Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1059 of 3040 FirstFirst ... 10541055105610571058105910601061106210631064 ... LastLast
Results 10,581 to 10,590 of 30391

Thread: POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

  1. -10581
    CO-Gator's Avatar
    They all float down here.
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,178
    vCash:
    28062
    Loc:
    Colorado Springs
    I just realized that shouwrong got banned.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -10582
    Perennial All-Pro
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2010
    Posts:
    3,646
    vCash:
    22459
    Loc:
    Jersey
    1972 Dolphins Logo2013 Dolphins Logo
    RIP Egon Spengler
    Quote Quote  

  3. -10583
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    16,693
    vCash:
    59234
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by mrhankey81701 View Post
    RIP Egon Spengler
    Now he really is collecting spores, molds and fungus.

    Spoiler 
    Quote Quote  

  4. -10584
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    12,144
    vCash:
    1294
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    To be honest I thought they did in a good job in Batman Begins with the amount of origin story. The Shadow doesn't really do enough. His training is basically covered by a wall o' text. As a result we don't really feel the conflict within Cranston and they totally miss out on an opportunity to create resonance with some lesson the Tulku always tried to get Cranston to learn only he never did... and now he needs that skill to defeat Shiwan Khan. It's the whole one inch punch thing from Kill Bill, you know what I mean? Or the "fighting blind" thing from Bloodsport. Or the Karate Kid. It's a common kung fu movie trope. Anyway The Shadow should have done that, but they didn't.

    I don't think the last 2/3rds of Batman Begins worked quite as well as the first third. The whole "like your father you lack the courage to do what was necessary" bit -- which was their attempt at the above trope, along with the totally lame "you never learned to mind your surroundings" -- rings hollow to me. I mean, what is Liam Neeson saying, Bruce's father should have kicked Joe Chill in the face? It makes no sense, therefore the whole thing where Bruce has to succeed where his father failed is a total dud. As a result, Batman Begins is basically Bruce vs. his stepdad. A betrayal/family story. And that's fine. It makes it a pretty "light" watch, actually, because there's nothing really at stake for Batman's core identity.

    The Dark Knight on the other hand does pose an existential crisis for Batman because The Joker is his exact opposite. He tests Bruce on a fundamental level, not just on the level of relationships. Plus the Joker has ideas that actually make sense within his own concept of the world, whereas what the League of Shadows wants makes almost no sense to me. The world gets too corrupt so we have to make everyone in a city insane on drugs to accomplish... what, exactly? How does sowing anarchy further their goals for the world?
    The film didnt particularly explore the Leagues goals, but instead focused their motivations. The motivation that was explored wasnt order and disorder, it was purity and corruption(a word they used more than once if i recall correctly). Based on that, their goal was clearly some utopia society where men and women didnt break laws and everyone generally treat each other well. They had no particular interest in power, as Neeson pointed out a variety of other situations where they shocked the world then withdrew into the shadows, but they wanted humanity to continue its progress forward...albeit in the direction that they themselves deemed acceptable. Corruption slowed that progress or redirected in ways they found to be abhorrent. Thus, every couple hundred of years, they cleansed. Publicly. Then they retreated and waited for everyone who wasnt slaughtered to pick up the pieces and move forward. If they "****ed it up", the League returned. By accelerating Gotham's decline at a terrifying speed, the League would rely on the rest of the world to weed out political and legal corruption. If you want a real world example, recall peoples outcry for justice and reform after the economy burned down.

    As well, the film didnt want the villains to test Bruce of a fundamental level, what it wanted to do was draw a parallel between Batman and the League. Ultimately that failed, in my opinion because they didnt give the League enough screen time. They trained Bruce then disappeared until the end, only to later have Neeson admit they were there the entire time. That kind of twist can work but it fell extremely flat in this movie.

