Bob you are the critic the internet deserves, but not the one it needs right now and so we'll flame him...because he can take it...because he's not a hero...he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...the Dark Knight.
And how many shots of Thor and Captain America are without helmets? Thor goes into battle multiple times with no helmet! Hey, when he's being Batman, Nolan's Batman is fully geared up.Raiyan 1.0 said:Oh, Batman is ashamed of being a comic-book adaptation because he doesn't call his car by the ridiculous name 'batmobile'?
Say, how many times does Magneto call himself 'Magneto' or Xavier call himself 'Professor X' in X Men: First Class?
Nope, first trailer has Gordon looking pretty beat up and hospitalized. Calling it: to throw back to the comic book without screwing up the movie, it'll be his back that gets broken.rekabdarb said:His backs gonna be broken, calling that now.
Agreed. And it is interesting: professional football players tend to be in the 1%.Pallindromemordnillap said:It looked to me like the stadium was being blown up with regular explosives, then collapsing into a series of tunnels and chasms (maybe that Native American step thing), like the kind that run under Wayne Manor. Gotham is supposed to be riddled with those kind of catacombs isn't it?
You rememeber/watch movies way too closely buddy if you are able to pick out stuff like that!almostgold said:The pearl necklace Catwoman tries on is the same one Wayne's mother wore to the opera in the first movie:
George Lucas's prequels are not pretentious. I suspect you don't know what it means. If you want pretentious George Lucas, your best bet is THX 1138. I liked that film but you could easily accuse it of being pretentious.Ubermetalhed said:Although I know the film will be good, the trailer makes it look like the film will be shit.
It looks like a rehash of the last two films and Bane being a wellspoken body builder is well...lame. I want the venom filled monstrosity! There is also an air of pretenciousness emenating from it aswell, like Nolan has gone a bit George Lucas with success.
But it is a trailer afterall, albeit a bad one. The prologue thing aswell wasn't too brilliant either but yeh...I have faith.
You mentioned Micheal Bay a multiple amount of times, and he's known for either his overuse of special effects or terrible camera work. His stories sure aren't great, but that's not exactly the first thing anyone would jump too.Ariseishirou said:Er.... where, in that entire paragraph, did I mention special effects? So why is your response all about special effects?
I really still don't understand where Micheal Bay somehow manages to relate to this, but I thought the trailer did a good job of explaining what the story was gonna be.I don't care if he blows up a football stadium with CGI, I just want a good story. Michael Bay uses great special effects himself - it's the stories that are garbage. That's what I'm worried about here.
Welcome to the world of over-analysis. A certain segment of critics chose to interpret Batman's use of the cell phones of Gotham City to pinpoint the Joker as some kind of endorsement of the Bush/Cheney/TIA "we spy on you because we care" policies.Woodsey said:"Gee, it sure would be ironic if turned out that peacetime makes Gotham lower its guard and fall prey to evil, thus teaching everyone the lesson that peace can only be won by leaders who are constantly ready/eager for war, huh? Nolanverse Batman: your source for uncomfortably positive imaginings of the Cheney doctrine since 2008!"
... huh? Where the hell did that come from? TDK wasn't right-wing, and I highly doubt Christopher Nolan or his brother are anything close to Republicans.
Amen to that. This went from "critical" to "snarky" all the way across the meter to "bitchy" in nothing flat, to the detriment of anything resembling either analysis or humor.Tarkand said:I'll pitch in the 'Give it a rest with the sarcasm' crowd here Bob.
For one thing, it makes you come off as a bit of an hypocrite since you were outraged (and even made an entire escape to the movie episode on it) that Dark Knight didn't get an Oscar nomination. Than a bunch of zany, campy super hero movie come out and suddenly you're basically begging Nolan to re-introduce the Bat Dance...
There is nothing wrong about having 1 dark and gritty super hero franchise. It happens to fit Batman very well. It happens to be very successful. And trying to 'balance' things out by being overly cynical about it really doesn't make you come off well.
No offense to you, mate, but I think that's not even remotely true. Michael Bay is mostly panned for his terrible, nonsensical stories, and that's absolutely the first thing most people would jump to with a Michael Bay comparison. That is the most common complaint about the Transformers movies. (He's also known for gratuitous shots of Hollywood starlets, but that's neither here nor there.)JoesshittyOs said:You mentioned Micheal Bay a multiple amount of times, and he's known for either his overuse of special effects or terrible camera work. His stories sure aren't great, but that's not exactly the first thing anyone would jump too.
