[Derek]

i'd just like to nudge in here to say that symbol man's right

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Inception's basically the new Matrix. A cool semi-outside the box action flick.

I think the Dark Knight was much better than the Dark Knight Rises because you've got a much more compelling villain & much better action scenes.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

Nolan has never made a movie better than Videodrome, Dead Zone, Dead Ringers... and I'll stop there.

Personally, I think Nolan has no choice but to include certain things in his films that will help his films sell. But I think he manages to incorporate elements from his previous, more "artsy" films with his Dark Knight Trilogy. Yes it's still Batman, but I'm not sure why someone can't admit that he has indeed elevated it to another level. It takes a lot of the "comic booky" approach out of it, and portrays the subject matter with a more human point of view. It isn't a blockbuster summer film filled with cartoonish characters and batman flying around and fighting every 5 minutes. There's a more serious tone and more character development. To say that this is separated from A History of Violence just because the guy is wearing a cape is pretty shortsighted. It's fine to not enjoy the movies, but to say they can't be taken seriously is dumb. Nolan indeed took chances to some degree with these films, and I'm not sure how people can't see that... regardless of whether they enjoyed it or not.

In fact, to insinuate that a movie is "boring" because it isn't an art film is dumb as well. If a movie is entertaining and pulls off what it sets out to do, who cares? Also, for what it's worth, I still like Burton's films more.

If Nolan has elevated Batman to another level than why is Tim Burton's Batman movie far superior?

[demonrail666]

I suppose Cronenberg's real point, and the one I think el Symbols is also making isn't that DKR or any blockbuster superhero movie is necessarily un-intelligent but that there's an inevitable limit to how intelligent it can be - which I suspect has more to do with it being a blockbuster than a superhero movie. I'm obviously not saying that coming from the arthouse makes a film intelligent by default (I've seen numerous arthouse films that were far dumber than numerous blockbusters), but a director would likely find it easier making an uncompromisingly intelligent film in that environment than at say Fox. If that's the kind of film they want to make. Which obviously Cronenberg does.

Nolan effectively has to smuggle any of his more thought provoking content into his films, behind the backs of executives concerned with audience forecasts, merchandising deals, etc. That wouldn't happen (as much) at an indie company, but then an indie wouldn't be able to finance the kinds of films that Nolan ultimately wants to make. Some directors are motivated more by creative freedom than others. Some prefer the challenge and facilities (and to a small degree money) that the big studios offer, and they accept the compromises to their creative freedom that comes with that. A good or even great director needn't be the one with the most freedom, though. And history shows us he rarely ever was/is. I'll take a Fritz Lang B Western over any self indulgent Hal Hartley movie, all day long.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

If Nolan has elevated Batman to another level than why is Tim Burton's Batman movie far superior?

Burton'a films are not superior at all. Granted, they are beautiful films, and ...Returns was my favorite comic-based movie ever for many years, but they do not stand the test of time. Looking back, Nicholson'a Joker was atrocious, and the story lines for both films are thin and ultimately quite weak.

Tim Burton is a flash filmmaker who cares much more about style than substance. I think he did a great job of helping batman become a more realistic and serious kind of hero, but not even Danny DeVito's (kind of horrifying) Penguin changes the fact that Burton's films are exactly the type of movies that Cronenberg's criticisms actually apply to.

Nolan's films are every bit as human and powerful as anything Cronenberg's ever made. .. in my opinion at least. But what do I know really? I'm biased, because I'm a life long comic fan, and I've been waiting for someone to put together a worthy Batman adaptation my whole life.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I suppose Cronenberg's real point, and the one I think el Symbols is also making isn't that DKR or any blockbuster superhero movie is necessarily un-intelligent but that there's an inevitable limit to how intelligent it can be - which I suspect has more to do with it being a blockbuster than a superhero movie. I'm obviously not saying that coming from the arthouse makes a film intelligent by default, but a director would likely find it easier making an uncompromisingly intelligent film in that environment than at, say Fox. Nolan effectively has to smuggle intelligent content into his films, behind the backs of executives concerned with audience forecasts, merchandising deals, etc. That wouldn't happen at an indie, but than an indie wouldn't be able to finance the kind of film that Nolan ultimately wanted to make.

I agree, the limits are a function of Hollywood and high expectations. I'm sure Nolan had to make many compromises due to these factors. Competition with Avengers/spider-man, topping TDK, etc. But I think he did an almost perfect job with what he had regardless.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

At the end of the day we know it's just christian bale in a suit, just like we know a human being didn't really turn into a fly. Both explore psychological elements, what separates them? Both can be taken seriously in my opinion.

