re: If TDKR is "meh", will you admit it?

quote:

---

she was in labor for about four days, and "hard" labor for about 20 hours

---

holy shite.

quote:

---

The bear cub will hear about it in the future, I'm sure.

---

if your wife is anything like my mom, it will be brought up a lot.

quote:

---

The baby is super-mega cute.

---

i expect you to be a little biased, but i believe you anyway.

quote:

---

I had a playlist in the hospital, luckily it was long. For the record, here's what it shuffled to during the key moments:

Final push: Wonderwall by Oasis
Baby officially born: Ring of Fire by Johnny Cash
Held by momma for the first time: Ready to Start by Arcade Fire

Her first full album, played later that day, was Emotionalism by the Avett Brothers.

---

Good stuff.

As always welcome back. Glad everyone is safe and healthy.

To bring this back on topic:

quote:

---

I hate being a movie critic like so many on here seem to revel in. It just makes you seem pretentious and like you can't enjoy anything in life. More times than not, I'll see the good in a movie and enjoy it...it takes an effort for me to say a movie is terrible.

---

If I see a bad movie, I say so. If I see a good one, same here. People who are critical of movies are not critical to impress you (well, maybe some are), but it's because we genuinely love movies. Bad movies, or worse yet -- stunningly mediocre movies that don't even aspire to be good -- offend my love of movies. They get to make movies FOR A LIVING, yet turn out such cynical crap?

That deserves to be called out by people who love movies. But I love all kinds of movies. I also don't believe in forcing all movies to fit a narrow spectrum. There's room for fun genre trash and experimental art films. There's room in my heart and my head for both.

quote:

---

If TDKR is "meh", will you admit it?

---

yes


I haven't been moved by anything I've seen so far

I want it to be great but got a feeling it will be very meh

quote:

---

CocomoLSU

---

in agreement about Catwoman, tough for me to buy right now


and Bane is already meh to me and agree, the voice in the trailers was like "huh" "what" "what he say"

I might be getting to old for comic book movies

I have no problems understanding Bane and this is coming from a guy who saw the prologue in December, BEFORE his voice was re-adjusted. I had no problems with his voice then, and I don't have any problems with his voice now.

As far as Catwoman being "too cheesy," you do remember that - while Nolan has upped the realism in this incarnation of Batman - it still is a comic book movie, right? Cheesiness will ALWAYS exist in the world of comic book films, I don't care if Martin Scorsese or Stanley Kubrick were directing, you're still gonna have cheese. And if Catwoman is done right, it won't be cheese. The Catwoman in Batman Returns was NOTHING like the Catwoman of the comic books. That was Tim Burton's Catwoman, not DC's.

And if you aren't sold on Bane as a villain now then you are never going to be sold on him. Everything I have seen from The Dark Knight Rises so far tells me that Bane is going to be the ultimate villain of Nolan's Batman trilogy.

quote:

---

Baloo

---

Congratulations on the child my man

Definitely. I'm always on the look out for the 3rd film being the part where a great franchise fricks up, because it almost always does.

quote:

---

Definitely. I'm always on the look out for the 3rd film being the part where a great franchise fricks up, because it almost always does.

---

Because they don't know how to change the game. Did you get to read my idea in the "What should WB do after Batman?" thread? I'm curious what your thoughts are on it.

ETA: Here's a copy of it...


I'm all for a Justice League movie, but I believe they should keep it to 5 of the main characters (Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Flash, and Wonder Woman) and give them each a movie to re-establish their character in one huge cinematic universe that connects them all. Well I want them to let the Man of Steel trilogy play out first. Put some distance between that Superman, this Batman trilogy and last year's Green Lantern. I want these movies, but I want them done right and not thrown together. Even though Marvel/Disney didn't plan initially for The Avengers but rather added the seeds to the end of the Iron Man production, they've done exceptionally well with tying everything together properly.

What I would so is start out with a Superman movie to establish a movie universe for all of these characters to take place in. Mention Gotham, mention whatever city Green Lantern is in. You know, drop subtle hints of their universe. Do like The Avengers and have one or two characters that tie them altogether, but with a twist. Make it a villain - Lex Luthor. Luthor has no powers, but he is a genius, cunning businessman with a lot of wealth and the desire for power. Have him start out in a supporting role in a Superman movie. Like he is the hot shot in Metropolis before Superman makes his big arrival. He realizes that he is no longer Metropolis's favored son anymore, so he goes about assembling a crew, a team, a legion, that will help him bring the ultimate doom to Superman and any golden boy (or girl) who wants to stand in his way. Because you see, while he is by far the most wealthy man on the face of the planet and has his hand in literally every industry possible, He really doesn't have as much respect or as much power as he believes he should. Every man and every woman, once they taste any power or any money, they naturally want more. Luthor would be no different.

I believe that they should do a first May, first July, December, second May, second July, and third July movie outline, so I'll just fill in the blanks: Superman gets the first May, Flash the first July, Wonder Woman gets Winter, Green Lantern gets the second May, and you introduce your new Batman as more of a detective/investigator, but still arse kicker and general do-gooder to be the de facto leader in the second July movie and the last before the JLA assembles.

For the first JLA movie, have them fight some of the smaller, more earth-based villains to get the story going and have Luthor in his head role as villain. Once Luthor realizes that he can't win with Earth-based villains, he searches the cosmos for those sympathetic to his cause - remember this guy has untold wealth and with how rapidly space travel is developing and new technology to communicate with those who may be out there, this would be no problem to portray. For the sequel, bring in the more cosmic, more challenging villains like Brainiac and Sinisetro. You know, the badasses who can present a challenge. After their defeat, Luthor becomes desperate, and in his desperation, he pulls a Mafia in The Dark Knight and turns to a weapon like The Joker that he doesn't fully understand: That's right, DOOMSDAY! In the finale, you bring out the big guns. No you bring out the biggest gun. Not only that, you let him do damage. No not just ransack a city damage, I'm talking what no superhero movie has done at this point. You kill Superman.

That's right, you take the Jim Brown/Wilt Chamberlain/Babe Ruth out of the JLA. You stack the deck. You put them at a real disadvantage, not just a perceived one. You change the game. By the end of the first act of a 2 hour and 30 minute movie, you have completely thrown the script, the usual, the standard, the audience's expectations to the curb. They are gone. Trashed. A hero - the truest superhero of all - is dead. The golden boy of the known universe is done. Now, you have your game-changer and now you have the liberty to do as you want.

What do our heroes do? Do they surrender and hope for a faint chance of a slip-up by our new overlord? Do they turn to the man who unleashed the literal Doomsday upon humanity? Does he care? Is he happy? Do they all agree to fight to the death? Do some quit but some fight? Do they leave in search of aid? Does this story not have a happy ending? Does it really break that mold of the good guys win? You've given yourself a Pandora's Box with very little chance of screwing it up and any writer worth a damn and with the self-awareness to further their career would be chomping at the bits to tackle that situation. It would completely change the status of not only superhero movies, but the action/adventure genre, and help society question whether it's good or not for the perceived good guy to always win. It also helps us examine what humanity would do if a real totalitarian ruler emerged and we had no way of fighting back.

But hey that's just my thoughts on the subject.

I think most who call TDK "meh" are usually just trying to get a reaction out of people. You could call it overrated when you look at its IMDB rating upon its release because obviously its not one of the greatest films of all time, but it's still a great action film and that's the criteria I rate it upon.

But feel free to say it sucked because "omg the bat pod couldn't jump a wall" or get pissed because he survived a fall, I don't really care.