    As for the Father Wayne/Joe Chill thing, thats exactly what Neeson was saying. Consider their position: they are a cult that has no qualms about mass murder in order to "do good"; if they fail in their first attempt they will keep trying, and they are dedicated to doing this over the course of thousands of years at the cost of their own lives. The members of that cult live in a world of black and white. If you arent preventing corruption, your enabling it. By acquiescing to Chill's demand, Bruce's father was spreading crime. Neeson's beliefs demanded Bruce's father to fight back, that it would have meant death is utterly irrelevant to Neeson.

    Liam Neeson himself was a problem. A lot of the flaws you found in the film could have fixed themselves with the right actor in that role. Granted, Neeson nailed playing the role of a dangerously intelligent, articulate individual who knew full well what was he was doing and did it anyways. He successful portrayed compassion(towards Bruce) while also making it obvious that he was filled with conviction. If someone were reading this paragraph, they would think i was praising him. But there was one fatal flaw to the performance: he lacked contempt. This is a character who who lived in a mountain literally looking down on the civilization he had withdrawn from while judging who lives and dies. As a fanatic, wouldnt he feel some level of personal betrayal for those who didnt live up to his expectations? Frustration at what he was "forced to do"? Seething disgust at the "human trash" who ****ed everything up?
    There was a key piece of dialogue during the film that did cover some of that ground- after Bruce threw everyone out of his house he pleaded that there was still good people in that city, to which Neeson proclaimed something to the effect of "its so corrupt we infiltrated every level of its infrastructure". He stated that as a matter of fact. For a character that compelled, youd think he be sneering in Bruce's face. Perhaps, in hindsight, i am expecting to much. And Neeson did do well. But i feel someone else could have done better and circumvented a lot of the confusion.

    My opinion of the flick falls somewhere between yours and Val's. The Dark Knight is clearly the better film, and i usually am more attracted to entertainment that examines characters instead of plots(it should be mentioned, the Joker didnt just challenge Bruce of a fundamental level, he challenged everyone. Dent fell, Gordon bent, Alfred lied). That said, everything flowed together nicely in Batman Begins and it didnt leave many loose ends. Other than that Water Vaporization machine, nothing in particular popped up randomly to further the story(and even that they established its general existence discussing military contracts earlier in the film). Had Warner Bro's decided to scrap further movies, that one would have been a solid movie in its own right.
    The Dark Knight, on the other hand, was all over the place. The movie moves in one directly, then swerves in the other, it moves forward only to abruptly circle back then retread ground. All of this was done intentionally and done well. I suppose if i had to describe my opinion on the matter, i would say The Dark Knight's story is superior, but Batman Begins storytelling was much more sound.

    Oh, and after rewatching The Dark Knight Rises, my opinion of that has shifted from "okay" to "hot mess"


    http://www.thedrawplay.com/comic/cam-newton-no-respect/

    Terrorist attack count against the Anything Goes Thread: 5
    Quote Quote  

  5. -10585
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    16,693
    vCash:
    59234
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    The film didnt particularly explore the Leagues goals, but instead focused their motivations. The motivation that was explored wasnt order and disorder, it was purity and corruption(a word they used more than once if i recall correctly). Based on that, their goal was clearly some utopia society where men and women didnt break laws and everyone generally treat each other well. They had no particular interest in power, as Neeson pointed out a variety of other situations where they shocked the world then withdrew into the shadows, but they wanted humanity to continue its progress forward...albeit in the direction that they themselves deemed acceptable. Corruption slowed that progress or redirected in ways they found to be abhorrent. Thus, every couple hundred of years, they cleansed. Publicly. Then they retreated and waited for everyone who wasnt slaughtered to pick up the pieces and move forward. If they "****ed it up", the League returned. By accelerating Gotham's decline at a terrifying speed, the League would rely on the rest of the world to weed out political and legal corruption. If you want a real world example, recall peoples outcry for justice and reform after the economy burned down.
    Even if that's true, it's pretty daffy, no? We will kill people and destroy societies until one day, we live in a Utopia where people treat each other well, even though that's not what we do!

