|
Drastically changing one's weight like that is so bad for you it's insane.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 22:14 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 22:27 |
|
I blame Bale.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 22:22 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I blame Bale. Has any other actor done that rapid a switch as there was from Equilibrium to The Machinist to Batman Begins?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 22:33 |
|
Didn't DeNiro do something similar in Raging Bull to go from young Jake to old Jake?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 22:52 |
|
Neo Rasa posted:Has any other actor done that rapid a switch as there was from Equilibrium to The Machinist to Batman Begins? Raul Julia and it put him in the grave.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 22:57 |
|
Paolomania posted:Didn't DeNiro do something similar in Raging Bull to go from young Jake to old Jake? Yep. And Vincent Donofrio for Full Metal Jacket.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 23:01 |
|
Yeah, but they didn't do it for every movie like they were getting ready for a wrestling meet.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 23:06 |
|
I want a month with Bale's personal trainer.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 23:22 |
|
Tobey Maguire lost a bunch of weight after Spider-man to make Seabiscuit, then bulked up again for Spider-man 2.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 23:26 |
|
As much as I like H. Jon, I can't see him as the raccoon and actually really liked his portrayal in marvel vs. capcom with the accent. But then I didn't like him in the commercials before archer premiered either so I'm dumb
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 23:38 |
|
Pops Mgee posted:Tobey Maguire lost a bunch of weight after Spider-man to make Seabiscuit, then bulked up again for Spider-man 2. I heard he gained 15 pounds of valuable jowl-fat so we could see his fat face jiggle when stopping the train.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2013 23:41 |
|
Neo Rasa posted:Has any other actor done that rapid a switch as there was from Equilibrium to The Machinist to Batman Begins? It's worse than that, it went from The Machinist to Batman Begins to Rescue Dawn to The Dark Knight to The Fighter to The Dark Knight Rises. Guy's gonna die of a heart attack and it'll be dumb.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2013 00:27 |
|
Rough Lobster posted:I want a month with Bale's personal trainer.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2013 05:26 |
|
mfaley posted:I heard he gained 15 pounds of valuable jowl-fat so we could see his fat face jiggle when stopping the train.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 04:53 |
|
So, a friend of mine says after watching The Dark Knight Rises, he was really disappointed and said it sucked. He thought the special effects were bad and the acting was worse. Personally, I loved the themes the movie touched on; I don't think the Nolan movies are meant to be acton movies, so much as character studies. When I first saw it in theatre, I thought there were some areas where it could have been better, but it's definitely grown on me. My biggest complaint was that i felt having him live at the end was a cop-out. Where do folks around here come out on this one?
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 08:29 |
|
P.d0t posted:So, a friend of mine says after watching The Dark Knight Rises, he was really disappointed and said it sucked. He thought the special effects were bad and the acting was worse. Dark Knight Rises is one of the most overblown, underthought, overthought, uninteresting, messy blockbusters ever.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 08:40 |
|
The Dark Knight Rises's idea of intelligence is basically just turning chapter titles from A Tale of Two Cities into taglines and calling it a day.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 08:41 |
|
P.d0t posted:So, a friend of mine says after watching The Dark Knight Rises, he was really disappointed and said it sucked. He thought the special effects were bad and the acting was worse. I was really excited for it and have no hate for Nolan. Seeing it in theatres I was so stoked when Batman finally showed up in the motorcycle chase scene. As the movie went on however the themes just left a horrible aftertaste in my mouth. You have a protagonist who is the head of a multi-billion corporation turn to the camera and say "We'll move away from fossil fuels when the world is ready." The only person interested in renewable energy turns out to be a genocidal maniac. If we revoke the patriot act, the streets will be flooded within minutes with violent criminals armed with automatic weapons. The police are right. The bad guys are religious extremists from the middle east with white/black checkered scarves. We should feel sorry if people rich enough to not realize there are poor people have their possessions taken away and brought down to "our" level. If OWS had succeeded, the next step would have been monkey courts where the villain from the first movie sends rich people to their doom. In the courtroom next door surely a gay man is marrying a man to his dog. Yuck.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 09:39 |
|
The Dark Knight Rises had to be bad, otherwise WB would want to make more immediately
