? He is not some greatly needed character; in fact almost any time he is present Batman starts to enter the realm of being 'silly'. And then the way they revealed it as 'it was his middle name" was just freaking so lame.
a 10/10 film? yeah right only for the most crazed fanatics.
I was more ticked that they wimped out and called him "Robin" instead of just calling him Dick Grayson. If they wanted to make him Robin, as in the character, I see what they did where they made them "kindred spirits" in their orphan-hood, but they should have focused on their characters' interactions more. It was lame and fumbled.
5-6/10 for me. It does have cool moments, some good ideas, and a pretty fine cast (Balevoice aside), and it's got the F/X. It just doesn't have the writing...
Yes, the way they developed (or I should say underdeveloped) Blake and Wayne's relationship was pretty cheap. it is actually almost as bad as "save martha" like "omg our mom's have the same name? did we just become best friends?" it is similar "omg we're both orphans; did we just spontaneously assume a pseudo-mentor/pupil relationship? yup". So, so cheaply done; it might be the moment that most or at least first pulled me out of the film. That is only eyerollingly reinforced with the cheap "you should use your middle name, Robin" line thrown in at the end. god, defending this type of bad writing boggles the mind.
I mean I get the argument that it is not enough to ruin the movie for some; but that is not the argument the Nolanites make; they say it is GOOD and perfect writing and we just 'didn't get it'. I wish they could explain to me what exactly it is that we 'didn't understand' because if they can't explain it in a clear way either they didn't get it either or there was nothing to get in the first place. such a lame argument; 'you just hate the film cause you don't get it'. Like they have some super deeper knowledge that is just too complicated for use dumb dumbs to understand. Such an insulting argument.
I understand why someone might overlook a given film's flaws due to their love for the show, but I don't like the assumption that people are dumb for liking/not liking any one movie. It's just personal taste.
shareI understand that too; but usually people are a little more reasonable about it and say something like "well I like it anyway" which is an acknowledgement of the flaws. but with these crazed Nolanites; there are no flaws and anything you think is a flaw (no matter what kind of an argument you have made, no matter how detailed you are in the explanation) is just a sign you 'don't get it'. what an insulting way to 'deflect' from criticism.
shareI tried conversing with that dude, too.
Most Nolan fans are, while intense in their love for Nolan, not quite as intense as Mr. Kid.
Intense is a very nice way of putting it; delusional fanatic is probably more accurate. I am pissed that Mr. Kid made semi-vague threats and then harassed my account by mass replying to almost all my discussions (knowing full well that by them being on ignore would hide my conversations with other users from my view) That is just pathetic petty and inappropriate behavior. And yet everyone else is 'immature' in that dude's view. Delusional is the only way to describe such a person.
shareI told him I was done a couple days ago and I haven't put him on ignore or anything, but I just stopped replying entirely.
shareYeah, have been just replying with a preset up message telling them to stop messaging me. But they just keep replying anyway like a crazy person. It is easy for me to just copy and paste a message. Just insane behavior. I can't put them on ignore because they purposefully start to sabotage my conversations so I can't see other users' replies.
I should do what you do and just stop messaging them as well; but I want some payback for the bullshit they have pulled. I am really shocked the moderators have not done anything. I have been threatened with suspension just for calling someone an "asshole" and few other names; and they cited me for 'flaming'. It seems that swear words are the one 'no go' zone for this site. but then the problem is the moderators are not at all on the same page; so the site rules are not being enforced consistently. I would take less issue with what Mr. Kid has done if I have not been previously cited for flaming over some pretty damn arbitrary reasons. Where is the consistency of enforcement?
He hasn't done anything mean to me, outside of some condescending or pedantic stuff (hence "Mr. Kid"); I just got weary trying to have an actual conversation.
shareI am not so much annoyed with the pathetic attempt at intimidation Mr. Kid tried to do; I am more annoyed that the policy of 'flaming' is not being equally applied to him as it was too me (which IMO i have never flamed anyone). the flaming they are doing is far, far worse than any insults I have ever done and yet they seem to face no repercussions whatsoever.
If this site is a free for all, it should be treated as such and I would just stop complaining when users like Mr. Kid get away with it; because everyone would get away with everything. But that does not seem to be the case; there is no consistency and I don't like that at all.
I'm gonna disagree with your last paragraph. Super hero movies aren't great at being transformative. Most are just big CGI mashups where a bad guy shoots a beam in the sky to destroy the world. This movie was really dumb. As you mentioned, it had a lot of logical fails and the only reason it was made was to cash in on the Batman fandom. The first two movies weren't even that good. There was a great performance by heath ledger, but as a whole, they're still pretty standard superhero flicks. Right now, you'll see people defend every superhero flick as though it's great cinema. In reality, they're the modern version of 80's slasher flicks. Turn them out as fast as you can to make a buck. Personally, I don't are about superhero films. They're just the same as transformer movies. Good guy gets beat by bad guy, he recovers, and then wins to stop the beam from destroying everything. I know this is a cynical view of the films, but you have to admit that there's truth to it.
shareWell...uh, while I do think a superhero film could be transformative, I don't think most are. That would be rare. Logan, Joker...not a lot of them.
But, I didn't actually say transformative, I said trans-port-ive. As in: they take you somewhere you've never been before. I also said "can be" because I don't think nearly enough superhero films do that, either. To create another world I'd be excited to visit or that I felt immersed in...it's rare, and there are lots of great movies that don't do that. I'd say Dick Tracy does, Burton's Bat-flicks do, I felt like Logan was another world - this believable future (I don't want to *go* there, though...) - maybe a couple others. But that's rare.
But, yeah, I wasn't talking about transformative there. Now, that said, any art can/should be transformative. But I don't think a lot of the xeroxed CGI action pictures do that these days, or are even aiming at that. I think that's what Scorsese was kinda getting at when he called them roller coasters or whatever he said. It's a rare quality and it's almost non-existent in superhero-land.
I'm with you on that last bit: I have superhero fatigue and I stopped watching them (most of them) unless somebody I trust says, "You gotta see this", like with Logan. Most of them are, as you say, cynical cash grabs with little or no soul.
Logan was decent. I'm just at that point where these movies are just the rehash of Steel, starring Shaq, with better actors.
The Batman series has been a disappointment I saw the Tim Burton Batman in theaters when superhero movies were rarely made. Then the 90's came and Batman got bad while the cartoon was good. It worked there. After Batman and Robin, anything would have been seen as good. The Dark Knight really suffered my my interest with Christian Bale and Aaron Eckhart. They were awful compared to ledger. I attribute that to Nolan's writing more than anything else. The third movie didn't work on so many levels. It sucks too because Bale and Hardy are really good on other films. It was nolan's writing that failed again. The marvel movies had potential, but I was done by the time Thor came out. My soldiers brought me to a few other marvel flicks, but they aren't my thing. Theres something about being able to see everything that makes the movies suffer. Let's use our imagination with the visuals. Good movies nail that. In Seven, you're pulled in by the atmosphere, but the descriptions really fill in the horror. Same goes for the usual suspects, the silence of the lambs, ghostbusters, and the Dark Knight (jokers origin monologues and the hockey pad guy's death).
I think our use of CGI hinders films ability to connect because the filmmakers show everything.
You make a good point about the 'suggestion' of what is happening having more of an impact then being able to fully realize and see it. I admit I get some satisfaction out of being able to see Hulk in full Hulk mode and throwing down like a god; but it does get dull fast. Same with Man of Steel by the 3rd act I was so sick of seeing all the utter destruction and was like "okay is he like ever going to like try to stop the building from being knocked over and thousands of people dying?"
shareI also have superhero fatigue. I think Endgame was a 'perfect' placed to end it. It will be very hard to get invested again after that. It just feels like (despite its flaws) it is a great way to end the series. It is like the same as if they tried doing a sequel to Lord of The Rings, it just doomed to be underwhelming.
shareLove Lord of the Rings. I'm a big Tolkien fan, though, so books and all for me. Didn't care for the Hobbit trilogy, though, that was...well, yeah: underwhelming.
I quit superheros long before Endgame. I did wind up catching Infinity War because somebody else was watching it and I was in the same room type-thing and it basically reinforced that I had made the right decision by not going to see a bunch of these things. IW was hideously bad.
Really I thought IW was pretty good? not great but a solid first part to a 2 part conclusion. Although the idea that some of those character might stay dead was always silly. Black panther just pulled in 2 billion dollars, there was no way that character was going to stay dead. So from that angle it was bit hard to get away from the meta narrative. But the film itself I thought was solid. What are some of your criticisms with IW? I'd be interested to hear.
shareI thought Infinity War was a three-hour answer to whether or not Thanos will complete his rock collection. The answer is "yes", let's move on. It was over-bloated with characters so no development or plot angles of interest could occur despite the movie's bloated runtime.
There was some small amount of interesting stuff with Spiderman and his "two dads" the serious Dr. Strange and the flippant Iron Man, but it was half-baked.
