|
The Dark Knight Rises (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| It looks like everyone with the name RANN in their handle are descendants of faggots who inexplicably reproduced with other faggots. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
It looks like everyone with the name RANN in their handle are descendants of faggots who inexplicably reproduced with other faggots. |
yeah, but you are son of thousand shemales. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
It looks like everyone with the name RANN in their handle are descendants of faggots who inexplicably reproduced with other faggots. |
Really? That's it? that's the best you got? Dang, for the amount of trolling you try to do on here, you're pretty at this stuff.
Seriously though, I actually always wondered why you're on here. You're the punchbag (if not the punchline) around here yet you still stick around, endlessly maintaining a TA troll persona. I've always thought it must be a kind of a weird existence for your types, hanging about on a trance forum just trying to troll all day long, when no one really cares.
Anyway, carry on. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
|
Aren't you that person who nobody likes, and then pops in for a few days, realize that nobody likes you, and then leaves for a few months?
And it's not trolling when it's pointing out the obvious fact that you're a ing bellend and nobody likes you. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
I just wondered why I actually considered The Dark Knight watchable. Because it's a crappy movie if you break it down. The common answer is, of course, the Joker. But why? Is it Heath Ledger's great acting? No, the guy always was a mediocre dick. It's the concept. In TDK the Joker is so utterly chaotic and insane that he becomes credible. He feels like a real person, his traits and actions form an actual personality. That's what saves the movie.
Why saves? Because the Batman universe is bound to fail as a serious business movie. It's a guy in a bat costume. How the heck do you make that work? How do you make the audience believe that's an actual person? TDK failed at that, but it worked for the Joker. I guess Nolan partly realized this problem since he made that Bane or whatever his name is the new villain. He didn't go for someone ridiculous like the Penguin or the Riddler, you can't have them in a serious movie. But he can't get rid of Batman, the main character s up the movie. It can't work, I don't see any indication in the trailer that it'll work. Batman is bound to be this comic superhero, a collection of traits and gadgets and people surrounding him and a silly costume. The reason why TDK wasn't was because it was about the Joker and the script (with some help from Ledger) managed to make him a real crazy in bastard. Nothing like that will happen in the new movie. It'll just be a ty comic adaptation with some action and drama and that laughable bat costume.
[/rant] |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Bane is actually probably one of the best villains in the comic. He's definitely Batman's most worthy adversary, and I believe he even defeated him and broke Batman's back in a fight at some point. I think it'd be pretty satisfying to see Batman getting his ass kicked. |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
How do you make the audience believe that's an actual person? |
This is a wrong question to ask. Nolan's Batman isn't about "an actual person", his characters usually stand for something more abstract - a concept, an idea, if you will.
You mention the silliness of the costume, but this is exactly one of the film's themes, or at least a part of it. It deconstructs the heroic figure and questions its function and purpose. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
This is a wrong question to ask. Nolan's Batman isn't about "an actual person", his characters usually stand for something more abstract - a concept, an idea, if you will.
You mention the silliness of the costume, but this is exactly one of the film's themes, or at least a part of it. It deconstructs the heroic figure and questions its function and purpose. |
Unless you're talking about Batman Begins, which I haven't seen, that's just not the case. There's hardly anything abstract about The Dark Knight. Of course you can interpret a lot of crap into it. But for me it's straight-forward, cheap and dumb.
You can even find abstract ideas in Transformers if you're trying. Is it intended or not? What do I know? But the Transformers are not a symbol for anything, they are there for action and fights and explosions.
And Batman is there to be Batman. Imho Nolan has failed to attach anything more to him. |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Unless you're talking about Batman Begins, which I haven't seen, that's just not the case. There's hardly anything abstract about The Dark Knight. Of course you can interpret a lot of crap into it. But for me it's straight-forward, cheap and dumb.
You can even find abstract ideas in Transformers if you're trying. Is it intended or not? What do I know? But the Transformers are not a symbol for anything, they are there for action and fights and explosions.
And Batman is there to be Batman. Imho Nolan has failed to attach anything more to him. |
I'm sorry but this is absurd. When you say that Batman is just Batman, you have to agree that Batman is also a superhero. This means he is a masked dude who tries to fight evil. This already means something.
Both films (and TDKR will be no exception) ask "What does it mean to be a superhero?" They are not just straight adaptations of comic book stories, they are very clear deconstructions of such mythology. For example, when Joker demands that Batman has to show his true face or otherwise people will die, he tries to show that it is precisely the symbolic nature of Batman that is a source of his power. What if Gotham knew he's Bruce Wayne? It would probably discredit him completely. TDK then says that for a system to function, a public lie (Batman's true identity) has to be maintained. This, of course, has large implications when thinking about post 9/11 America and it is no coincidence that TDK mirrors this ubiquitous paranoia.
Just like TDKR is obviously going to be about Occupy Wall Street, you can already tell this just from the trailers.
And of course Transformers mean something. Even if their purpose is to mean completely nothing, it still means nihilism - which, coincidentally, is also what Transformers actually represent.
You can't say "there's nothing more", because that's just self-evidently not true. It's a cheap cop-out, intelectual cowardice, refusal to think. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| You seriously think Transformers means anything at all? The only meaning at all is from the ridiculous Optimus Prime monologue at the end of the movies. You know a movie is completely devoid of any artistic or metaphorical meaning when they actually have to explicitly tell you what it is at the end. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Transformers is an arthouse film that elaborates on the dangers of technological encroachment within our society. The presence of the decepticons is analogous to the presence of devices and vehicles which serve to separate man from his earnest nature by way of self-preservation, and their status of control over individual spheres of safety given the avarice of the developed world. Even their name, decept-icon, entails a certain reverence for their ability to shift within society as tools of man, and lord over him when it suits their destructive directives.
The ubiquity of commercial presence in the film is in fact meant to be an ironic take on the delivery of advertising in our modern age, as it flaunts it directly and without reservation or coherence, as if to say we are drowning within the deluge of profitable information by way of entertainment as the new standard for competence. The director of the film, Michael Bay, is a subversive fellow staunchly opposed to corporate funding for his works of art, and mocks the fellow Michael Bays of the industry by ensuring an ironic explosion every 30 seconds. It's as though he is saying that, in our world, everything is combustible - a witty comment on the malleability and dichotomy of social and physical structures.
Meagan Fox stars in the film as an everywoman disguised as a supermodel celebrity, representing the inevitability of female empowerment in intuitive roles. Her stolid grace is a juxtaposition on the expected role of women in vital roles of emergence (government, leadership) wrought with the summary expectation of obviously sexist individuals who might idolize her own devices for procreative ritual - which I believe is where the film comes full-circle. If we are to interpret the existence of encroaching mechanical beings as our competetitors for ideological codependence, then certainly there is a place for the machinations of biological imperative within the true understanding of our evolutionary future.
Thank you, Transformers. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