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 13:47 |
|
Cardboard Box A posted:The Dark Knight Rises had to be bad, otherwise WB would want to make more immediately There was already talk of a new Batman reboot since last year, but WB appears to be more interested in trying to sort out some way to make a Justice League movie instead. This includes making the new Batman debut in Justice League.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 13:55 |
|
P.d0t posted:So, a friend of mine says after watching The Dark Knight Rises, he was really disappointed and said it sucked. He thought the special effects were bad and the acting was worse. I liked it quite a bit on re-watch; it has the best scenes of the entire trilogy - any superhero movie period, really, even if it isn't the best coherent whole. Nolan loves writing films in multiple layers, and in TDKR, he probably did it a bit -too- much to the point where the film is TOO dense, and it doesn't really have time to breathe and there's too much stuff going on, too quickly. For instance, watch the film again, and instead of viewing it through the filter of Bruce as the main protagonist, watch it with Blake as the protagonist. Then watch it again with Selena as such. Then watch it with Gordon as such. Due to how he wrote the movie, it legitimately works either way, to the point of which it's hard to "settle into" a single narrative. This works for something like the Prestige with two, er, three, POVs, but not so much when you have four AND two villains going against them simultaneously. For instance, Modine cop scene only really has any impact with the Gordon-protagonist view, but as a whole when you're not paying special focus to his story, it's kind of lost. It's also the most comic-booky comic book movie, a love letter to everything Batman. While Begins absorbed Year One and Phantasm and TDK, Man Who Laughs, Killing Joke, and that other saga I can't remember at the moment, DKR is a mix of Knightfall, Morrison's run, Batman Beyond, No Man's Land, and even references the Adam West version multiple times. Even Blake is basically a combo-Robin, absorbing facets of each one. For a Batman fan, it's a love letter to the character. I didn't think the ending was bad. The entire movie was about idols, and it tied into the last two movies in the idea of symbols. Combining the first movie's themes of him needing to become a symbol more than a person, and the second in the you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain, and, in the third, Bruce learning that having a deathwish and not caring/wanting to die isn't true strength; the best thing he could do would be to give up the cape but leave it as a symbol, which he did. Miraculously surviving explosions from flying vehicles in itself, is just something Batman does - that how Morrison's pre Final Crisis run ended as well. Some people read into it with their own political bents - it's kind of telling that, whichever side of the political spectrum they're on, they read it as an indictment of what they believe in. Which misses the point - the POINT is the PEOPLE in which you put your trust in often lie to the people and use those movements for their own ends. Bane wasn't a true revolutionary - he just wanted to appease Talia. Gordon riled up the people to create a ridiculous law under false pretenses unapologetic-ally. The government in authority would have doomed Gotham to death. It's basically making a statement about those in authority and the various flawed way in which they manipulate and govern the population as a whole. Also, as good aas Nolan is at crafting ending sequences, TDKR is probably his best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YW1jwwtclo&list=PLdzkp-fcH_e1KGL5WDAELEtoH-eFUGSyG
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 13:58 |
|
VincentPrice posted:I was really excited for it and have no hate for Nolan. Seeing it in theatres I was so stoked when Batman finally showed up in the motorcycle chase scene. As the movie went on however the themes just left a horrible aftertaste in my mouth. You have a protagonist who is the head of a multi-billion corporation turn to the camera and say "We'll move away from fossil fuels when the world is ready." The only person interested in renewable energy turns out to be a genocidal maniac. If we revoke the patriot act, the streets will be flooded within minutes with violent criminals armed with automatic weapons. The police are right. The bad guys are religious extremists from the middle east with white/black checkered scarves. We should feel sorry if people rich enough to not realize there are poor people have their possessions taken away and brought down to "our" level. If OWS had succeeded, the next step would have been monkey courts where the villain from the first movie sends rich people to their doom. In the courtroom next door surely a gay man is marrying a man to his dog. I think you political views shifted your impression to the point where you didn't really see what happened in the film. Because it didn't make your beliefs 100 percent the solution (or the reverse, 100 percent) wrong, you saw it as criticizing them in themselves, as opposed to exploring the nuance of the flawed people that are involved in those things. For instance, "the police are right?" Is that why Blake threw his badge into the river in the end and said "screw you, Gordon, I'm going to do this my own way?"