I agree, but the issue isn't that one explores psychological elements while the other doesn't but how intelligently or sophisticatedly they're explored. Cronenberg is a more 'intellectual' filmmaker than Nolan so it follows that his films tend to be more intellectually interesting. That doesn't make him a better director than Nolan (in my opinion he isn't) or the Fly a better film than DKR (quite the opposite). They just excel in different areas.

[!@#$%!]

here's how the dark knight tries to be serious but fails:

1) in the 2nd movie the batman has the power to listen to every cellphone, right? but does he ever struggle with the temptation to become a fascist? does he spy on his girlfriend, jerk off to the neighbor's conversations, look at girls in the toilet? no he doesn't-- he just tells his loyal servant to turn off the system, which the loyal servant faithfully does. the goodies and the baddies are always predictable. yes, there's the scene at the boat, with the bombs, and that was okay, and memorable, but funny thing that wasn't batman the character making a difficult decision. he's one-dimensional, just misunderstood. okay maybe nolan made him two-dimensional but he's still not human.

2) in the more recent one, there are some 99 percenter allusions, they even manage to "occupy" wall street, but the heroes are the millionaires with their charities-- funny thing about hollywood liberals, they feel sorry for the poor but think only they can save them.

3) same thing with the subtext that bane and his lady master are some sort of al-qaeda who only want to destroy new york, i mean gotham. (i had forgotten how well choreographed this airplane hijacking was by the way). but is there any question again of who are the baddies? no. worst off, while al qaeda want western forces out of islam's holy sites, this "league of shadows" only wants some sort of twisted revenge for the fuck of it.

3a) And again it's not Batman who doubts about the use of the energy source-- oh no, he always knows right and wrong. IT's jus the other people who betray him. Black/white superhero morality = adolescent.

I really enjoyed the Batmans, but my point is-- serious art asks serious questions about human life. Batman does not ask serious questions except for that boat scene with his version of the well-known "prisoner's dilemma". Wish the rest of the movie plus the other movies had more been like that, but no, we got cartoons, and the usual black & white morality while letting go of the big questions because blockbuster audiences would get headaches.

compare this to a history of violence, where you look at someone who can be a good nice family man and also a brutal killer, and you wonder if you can ever come back from war, where you look at the strained dynamic in a marriage (both sex scenes were added by cronenberg), and the movie doesn't end in some happy hollywood ending when everybody is happy, the man just gets a plate of food and it just opens the doors to a whole new set of questions-- yes, you who were a stranger are now one of us again, but what happens next?

this is the kind of shit that makes a difference between an action blockbuster and film as art.

for some reason, todd field's "in the bedroom" has been popping into my head, and i don't know what this means but i'll put it out there in case someone feels like watching it.

okay i gotta go to work but yeah. character and depth make for good stories, and ambiguity is good for art.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

here's how the dark knight tries to be serious but fails:

1) in the 2nd movie the batman has the power to listen to every cellphone, right? but does he ever struggle with the temptation to become a fascist? does he spy on his girlfriend, jerk off to the neighbor's conversations, look at girls in the toilet? no he doesn't-- he just tells his loyal servant to turn off the system, which the loyal servant faithfully does. the goodies and the baddies are always predictable. yes, there's the scene at the boat, with the bombs, and that was okay, and memorable, but funny thing that wasn't batman the character making a difficult decision. he's one-dimensional, just misunderstood. okay maybe nolan made him two-dimensional but he's not human.

2) in the more recent one, there are some 99 percenter allusions, they even manage to "occupy" wall street, but the heroes are the millionaires with their charities-- funny thing about hollywood liberals, they feel sorry for the poor but think only they can save them.

3) same thing with the subtext that bane and his lady master are some sort of al-qaeda who only want to destroy new york, i mean gotham. (i had forgotten how well choreographed this airplane hijacking was by the way). but is there any question again of who are the baddies? no. worst off, while al qaeda want western forces out of islam's holy sites, this "league of shadows" only wants some sort of twisted revenge for the fuck of it.