    As for the Father Wayne/Joe Chill thing, thats exactly what Neeson was saying. Consider their position: they are a cult that has no qualms about mass murder in order to "do good"; if they fail in their first attempt they will keep trying, and they are dedicated to doing this over the course of thousands of years at the cost of their own lives. The members of that cult live in a world of black and white. If you arent preventing corruption, your enabling it. By acquiescing to Chill's demand, Bruce's father was spreading crime. Neeson's beliefs demanded Bruce's father to fight back, that it would have meant death is utterly irrelevant to Neeson.
    In Utopia, everyone fights back? I mean, I get what you're saying. You're just trying to explain the League's motivations. I'm just saying their motivations make no sense. And I think people sort of consciously or subconsciously process this when they're watching the movie. At some point you stop listening to Neeson's "philosophy" and he just becomes the guy that wants to destroy Gotham.

    Liam Neeson himself was a problem. A lot of the flaws you found in the film could have fixed themselves with the right actor in that role. Granted, Neeson nailed playing the role of a dangerously intelligent, articulate individual who knew full well what was he was doing and did it anyways. He successful portrayed compassion(towards Bruce) while also making it obvious that he was filled with conviction. If someone were reading this paragraph, they would think i was praising him. But there was one fatal flaw to the performance: he lacked contempt. This is a character who who lived in a mountain literally looking down on the civilization he had withdrawn from while judging who lives and dies. As a fanatic, wouldnt he feel some level of personal betrayal for those who didnt live up to his expectations? Frustration at what he was "forced to do"? Seething disgust at the "human trash" who ****ed everything up?
    As much as I love Liam Neeson, I think this is absolutely dead on. It had never really occurred to me, but it's dead on.

    Oh, and after rewatching The Dark Knight Rises, my opinion of that has shifted from "okay" to "hot mess"
    The Dark Knight Rises is a blood and **** covered toilet. It's not the worst Batman movie ever made (Batman and Robin is going to be hard to beat there), but it's Temple of Doom bad, for sure.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -10586
    Valandui's Avatar
    Lumberjack Batman
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2008
    Posts:
    10,233
    vCash:
    18828
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Even if that's true, it's pretty daffy, no? We will kill people and destroy societies until one day, we live in a Utopia where people treat each other well, even though that's not what we do!



    In Utopia, everyone fights back? I mean, I get what you're saying. You're just trying to explain the League's motivations. I'm just saying their motivations make no sense. And I think people sort of consciously or subconsciously process this when they're watching the movie. At some point you stop listening to Neeson's "philosophy" and he just becomes the guy that wants to destroy Gotham.



    As much as I love Liam Neeson, I think this is absolutely dead on. It had never really occurred to me, but it's dead on.



    The Dark Knight Rises is a blood and **** covered toilet. It's not the worst Batman movie ever made (Batman and Robin is going to be hard to beat there), but it's Temple of Doom bad, for sure.
    I honestly never bothered with the last movie because of that. Slightly off topic, I was listening to someone go on a rant about how The Dark Knight was actually the weakest link in the series despite being the best individual movie due to it not really having anything to do with the overall story arc of the series. He was saying that the mistake everyone was making is thinking these were Batman movies instead of a self-contained story happening to star Batman. He compared it to the second LOTR movie forgetting about getting the ring to Mordor and focusing on Frodo going on a treasure hunt while Aragorn goes off to fight some orc leader you've never heard about up to that point.

    Valandui's Weekly Music Video

    Borknagar:
    Winter Thrice
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDrrKv2wjvk
    Quote Quote  

  7. -10587
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    16,693
    vCash:
    59234
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by Valandui View Post
    I honestly never bothered with the last movie because of that. Slightly off topic, I was listening to someone go on a rant about how The Dark Knight was actually the weakest link in the series despite being the best individual movie due to it not really having anything to do with the overall story arc of the series. He was saying that the mistake everyone was making is thinking these were Batman movies instead of a self-contained story happening to star Batman. He compared it to the second LOTR movie forgetting about getting the ring to Mordor and focusing on Frodo going on a treasure hunt while Aragorn goes off to fight some orc leader you've never heard about up to that point.
    That guy and his rant are dumb.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -10588
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    12,144
    vCash:
    1294
    Quote Originally Posted by LouPhinFan View Post
    I completely enjoyed Thor: The Dark World. It comes out on Blu-ray this week and I'll be buying it. Sure the Dark Elf guy was a boring villain without an ounce of development, but damn the Thor - Loki dynamic is outstanding. Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth were great in every scene they had together. Natalie Portman is such a great actress that she could read the ingredients off of a pancake batter box and make it sound interesting. And I don't think I need to say anything about Sir Anthony Hopkins. Even Rene Russo and Frigga was well done in here extended scenes over the first film.