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 14:03 |
|
Eh, Begins is the only Nolan movie I thought was actually any good. The other 2 are like the LotR movies, where they seem awesome at first but look worse and worse the more times you watch them. They're everything I hate about the modern-day Batman, who is essentially a mopier Iron Man with a cape and pointy ears. They're full of what I can only describe as "gadget porn", where they trot out progressively more ridiculous technology that ultimately serves no real purpose but to wow the audience with how expensive and cutting-edge it is. DKR was just a mess. Anne Hathaway was the best thing about that movie and I found myself hoping that she and Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow would stick around whenever they inevitably reboot the franchise.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 14:28 |
|
TDKR isn't a lovely film, but it is the sloppiest work Nolan's done. I agree with Darko that it's overstuffed and suffers as a result. TDK has the same problem, it's just not as prevalent.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 14:29 |
|
P.d0t posted:So, a friend of mine says after watching The Dark Knight Rises, he was really disappointed and said it sucked. He thought the special effects were bad and the acting was worse. The acting and the setpieces are probably the highlights of TDKR with the lowlights being the result as a whole. Darko posted:
I cant stand the phrase "A love letter to..." because it just seems like an overly complimentary way of saying "it references..." and in the case of TDKR yes it references a bunch of great poo poo but misses what made it work. Its hard to take issue with the movies politics when it doesn't really seem thought through on any level. Like: Does Bane actually beleive his revolutionary spiel? Where is this shown? If he does believe it, where does this come from? If he doesent, why has he chosen to gently caress with gotham in this particular way? I understand why Batman scares people as a bat, I understand why the joker presents himself as a clown, why does Bane choose to portray as a pseudo Marxist revolutionary? If he plans to blow up gotham regardless as a message-to-the-world what is that message? What does he want the world to see "happen" as a result of the revolution? quote:For instance, "the police are right?" Is that why Blake threw his badge into the river in the end and said "screw you, Gordon, I'm going to do this my own way?" He doesent, he comes up to Gordon at the end and says "Hey, you know your foaming, wild eyed rant about rules becoming shackles I quite rightfully called you out for earlier in the movie? I see what you mean now." massive spider fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Feb 8, 2013 |
# ? Feb 8, 2013 14:29 |
|
massive spider posted:He doesent, he comes up to Gordon at the end and says "Hey, you know your foaming, wild eyed rant about rules becoming shackles I quite rightfully called you out for earlier in the movie? I see what you mean now." Except that, nope, Bane is just crazazy, his revolution itself was a lie and he just wants to kill everyone, the oppressed are savage immoral animals and the law was right to put them in cages no matter how dishonestly. Except...that interpretation doesn't really take into account just how scathingly the film -- through Selina and Blake and Alfred -- condemns Bruce Wayne for wasting his privilege and how it's really the upper echelon that made a mess of everything in the first place. The oppressed behave as they do because that's how they were molded by circumstance. Even when Blake scolds Gordon, there's a clear sense of "This is on you. Your lies landed us here." in his words. Bane may have been lying about his revolution, but he didn't lie about hypocrisy of Gotham and how it led to this situation. The problem is that, since Bane was lying about his revolution, the film fails to provide any meaningful solution to Gotham's oppressed/oppressor dichotomy. Batman is gone, Blake takes over, and...and that's it. That's the solution for Gotham? Now Gotham has a protector who...knows what it's like to be poor, I guess?
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 15:26 |
|
I think the series did a good job showing how effectively all of the characters were significantly flawed. They all have their issues, but that makes them more relatable and human. Part of the issue with Bane's character is that in order to do that final reveal at the end, a lot of his motivations get overlooked.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 16:09 |
FlamingLiberal posted:I think the series did a good job showing how effectively all of the characters were significantly flawed. They all have their issues, but that makes them more relatable and human. What motivations? Going from the end of the film every single thing he did was an act that he himself probably didn't even come up with. He was Talia's lapdog through and through, and it really cheapens the character as a whole, especially on a second watch, knowing that he's not really even the one in charge here. Nolan made a movie where a henchman is the only on screen antagonist for 95% of the film.
|
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 16:14 |
|
massive spider posted:If he doesent, why has he chosen to gently caress with gotham in this particular way? I understand why Batman scares people as a bat, I understand why the joker presents himself as a clown, why does Bane choose to portray as a pseudo Marxist revolutionary? If he plans to blow up gotham regardless as a message-to-the-world what is that message? What does he want the world to see "happen" as a result of the revolution? His goal is to make life as good as possible for the largest number of people possible in Gotham. He doesn't mind feeding the rich to Gotham Harbor because it'll make the proles happy for a little bit. Make them think that maybe this revolution will work out. Then blow it all up. Build up hope, then crush it. This isn't subtext, its text, and we are bludgeoned with it. It gives a spin to the politics of the movie, too - Bane's goal is to make Gotham a better place to live (the better to build up hope before blowing it all up). Which means his revolution is genuine insofar as he believes it is making life better for a majority of the people.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 16:17 |
|
massive spider posted:If he doesent, why has he chosen to gently caress with gotham in this particular way? I understand why Batman scares people as a bat, I understand why the joker presents himself as a clown, why does Bane choose to portray as a pseudo Marxist revolutionary? If he plans to blow up gotham regardless as a message-to-the-world what is that message? What does he want the world to see "happen" as a result of the revolution? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_IEOGSKl8 Seriously, every time this complaint comes up I wonder, "has anyone actually watched the movie"? e: Specifically, if you cannot understand Bane: quote:There's a reason why this prison is the worst hell on earth... Hope. Every man who has rotted here over the centuries has looked up to the light and imagined climbing to freedom. So easy... So simple... And like shipwrecked men turning to sea water from uncontrollable thirst, many have died trying. I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Feb 8, 2013 |
# ? Feb 8, 2013 16:32 |
|
computer parts posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_IEOGSKl8 I've seen the movie on and off about 3 times. You haven't explained it. Bane wants to build up a hopeful revolution then crush it, thats what he says yes. Why? What is the message he is imparting to the outside world as the watch the revolution happen, (a revolution is presumably what the league want to go worldwide, given their anti capitalist rhetoric) then see it all blow up anyway? The only real plausible reason is to gently caress with people, so he's just evil and craaazy. But thats more a joker scheme then, its kind of at odds with a character who's aesthetic suggests brutal efficency. I mean the poster above says that obviously he believes he is genuinely making things better for the people? But Banes words are that he's torturing and terrorizing them? Does Bane see socialist-anarchy as false "hope" or does he see it as "people clamoring over each other"? Does it even work? Dunno because we don't see any events from the perspective of the gotham citizens so god knows how they feel about it. massive spider fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Feb 8, 2013 |
# ? Feb 8, 2013 16:38 |
|
massive spider posted:
Yes that's it, he wants to gently caress with Bruce. That's it. Again, quote:I will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them clamoring over each other to "stay in the sun." You can watch me torture an entire city and when you have truly understood the depth of your failure, we will fulfill Ra's al Ghul's destiny... We will destroy Gotham and then, when it is done and Gotham is... ashes... then you have my permission to die.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 16:57 |
|
Good, lets quote lines from the movie at each other. My question isn't what Bane said in that speech, I'm asking whether the rest of the movie supports it. When he says: quote:People of their status deserve to see the next era of Western civilization. and quote:Dr Pavel: You can’t! This is the only power source capable of sustaining it. If you remove it, the core will decay in a matter of months. What the gently caress is he talking about? What is the plan re: western civilization?
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 17:02 |
|
massive spider posted:I've seen the movie on and off about 3 times. You haven't explained it. Its all for Bruce, not the outside world. Why do you think he put Bruce paralyzed in a prison with a TV in front of him? He's not playing it for the world, he's playing it for Bruce. Its just a revenge plot. The bonus is the destruction of Gotham per R'as' initial goal, but a corrupted version. R'as wanted Gotham destroyed so that order would return. R'as's wish was actually already fulfilled by the Joker vis-a-vis the Dent act.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 17:03 |
|
massive spider posted:Good, lets quote lines from the movie at each other. My question isn't what Bane said in that speech, I'm asking whether the rest of the movie supports it. When he says: Absolutely nothing, he's playing a sham. If you want to be really creative you can argue that Bane is threatening the guy's children if he doesn't turn it into a bomb, but that's about it.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 17:08 |
|
computer parts posted:Absolutely nothing, he's playing a sham. If you want to be really creative you can argue that Bane is threatening the guy's children if he doesn't turn it into a bomb, but that's about it. The sham is that the revolution is genuine and that theres NOT a ticking time bomb underneath it remember? Boxman saids "this isnt even subtext, its text" but thats my complaint, Bane explains a lot about what he's doing so you can be like "huh, ok" but the rest of the movie never follows through so as far as clearly defined goals go its just a mess. By contrast the Joker has a clear goal even if that goal is just "gently caress things up" and his every action works to further that. Banes goal is "give the citizens of gotham an undefined mix of hope and terror" massive spider fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 8, 2013 |
# ? Feb 8, 2013 17:13 |
|
Slight more details on the Justice League movie script that got scrapped. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/26182/warners-scraps-justice-league-script quote:Warners Scraps "Justice League" Script?
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 17:13 |
|
massive spider posted:The sham is that the revolution is genuine and that theres NOT a ticking time bomb underneath it remember? Dude, this post sums it up really well. Yuppie Scum posted:Its all for Bruce, not the outside world. Why do you think he put Bruce paralyzed in a prison with a TV in front of him? He's not playing it for the world, he's playing it for Bruce. Its just a revenge plot. The bonus is the destruction of Gotham per R'as' initial goal, but a corrupted version. R'as wanted Gotham destroyed so that order would return. R'as's wish was actually already fulfilled by the Joker vis-a-vis the Dent act.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 17:15 |
|
massive spider posted:The sham is that the revolution is genuine and that theres NOT a ticking time bomb underneath it remember? The sham is that the power does not actually lie with the "people" but with those manipulating them. The idea is that, while some of the things Bane/Talia were saying were correct, they were just utilizing the rhetoric for their own ends. The movie isn't really "sloppy politics" in the way people criticize it for, it's an indictment of the current political system in that what it portrays is what our (U.S.) political system actually is. Men and women in power telling people what they want to hear in order to retain power for their own means. That behind all the rhetoric and notions, the villains were just lying, deluded babies. You go through the whole movie thinking that Bane has a grand plan or whatever, and, nope - he just has an obsession with a woman and is spouting off rhetoric to motivate others to follow him. Talia has no plan, either, she just has a misguided gut feeling to want to live up to her father. Unlike Ra's, she didn't actually -believe- in The League of Shadows, she was just proving some ideal in her own mind that had to do with living up to her father. It's basically an indictment of what the people running Western nations or who start revolutions often -are-, and showing the means they use to get in that kind of power. Some people, when watching the movie, get so caught up in whether they agree with the politics or not, that they miss the point - just like in real life, where people often fall for the message, not realizing that the person spouting the message is just using them for their own goals. edit: Gordon and Bruce were guilty of this as well, which is why Bruce was basically like "gently caress it, I'm leaving," Blake was like "gently caress you Gordon," and Gordon, well, he stayed in his own happy little world. Darko fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Feb 8, 2013 |
# ? Feb 8, 2013 17:22 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 22:27 |
|
I can see how an anti-OWS message can be read into the movie, and in fact that's why I will not watch that movie with my Tea Partier parents. However, I personally think that's not what the movie is about. Consider that Catwoman is also basically OWS and she's a hero. Batman gets her to help him, but NOT by challenging her motivations or her actions. That's never how Catwoman and Batman have worked out, Batman is usually trying to change her to be more like him. But she stays true to herself all the way to the end, and the only reason she joins him is because of the bomb. Bane is just playing the hero to make it seem like the situation is not totally hopeless. I don't know, there's a lot of hate online and here, but everyone I went with loved it and a lot of them were just coming because the campus provided free tickets. They didn't even complain about Bane's voice. I can see why people would not like it, but it's not an objective atrocity to filmmaking, politics, and Batman stories. The thing is any serious take on Batman is already a fascist Randian caricature, more than even Mr. A. I mean, Nolan has less of the "Batman is smarter and better than everyone and can beat anyone with enough preptime" aspect, but still. You shouldn't go into a Batman movie expecting to come away with a positive political message anyway.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2013 17:26 |