The action scenes were spectacle-only, nothing new or interesting. It was just "look how many guys are shooting right now".
And, yeah, the deaths were largely unaffecting. I thought the kid did a good enough job as Spidey for his death to seem more tragic (his fear made it relatable and a bit horrifying/scary), but as you point out, it wasn't permanent. It obviously wasn't permanent. When it first came out, I saw a meme that used it as a punchline and a lot of my Marvel-loving friends were commenting "too soon" (joking, but they definitely are affected by stuff like that) and I was thinking, "They obviously didn't kill Spider-man, they just signed him up after all that legal stuff with Sony and they only made one movie".
Hmm, all fair criticisms I will say; for a movie Infinity war is defnintely not one that focuses on the typical format. I don't really view the marvel movies as movies though; they are more like a high production series. For example; IW itself didn't really need character development because it had already happened for almost all the characters across the previous 23 or so movies that came before. But yes with so many characters coming together for the first time, there was some issues with bloating; but with the numbers they crammed together I thought they balanced it very nicely and stayed true to who the characters were previously set up to be.
Yeah, there was enough material for each of the '4' for each to really get its own independent film. So one way of saying it, it was a waste of potential. But despite that it was tightly paced and edited. Way better than something like TFA or TROS; which are paced and edited terribly.
That is true; the action scenes are CGI monstrosities with nothing really too memorable about them. They come across more as fight video game footage than an actually film fight sequence.
yeah that was my biggest complain about them; it was very clear the characters that 'died' were not going to stay dead. And that kind of deflated the impact of the finale. But it was still interesting to speculate on how they would bring them back; I had a feeling it was going to involve time travel (which it did to some degree) but I think they handled it 'okay' in Endgame.
That's valid. I've referred to it as an over-budget TV show a few times. I still think they should have lionized the screentime of Spiderman, Iron Man, and Dr. Strange, short-changed the others, and let them have basically cameos. Maybe the "B" plots could be Thanos for one and Captain America for another, but they were trying to give "time to shine" moments to Dr. Strange's monk friend and a bunch of Wakandans and it was too much. Thor had a "side quest" to go get an axe.
I actually thought The Last Jedi was the worst edited of the sequel trilogy, easily noticeable when the opening star-battle of TLJ is compared with the Death Star attack in the original Star Wars. In the latter, it's always crystal clear who's in danger, when, why, and how long they have before they have to either escape the TIE Fighter's lasers or die. In TLJ, those bombers die unbelievably quickly for thirty seconds and then the combined forces of the Imperial squadrons can't get that last bomber for five minutes. Editing, pacing...all bad. I think the editing in TFA is actually pretty tight. My big problems with TFA is that it was nakedly built by committee (rehashing the original and playing "safe"), and that it made itself a weird little island. Everything around it was junked automatically. The thirty year gap has too many questions (Han's a deadbeat dad who LOST THE FALCON? How *exactly* did the Republic remain in power for thirty years AND manage to let the First Order build a planet-weapon right under their noses) and the "mystery boxes" set up the next writers to fall flat before putting one word on the page.
I didn't watch Endgame. I was mildly curious who they did kill, so I looked that up.
"they were trying to give "time to shine" moments to Dr. Strange's monk friend and a bunch of Wakandans and it was too much."
That is true; while it was not 'a lot' of screen time given to them every bit they got was almost wasteful considering the bloated size of everything else. All non-essentials should have been reduced or eliminated. Thor's side quest didn't bother me too much because it had a pretty epic pay off, but what bothered me with it was the lack of continuity from Thor Ragnorok which was ll about him learning to harness the power from within and not rely on a 'tool' to focus it.
Okay, you got me there; TFA does have tight editing, it is one of the only good qualities; I was more complaining about the pacing of that film. TLJ does have worse editing, I think. but yes, I have the rest of the same complaints that you do for TFA.
Endgame was okay, IW was much better; but the way I view it; it was like a series finale; it was very flawed but satisfying enough conclusion. It could have been worse.
Batman Begins didn't exaclty blow me away; but Dark Knight is pretty much a perfect action film (or at least close to what can be thought of as perfect). I have tried real hard to dissect it because I have a real preference for Jack Nicholson's Joker in Tim Burton's Batman so I really looked hard for flaws in Dark Knight and there are not many; and most 'flaws' actually serve as a point. For example Joker's seemingly ability to know the future and predict what everyone will do at all times is a 'flaw' but it serves a purpose it establishes his hubris for his ultimate failure.
for the most part though you are right; superhero films end up being mostly just action spectacles and little more.