tranceaddict Forums

tranceaddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The Dark Knight Rises
Pages (14): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14]


Posted by Lira on Aug-09-2012 07:53:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And finally, I'm not sure who the fuck you are to declare my post "irrelevant"

He's the German inquisitor: He won't let anyone post anything remotely intellectual, lest we mention the forbidden one. It's heaps of fun though, and you should totally give it a try. He usually squeaks a little and posts a cat picture when we do that.

Here: Hey, Meat! SCHOPENHAUER!!!


Posted by Meat187 on Aug-09-2012 08:35:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J


1. Don't conveniently twist things people say. Bane is not the key point of my "iconic character" problem, he's not iconic enough for that. That applied much more to Catwoman. Or Alfred. Or Batman. Does Catwoman feel like an actual person to you in this movie? To me she doesn't.
And I have no idea why you bring up Tim Burton's movies. Other than maybe deliberately misunderstanding "comic book world" as a goofy bubble-gum place. Nolan's gritty style has nothing to do with the argument I was trying to make. You might even mean a very similar thing yourself when talking about a "tonally awkward attempt to mix grittiness with (essentially) high fantasy".

This is a main reason why I find starting a discussion with you fruitless: you put more effort into picking on details, wording and things that you believe conclude from the argument instead of trying to understand it's core point. Ironically, that's almost exactly the issue I have with your take on the movie.

2. I didn't even refer to your main post in the text you quoted but solely to the oversimplification "Why does Batman have to be Batman?".

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Write out your own opinion


No. That stage is all yours.
I just wish you made better use of it by.

Edit: Well, people seem to be fine with it. So indeed who am I to demand more insightful and relevant analysis without even trying to offer it myself. I guess I'll just shut up about movies around here in the future when I can't be arsed to type down a long tirade and defend it with even longer ones.


Posted by SYSTEM-J on Aug-09-2012 09:11:

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
1. Don't conveniently twist things people say. Bane is not the key point of my "iconic character" problem, he's not iconic enough for that. That applied much more to Catwoman. Or Alfred. Or Batman. Does Catwoman feel like an actual person to you in this movie? To me she doesn't.


This is rich. You mentioned Bane second in your list of iconic characters, and completely ommitted Catwoman and Alfred, and when I reply citing that same character you mentioned (and the one who's ridiculous plan was central to my grievance in my post) you're accusing me of "twisting" things?

Let's recap, because you're clearly incapable of following the thread of your own argument. The following line:

quote:
What I do criticize as inconsequential and irrelevant to the movie's actual problems is when this premise is generally accepted and then individual parts of it are picked out and dissected


...means you're criticising my complaints as "inconsequential and irrelevant" because I've accepted that I'm watching a superhero movie and then I'm taking issues with the genre's modus operandi. That has nothing to do with my throwaway sarcasm "WHY DOES BATMAN HAVE TO BE BATMAN?" so stop trying to retcon the debate, you hypocritical shit.

What I have replied to you with is the perfectly valid point that Nolan's films are atypical of the genre and they do not require the viewer accepting your "premise" (IE: a certain set of genre mechanics) in order to be validly interpreted. And what you are doing now is losing track of what you have said and expecting me to be stupid enough not to notice. No dice. If I can spot the holes in Bane's sinister masterplan, I can sure as hell spot them in your bumbling rear guard action.

If you don't want to start a discussion with me, stop replying to my posts with sarcastic little swipes from the sidelines. It's quite pathetic that you already made one little backhand comment about it, and when the praise carried on rolling in you felt compelled to make a second post instructing everyone on how "irrelevant" my opinion is, as if people give the first fuck about what Meat187 tells them about someone else's post they've already read.


Posted by Meat187 on Aug-09-2012 09:31:

Whatever. Believe that you refuted everything I said if you wish. No need to go on with this any longer. I should have seen this coming but hoped it would be possible to get some points across and add to your (imho) incomplete and one-sided views. Turns out I was wrong.
Sad to see you getting more and more personal in every post.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Aug-09-2012 09:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Sushi, in a rare case of having a clue, understands that despite the plot inconsistencies he can still enjoy the movie, because they are not highly relevant for the movie's specific universe and what it tries to do. Another Aussie, PKC, too expresses how he thinks these issues are true but minor once. But of them understand that Jack is just spewing a load of irrelevant crap that fails to address the actual strengths and weaknesses of the movie.

But watch how both just humbly express their admiration and humbly applaud him, without even thinking about expressing their own concerns. Why? Because they know that if someone rants this long and eloquently about something irrelevant he can and will just kill any contrary opinion by even longer, better worded hammers of text.

So yeah, I agree, brilliant debating skills indeed.



i dont pretend to have the depth of knowledge SJ does when it comes to these things. i hated that part of english, im the kind of person that wants to enjoy film/tv for what it is, rather than the (supposed) underlying wank of how complex or meaningful it is.

if SJ had said anything i disagreed with i would've mentioned it. you'll note that earlier in the thread my biggest gripe was the "tell, not show" that existed throughout the film.

i didn't express my concerns for the film because i don't consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject. i just know what i like or don't. you know way more stuff than me but i was still willing to correct some of your poor BSG assumptions


Posted by Meat187 on Aug-09-2012 09:43:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN


Don't worry, I didn't misinterpret you. That was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment on how I think his review misses some crucial points.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Aug-09-2012 09:48:

ha fair call. and i'd agree, but i wasn't really thinking it was a full review. just a focus on a couple aspects (which i think he's right about, for what its worth).


Posted by SYSTEM-J on Aug-09-2012 09:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Whatever. Believe that you refuted everything I said if you wish. No need to go on with this any longer. I should have seen this coming but hoped it would be possible to get some points across and add to your (imho) incomplete and one-sided views. Turns out I was wrong.
Sad to see you getting more and more personal in every post.


Of course they're incomplete and one-sided. I started my post by saying "I can't be bothered to write a full essay", just as you can't ever be bothered to put any of your full opinions out in public in any of these threads where you try and shit on other people's thoughtful posts, and it was a post of my issues with the film, so why would it need to be anything other than one-sided?

And you're sad I'm getting personal? What do you think you're doing Meat, when you post about me "spewing irrelevant crap"? Is that not a personal remark because it doesn't contain a direct insult? You're acting like a fucking prick to me and you do it all the time, making these cowardly digs from the safety of "I'm too lazy to risk putting my own views out there", and then when I get fucking annoyed with this behaviour (and absolutely demolish your points, to boot) you have the temerity to shake your head and say how sad it is, as though you're somehow perched on the high ground?

If you were trying to get some points across, you need to seriously rethink how you communicate with people. Or let me guess? You're about to pull a Nou and whip out the I TROLL U card. Save it for someone more naive.


Posted by Meat187 on Aug-09-2012 10:32:

Let it go, man.
If you really consider "spewing irrelevant crap" an insult in the context of an obviously tongue-in-cheek post that doesn't directly address you then I'm sorry.

And if you find the way I try to communicate opinions annoying or cowardly then I'm also sorry.

Of course it's my fault that I apparently failed to make a clear distinction between my point about iconic characters and the one about how I think Nolan's universe deals with the three superheroes /-villains I named. Of course it's also my fault that I couldn't be bothered to furiously argue it against you. But your ways, especially posts like the previous one, don't make it any more inviting.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Aug-09-2012 10:46:

you don't sound sorry.


Posted by Meat187 on Aug-09-2012 11:01:

You don't sound heterosexual.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Aug-09-2012 11:05:


Posted by DOOMBOT on Aug-11-2012 02:42:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I have no idea how you can suggest that Bane is just an incarnation of an iconic figure - he looks very different to the comics, he acts different and he has a different background story.

In what ways does he act different in the comics?


Posted by DOOMBOT on Aug-11-2012 17:21:

quote:
Originally posted by Beatflux
Bane is not a good villian. Raz created Batman and forced him to choose how he will deal with crime and revenge, Joker was Batman's philisophical antithesis, and bane is just a smart brute. It's suggested in the beginning that he will outwit batman, and he does but the battle between them is hardly strategic and the story is much more focused on finding a new motivation for batman.

I thought it was pretty strategic how he had The Cat Burglar lead Batman to him in the sewer. He knew that Batman was weak and took him down without breaking a sweat, just like he did in Knightfall.


Posted by DOOMBOT on Aug-11-2012 17:23:

quote:
Originally posted by Vivid Boy
Personally I think hes the worst superhero.

Batman is not a superhero.

"I'm a crime-fighter and a detective. I don't call myself a hero. It's not a job description... it's an appellation -- bestowed upon one by posterity..." - Batman, Shadow of the Bat #90


Posted by Silky Johnson on Aug-11-2012 17:26:

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
You don't sound heterosexual.





Ahahahaha!


Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Aug-11-2012 18:43:

The best part is his utter lack of refusal! I've heard the same about his bedroom habits.


Posted by chode_breath on Aug-19-2012 17:32:

You can all stop jizzing over system-j's review. He just plagiarized it from me.

Mines just a tad less eloquent because I was so angry when I wrote it.

http://tranceaddict.com/forums/show...s=#.UDEUN6llRcQ

"Literally the whole fucking movie is a series of quasi Deus ex machina situations and/or unexplainable plot holes created when Nolan and co couldn't think up good enough bullshit to plug the gaps.

Apparently, some (presumably) Middle Eastern country is barbaric enough to have a prison which consists of a giant pit in the ground (are you surprised the country was never named?), operated by ___________, for the purpose of __________, to which random Americans are allowed to be committed to, and which escape attempts are ENCOURAGED and aided with a rope.

And apparently, men are able to escape from said prison, walk to a nearby desert town where they don't speak the language or possess any of the local currency, return to America by plane (for free), and then slip into a city in which every bridge and entrance point has been destroyed.

How were those bridges and entrance points destroyed? By "explosive laced concrete" which work crews had innocently been laying at every fucking point around the city for months, including the entire sub-structure of an (ostensibly new) stadium, and every bridge...all without authorities noticing, or wondering why works were being undertaken in areas which they'd not been contracted.

I could go on and on and rave about the masses of new characters who were introduced with flimsy connections to one another, but fuck it. The plot was as paper thin, clumsy and convoluted as they come.

Oh, we need to jam the signal from reaching the bomb. LUCKY THE BAT COPTER HAS A SIGNAL JAMMER INSTALLED IN IT WHICH WE CAN PRY OUT AND FIT INTO A PERSON'S HAND HUR DUR DUR.

Bane was purposely trying to fuck up Wayne Enterprises stock price, KNOWING Wayne would sell it all to whats-her-face, who would then pretend to be on Wayne's side, even living like a bum in the city for three months, right until that last moment of deception. Even though she already had the company. And the bomb. And Wayne in a pit in the Middle East. PLAUSIBLE.

Of course suspending belief is entirely necessary when watching fictional movies, especially of this type, but jesus, this flick's bombastic turns were ridiculous.

Let's turn over our multi billion dollar company at the drop of a hat!

Or, along with hundreds of other people, follow some freak faced mercenary and help him to blow up a city, with us in it, thereby killing ourselves! Oops, Nolan had plot hole that covered with two paper thin lines at the start about how Bane's men worship him like a god - another thinly veiled allusion to Islamic extremism and Arabs, if the pit wasn't enough.

All this could be excused if there'd been a decent fight scene or something, like every poorly written action movie gets away with. Instead we got a few shitty rapid cutting cam scenes of Batman fighting Bane with punches. No decent martialartsy things, no parkour or flying or anything.

FUCK. THIS MOVIE WAS FRUSTRATINGLY SHIT."


Posted by RapidFire on Aug-21-2012 04:11:

ive never seen so much internet backlash for a movie this highly acclaimed


Posted by dufflebox on Aug-21-2012 22:18:

I didnt notice many of the flaws until after the fact.


Posted by chris1011 on Dec-09-2012 19:25:





Not sure if I'm digging the rap though.


Posted by Silky Johnson on Dec-09-2012 19:44:

Uh so I finally watched this piece of shit on my flight home from Vancouver. Way too fucking long for a movie filled with so many predictable events. Like really? We weren't supposed to catch on that that broad was actually Talia Al Ghul? I think I fell asleep for about an hour after they conveniently had her take over Wayne Enterprises. What a let down.


Posted by WittyHandle on Dec-09-2012 20:06:

As was the case with all of the other Batmans in this series, I enjoyed TDKR more the second time around.


Posted by Lagrangian on Dec-09-2012 22:57:

Watching this on Netflix soon for the 1st time.


Posted by DOOMBOT on Dec-09-2012 23:00:

quote:
Originally posted by RapidFire
ive never seen so much internet backlash for a movie this highly acclaimed

It's just a bad movie. Nolan should have made up his own story instead of clearly trying to use ideas from the Cataclysm/No Man's Land story and totally butchering it.


Pages (14): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.