Don't worry, I'm not going to report you to the mods, but there are certainly more intelligent ways to discuss something with someone who doesn't share your opinion than calling them "stupid" because you don't understand, and if you keep it up I will.JoesshittyOs said:Plus my main complaint was with you talking about how the "Occupy" and all the imagery of protesting was to bold or overplayed, to which I'm still trying to fathom is even a valid complaint. It's just such a... (I apologize, but there's no other word for it) stupid thing to whine about.
No, I posted about this on my FB days before Bob's analysis came out. The "Occupy" imagery is pretty obvious. But it makes zero sense for Bane to be able to use the movement and its sentiments to "take over" Gotham, because the movement isn't about "taking over" anything - it's about sitting in the street to get media attention. None of those people are armed, and none of them are violent. For Bane to use a non-violent awareness-raising sit-in to beat up cops and wealthy folks (who to this day have been the ones pepper-spraying and beating the protestors, not the other way around) is just mind-bogglingly ludicrous. It's like Lex Luthor riling up Gandhi to go put the beat down on Superman.JoesshittyOs said:I just don't get it, and I need you to explain how it's overplayed, and why that is even a bad thing. I feel that you saw Bob jokingly remark about the "1%" imagery, and you somehow gathered that it was a bad thing.
Well, now you know.JoesshittyOs said:I really still don't understand where Micheal Bay somehow manages to relate to this,
Yes, yes we do.Rotting Corpse said:Bob, we all wish it was ace reporter Clark Kent.
Okay then, it's not that similar to the Occupy movement. It's about rich versus poor, how in this case neither are right. How is that ridiculous? Like really, "Phht, Violent Protests. How unrealistic!" We're seeing stuff like this all around the world. Lebanon just went through something like this, Egypt overthrew their government, yet it somehow is a foreign and ludacris subject for a superhero movie?Ariseishirou said:No, I posted about this on my FB days before Bob's analysis came out. The "Occupy" imagery is pretty obvious. But it makes zero sense for Bane to be able to use the movement and its sentiments to "take over" Gotham, because the movement isn't about "taking over" anything - it's about sitting in the street to get media attention. None of those people are armed, and none of them are violent. For Bane to use a non-violent awareness-raising sit-in to beat up cops and wealthy folks (who to this day have been the ones pepper-spraying and beating the protestors, not the other way around) is just mind-bogglingly ludicrous. It's like Lex Luthor riling up Gandhi to go put the beat down on Superman.
How is that ridiculous? You could just as easily be upset that the movie is set in the United States. I don't get where a child singing the National anthem somehow cries "Look at how American this is!", and when that somehow became insulting and caustic.It's like something Michael Bay would come up with. Combined with the over-the-top special effects, plus the overblown American jingoism (national anthem, rich versus poor, football stadium), and one can only wonder if, as in Bay films, the camera is at some point going to pan around gently waving American flag in slow motion. It's ridiculous. And the comparison is entirely apt.
It's true, we do, so why use a protest that is entirely non-violent, unless one is doing to misconstrue the movement for political reasons, or just daftly misunderstanding it? This isn't the French revolution. It's Occupy. It really is like using Gandhi to punch out Lex Luther, when you could use less ridiculous freedom fighters who actually fought.JoesshittyOs said:It's about rich versus poor, how in this case neither are right. How is that ridiculous? Like really, "Phht, Violent Protests. How unrealistic!" We're seeing stuff like this all around the world. Lebanon just went through something like this, Egypt overthrew their government, yet it somehow is a foreign and ludacris subject for a superhero movie?
It's not "insulting", it's just heavy-handed, over-the-top, and melodramatic. Which is bad storytelling. There are subtler, more nuanced references to patriotism one could make.JoesshittyOs said:How is that ridiculous? You could just as easily be upset that the movie is set in the United States. I don't get where a child singing the National anthem somehow cries "Look at how American this is!", and when that somehow became insulting and caustic.
Yes, the comparison of this trailer to Michael Bay films is apt. I do think the comparison to Michael Bay is appropriate. You are correct, in that I was using apt to mean appropriate. Because I think the comparison of this trailer to Michael Bay films, which is both the topic of that paragraph and the thesis of my argument for this entire discussion, is both apt and appropriate. Are you even reading what I write?JoesshittyOs said:Also, I don't think "apt" is the word you meant to use. That's basically saying that you think it's appropriate.