Revenge for the fuck it? I think you're selling Nolan short here. The league of shadows restores a type of "balance" to society that draws from theories on the doomed nature of civilization that date back to Freud. They represent the inevitable downfall that Freud believed was the result of the formation of civilization itself. I'm not saying TDKR is "Freudian" but I think the league is a more complex idea in Nolan's universe than you're making it out to be.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

Revenge for the fuck it? I think you're selling Nolan short here. The league of shadows restores a type of "balance" to society that draws from theories on the doomed nature of civilization that date back to Freud. They represent the inevitable downfall that Freud believed was the result of the formation of civilization itself. I'm not saying TDKR is "Freudian" but I think the league is a more complex idea in Nolan's universe than you're making it out to be.

there was once a mercenary, who fucked a princess, they threw her inside a pit, she gave birth to a baby that grew up kinda cute and with no deformities considering the lack of vitamin D and the possible abundance of rats, and now she wants to blow up a city thousands of miles away with everyone inside it because batman defeated her insano daddy who claimed he wanted to clean the world but really wanted to get even with people who had nothing to do with it for having his family thrown into a pit? wtf.

revenge: watch "in the bedroom" & let me know how you like it.

[demonrail666]

We could go on forever finding films like In the Bedroom, which are obviously more intellectually coherent than DKR was ever going to be, but it's like comparing a fast food meal with a gourmet one. There's no point comparing a Whopper with some £25 burger you can order at a top scale restaurant (or in the case of In the Bedroom, a nice bistro). So if DKR was a burger, it'd be one of the best Whoppers that Burger King has yet produced, under the inevitable constrictions that come with creating a burger in those conditions). That'd put it ahead of the competition but only if we accept that competition is a Big Mac or (and even this is stretching things) a Zinger Tower Burger. In that sense, the worst that can be leveled at Nolan is that he's ended up making a slightly pretentious Double Whopper that could've maybe done with having a bit more cheese. I'd personally agree with the need for more cheese but in all would say he's made a damn fine burger, within reason.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

Not sure what a Zinger Tower Burger is, but my only point was that DKR wasn't attempting to be the film Cronenberg is explaining. While I realize his comments are directed towards people who have viewed the film (not the film itself), he does go on to say a few other things that I felt could've been worded better.

I believe it is possible to elevate a certain style of film without having to be the most intellectually interesting piece of work. Sure it's Batman, but I'd still say that for a superhero movie it was quite intelligent (and as you somewhat pointed out) compared to its "competition". Why can't the film be seen for what it is then? does a film have to be one certain way? is there even a "right way" to make a film? if so, how? That was my point about what I thought sounded a little narrow-minded. I don't know, I don't mind if I'm alone on this.

I'm also excited to see the newest film Cronenberg directed by the way, Cosmopolis. I have a good feeling about it.

Not alone at all. I entirely agree. There isn't really a problem with the film so much as with its biggest fans and its staunchest critics equally trying to turn it into something it isn't.

Oh, a Zinger Tower Burger:

 

Think of it as the Iron Man of fast food burgers (in a good way)

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

there was once a mercenary, who fucked a princess, they threw her inside a pit, she gave birth to a baby that grew up kinda cute and with no deformities considering the lack of vitamin D and the possible abundance of rats, and now she wants to blow up a city thousands of miles away with everyone inside it because batman defeated her insano daddy who claimed he wanted to clean the world but really wanted to get even with people who had nothing to do with it for having his family thrown into a pit? wtf.

revenge: watch "in the bedroom" & let me know how you like it.

I wasn't trying to be snarky with my Inception comment, by the way. I just genuinely would be interested in hearing your thoughts. To me it's much more than a "Matrix with dream-type-stuf." I would be truly interested in hearing a concise and intelligenf argument against it being the best kind of film anyone would expect from a US blockbuster.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

I wasn't trying to be snarky with my Inception comment, by the way. I just genuinely would be interested in hearing your thoughts. To me it's much more than a "Matrix with dream-type-stuf." I would be truly interested in hearing a concise and intelligenf argument against it being the best kind of film anyone would expect from a US blockbuster.

ah yeah the best kind hamburger movie sure it could probably be. i tried to get it at my local redbox the other day but it wasn't there. and right now my netflix queue is kinda busy as i only get 1 dvd at a time and entourage is on the way. but i might catch it soon if time permits.

blockbuster = hamburger as demoño sez. and yeah, i loves me a good hamburger-- but it's just not foie-gras!

mmmm... foie gras! damn you, france. damn you for creating such deliciousness so far away from me.

still, i love burgers. i'm gonna fry some up tonight!

anyway, almost forgot:

@ demonrail - that's stuff with the crispy crust is not a burger but some sort of chicken patty! unless it's some sort of scottish concoction like the deep-fried mars bar, yeah? do the scots batter & deep-fry burgers too? dangus...

[!@#$%!]

[quote=foreverasskiss]you people are a bunch of fucking nerds. [/url]

fuck yeah. and proud of it.

[quote=foreverasskiss] fuck batmanb.\\ god fucking damn!!!!!
\\\

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

i wish there was a six page thread dedicated to threesomes instead of this bullshite. SRLY!!!!!!

i wish there was that too, in addition of this bullshite as you call it. doesn't have to be mutually exclusive (it could be a thread orgy, where the reader reads a bunch of threads on all kinds of subjects. OMG HAWTT.)

anyway, about threesomes, nerd or not, all i have to say is that they are overrated. much better is to up & fuck the girl or man you actually want to fuck instead of concocting a 3-way as an excuse.

some dude i know used to have threesomes with another guy. i think he just wanted to fuck the other guy and couldn't bring himself to do it, so instead they touched dicks through a girl.

in my case, i've only done that with 2 girls, and thinking back there was always one girl too many. i'm not being a square, i just like it better when fucker + fuckee give each other their full attention instead of competing for attention.

happy now?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

symbol man, i just don't know. i dont know anymore. i once had a threesome and it was everythiing i expected.

meaning what-- pure deliciousness or drama and horror?

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

now i'm being teased to do another with the same girl and i don't think i wanna because of the resentful feelings i might have towards her.

okay, but who is #3? another chick or sum dood? cuz to me there's a big difference. hmmmm.

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

it was sorta hard on me last time with jealousy and paranoia.

well yeah that's what happens, ha ha ha.

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

i think it's a bad idea and will only leave me wanting more. like a pervert.

if you want more deliciousness that's just natural. if you want more gut-wrenching pain yeah maybe you're a pervert ha ha ha.

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

this chick is married. no way on my behave. i think it will only leave me wanting her more.

k but does she want you + husband to bone her in tandem or what? you haven't specified

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

i wish i was still a virgin.

why. do you remember getting blue balls? fuck, they hurt so much. why suffer.

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

it was so much easier at 17 to repress my feelings and go about my business.

you're a grown-ass man. find a woman.

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

i want to kill my libido.

lol don't be a retard. you're just going after the wrong thing.

fuck the married woman in the ass with no husband present, so you can get it out of your system, and then fuck off. no?

read some classic spanish theatre. i'm serious.

[EVOLghost]

lol....fucker...and fuckee.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

damn, i'm too drunk and foggy headed to answer all those questions. yeah, the girl that wants the threesome is my ex slash baby mama to it with her and her new husband( who i fucking hate). maybe i should just grow some balls and do it.

^^^ yeah, you see?? that's the problem. it's hard.

Simple answer is don't do it. I've limited (read zero) personal experience of threesomes but imagine they'd work best when there's no romantic history between partners. But even then It still seems like one massive mindfuck to me. Just promise us you'll wear a Batman outfit if you do decide to go ahead with it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by foreverasskiss

damn, i'm too drunk and foggy headed to answer all those questions. yeah, the girl that wants the threesome is my ex slash baby mama to it with her and her new husband( who i fucking hate). maybe i should just grow some balls and do it.

^^^ yeah, you see?? that's the problem. it's hard.

lol dude, maybe you should grow some balls and walk away from that mess!

 

Originally Posted by Murmer99

 

batman coming out of the batcave wins the thread

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by Severian

Burton'a films are not superior at all. Granted, they are beautiful films, and ...Returns was my favorite comic-based movie ever for many years, but they do not stand the test of time. Looking back, Nicholson'a Joker was atrocious, and the story lines for both films are thin and ultimately quite weak.

Tim Burton is a flash filmmaker who cares much more about style than substance. I think he did a great job of helping batman become a more realistic and serious kind of hero, but not even Danny DeVito's (kind of horrifying) Penguin changes the fact that Burton's films are exactly the type of movies that Cronenberg's criticisms actually apply to.

Nolan's films are every bit as human and powerful as anything Cronenberg's ever made. .. in my opinion at least. But what do I know really? I'm biased, because I'm a life long comic fan, and I've been waiting for someone to put together a worthy Batman adaptation my whole life.

Maybe that's what I like about Burton's Batman. It's a comic book movie. It's heavily stylized. The characters are a bit bigger than life. It's a fucking comic book with a masked hero running around in tights fighting crime.


And I don't know that you want to go into the whole plot superiority thing. I find that the worst thing about Nolan's films are his convoluted shitty plots & the best thing about his films are the cinematography (which is where TDK really shined, a long with the soundtrack & Ledger's acting.) Where Inception shined were with the special effects, the music, the art, and the cinematography.


Neither Burton or Nolan really can come close to Dead Ringers or Videodrome, both movies that affected me on a physical level as well as a very deep psychological level. The philosophy and psychology in any Batman movie is pretty kindergarten level, even Ledger's Joker's nihilism.