    Don't get me started on the disappointment that Man of Steel was. It was good, but with some plot and characterization tweeking, could have been great.
    Really? Perhaps the difference between us was expectation. I went in expecting pure CGI crap with a few shots of Superman eating cherry pie in front of a waving flag in between fight scenes for 2 hours, so i was pleasantly surprised when i received (what i thought was) an interesting science fiction flick.

    Spoiler 


    All that said, im less than pleased about Man of Steel being a "starting point" for that universe. Im not to optimistic that it will turn out well. Like i was just saying about Batman Begins, Man of Steel was a pretty good self-contained movie(though it had considerably more flaws and loose ends in it than Begins).

    And i agree with Thor, though i will repeat what i(and many others) said about it when walking out of the theater: to much Thor in my Loki movie I think i liked the first movie better, but its close.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -10589
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    12,144
    vCash:
    1294
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Even if that's true, it's pretty daffy, no? We will kill people and destroy societies until one day, we live in a Utopia where people treat each other well, even though that's not what we do!

    In Utopia, everyone fights back? I mean, I get what you're saying. You're just trying to explain the League's motivations. I'm just saying their motivations make no sense. And I think people sort of consciously or subconsciously process this when they're watching the movie. At some point you stop listening to Neeson's "philosophy" and he just becomes the guy that wants to destroy Gotham.
    To be fair, we are talking about a series in which the other motivations are "burning down the world because flames are sweet" and "blow up a city because i didnt fit into a private club" Are the motivations insane? Sure. But then again, i see the logic, albeit psychotic logic, of burning something down so you can use the ground to build something bigger. And yeah, that they dont live up to their own principles is more than a bit ironic. Though that could be explained by the fact that some people love the thought of being a martyr: they are "taking the bullet" for everyone else. Well not everyone else, just those they didnt slaughter while totally being necessary evils

    I can agree with the second paragraph. This conversation is proof of drowning out Neeson's philosophy and tucking him into "bad guy who wants to destroy". I did have to connect the dots and read between the lines when looking for at motivations. Again, i think a solution would have been to have another actor or at least written it differently.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10590
    LouPhinFan's Avatar
    It's ok to say "I don't know".
    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2006
    Posts:
    7,798
    vCash:
    29032
    Loc:
    Louisville, KY
    Cap's shield
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    Really? Perhaps the difference between us was expectation. I went in expecting pure CGI crap with a few shots of Superman eating cherry pie in front of a waving flag in between fight scenes for 2 hours, so i was pleasantly surprised when i received (what i thought was) an interesting science fiction flick.

    Spoiler 


    All that said, im less than pleased about Man of Steel being a "starting point" for that universe. Im not to optimistic that it will turn out well. Like i was just saying about Batman Begins, Man of Steel was a pretty good self-contained movie(though it had considerably more flaws and loose ends in it than Begins).

    And i agree with Thor, though i will repeat what i(and many others) said about it when walking out of the theater: to much Thor in my Loki movie I think i liked the first movie better, but its close.
    This review pretty much sums up my thoughts on Man of Steel

    http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/f...-man-of-steel/

    Be careful, the review gets pretty deep into proper characterization, story/character arcs and what not in part 2. Walrus would probably like it a ton, especially since he wants to try his hand at movie writing.
    “Turns out, far too much has been written about great men and not nearly enough about morons. Doesn't seem right.”
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6718
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 03:17 PM
  2. Replies: 1725
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 09:16 AM
  3. can we keep this thread alive in the PoFo?
    By Maynard the Hammer in forum Questions and Suggestions Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 11:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •