The Match Cut Xtreme Crocheting Thread (and The Dark Knight)

[Qrazy]

I thought the plot was pretty easy to follow, but I do still have a couple "logic" questions that still linger:

Reese discovers Batman's identity by finding the blueprint for The Tumbler (Batmobile) -- what about all of those people who built the damn thing? I assume Fox didn't do it himself.

Gordon faking his death during the assassination attempt on the mayor -- am I missing something here? Did he know this was going to happen or did he just recognize an opportunity to set his plan in motion? Was he actually shot? There didn't seem to any lingering effects of a bullet wound.

Assembly-line... everyone makes a different piece and ultimately they have no idea what they're actually making... Fox puts it together in the end.

They knew the assassination attempt was going to happen, chalk up his survival to a bullet proof vest.

[Qrazy]

I was actually gonna ask about this but from what I assumed, when he was shot, they looked at that as an opportunity to start a plan... However, what doesn't make sense is the fact that it was Batman who asked Harvey to call a press conference, so Bruce Wayne could come forward with who he really was... The plan to keep Gordon's survival a secret had to have been made AFTER Batman suggested the press conference because if Wayne didn't know that Harvey was gonna take the fall, he wouldn't have burned all of the documents and put away all his Batman stuff... he also wouldn't have told Alfred he was going to turn himself in... And I guess like Harvey said in the movie, they expected Batman to do the right thing... save his ass. So there is a bit of misleading events here.

They chose to use Gordon in the second plan at a later time, they initially faked his death to keep Joker away from his family.

[Spinal]

# I'm Not There. (2007) .... Jack/Pastor John
# Rescue Dawn (2006) .... Dieter
# Batman Begins (2005) .... Bruce Wayne / Batman
# American Psycho (2000) .... Patrick Bateman


I thought he was pretty poor in all of these. I'll give you Henry V.

[Qrazy]

I thought he was pretty poor in all of these. I'll give you Henry V.

Hrm well I guess that's because your opinion sucks and you're old.

[Watashi]

Hrm well I guess that's because your opinion sucks and you're old.
Yeah, seriously.

You shouldn't you be in bed by now Spinal? I hear Murder She Wrote will be on in 15 minutes.

[Spinal]

Hey, you. The person about to post the Matlock joke. Cut it out. You can do better than that. Seriously, just hit the back arrow on your browser and we'll pretend this never happened.

[Sven]

Breakthrough!:

I would've been fine, I think, with Ledger's one-dimensionality had the rest of the players been given more dimension as well. If juxtaposed against something that resembled humanity, his force-ness, I imagine, could've been very much effective. As it stands, he doesn't really stand apart from anyone else. Thus my application of the word "serviceable". Sure Ledger loads that one dimension with snarly twists and turns, but I just cannot fathom the praise he's receiving in the larger context of the film itself. It's pure physicality, not much expression. Am I making sense?

[Spinal]

Am I making sense?

The words are clear. I still don't agree with the underlying opinion though. I thought he was precisely as expressive as the role required. I liked the sense of mystery about him. I always felt like there was something churning inside that he was withholding until the moment it could cause someone else pain or confusion.

But I think I agree with what you imply ... that in some cases, the performance was held back by other factors, whether it was the writing, direction, or other cast members.

[Sven]

I thought he was precisely as expressive as the role required.

That's what I'm saying. Serviceable. Adequate. My complaint is that the role requires far too little to be as massive as everyone is suggesting it is.


But I think I agree with what you imply ... that in some cases, the performance was held back by other factors, whether it was the writing, direction, or other cast members.

Yeah, I said that explicitly in the massive response a few pages back: with a different screenplay, one that moves the characters beyond the ideas they stand for and humanize them, one that isn't afraid to dramatize, Ledger's performance would've been much more.

[Spinal]

Yeah, I said that explicitly in the massive response a few pages back: with a different screenplay, one that moves the characters beyond the ideas they stand for and humanize them, one that isn't afraid to dramatize, Ledger's performance would've been much more.

Well, that I can agree with.

[Spinal]

Mick LaSalle's thoughts on Ledger's performance are pretty great. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/17/DDK011PHMA.DTL&type=movies)


... Audiences for the biggest blockbuster of the summer are flooding in, not just hoping an actor will be good but also expecting and needing him to be absolutely amazing. They want something profound, to put alongside Ledger's Ennis in "Brokeback Mountain." They want the fabled gift that arrives six months after the loved one's death.

Ledger's performance can't live up to that. Perhaps no performance ever could, but especially in this case, with the limits built into the role. Nolan and his collaborators set out to deepen the action-movie form, but the Joker remains in essence a great comic book character, not Iago (or even Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men"). Nor will audiences find some of the other things they may be unconsciously looking for - a valedictory aspect or a suggestion that the role was eating the actor alive. The truth is, Ledger's death was a surprise to everybody, and "The Dark Knight" neither hints at it nor makes sense of it. Nothing could.

But shelve those outsize expectations, and, suddenly, Ledger's performance opens up. He comes onscreen and electrifies the movie. With his smeared lipstick and painted white face, he is every clown who ever terrified a child. He speaks in a measured, Middle American accent, enunciating his words carefully, a voice that could tell bedtime stories in hell.

He also states more succinctly the point I was struggling to make earlier:


This time out, Bale is almost a mere member of the ensemble, the first among equals that includes Morgan Freeman as Bruce Wayne's operations chief and Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon.

[number8]

4th time today. Still love it.

Sold out show at 3:30. Interestingly, half of the audience were old people. I'm talking senior citizens.

[MadMan]

The more I think about it, the more I think that even Gary Oldman did a better acting job than Christian Bale did in this film. But then I think its also because this time around Gordon was not only more of a badass, but he actually played a fairly important role in things than he did last time. I think if the next film is made the fact that he's now finally commissioner will add another interesting layer to his current dealings with the Batman, and of course the importance of his role in the films. And I think Aaron Eckheart did a pretty awesome job as well, along with Eric Roberts who just like Tom Wilkison in the first film was believable as a head gangster.

[transmogrifier]

I never found Bale's Batman voice comical.

I did, every single second. It's like Ledger and Bale were having a competition or something.

As for the movie in general, it's a big fat meh. The story is pedestrian for so long, and the storyline editing so poor, that I couldn't wait for it to be over. The the Rachel/Harvey thing happened, and it picked up steam, and I was looking forward to seeing where it went. And where it went was nowhere at all. Two-Face was gypped big time.

The "creation" of Two-Face should have been the first act end. I can express strongly enough how totally pointless the whole Joker robs the bank/Batman goes to Hong Kong thing was. And the action is terribly staged - again.

Bring back Burton.

[DavidSeven]

I would've been fine, I think, with Ledger's one-dimensionality had the rest of the players been given more dimension as well. If juxtaposed against something that resembled humanity, his force-ness, I imagine, could've been very much effective. As it stands, he doesn't really stand apart from anyone else.

Well, the intention was to juxtapose the absolute nature of The Joker with Harvey Dent's humanity. Both are villains, but one is constant chaos and the other is given a full arc. This is clearly what they were intending to express. I guess you weren't feeling it though.

[D_Davis]

# Empire of the Sun (1987) .... Jim 'Jamie' Graham


I always forget that he got to play J.G. Ballard. That's awesome, quite an honor.

[Sven]

Well, the intention was to juxtapose the absolute nature of The Joker with Harvey Dent's humanity. Both are villains, but one is constant chaos and the other is given a full arc. This is clearly what they were intending to express. I guess you weren't feeling it though.

I saw Dent as the place where Batman (force of order) and Joker (force of chaos) meet. He remains a concept. The only human quality I can see attributed to him is his love for Rachel which was shorthand and unconvincing.

[MadMan]

Bring back Burton.Batman(1989) was a fairly good, solid picture. But Batman Returns completely crumbled under too much weirdness, plus the fact that The Penguin and Catwomen really aren't very good villains to begin with. I'm thankful that Burton stopped with two Batman movies.

Where as Batman Begins was very well done, and tackled the rather thankless task of serving as both an origin tale and diving into the nature of Batman. And of course TDK absolutely blew me away, and managed to actually meet high expectations. Unlike some past summer blockbusters.

[transmogrifier]

Batman(1989) was a fairly good, solid picture. But Batman Returns completely crumbled under too much weirdness, plus the fact that The Penguin and Catwomen really aren't very good villains to begin with. I'm thankful that Burton stopped with two Batman movies.

Where as Batman Begins was very well done, and tackled the rather thankless task of serving as both an origin tale and diving into the nature of Batman. And of course TDK absolutely blew me away, and managed to actually meet high expectations. Unlike some past summer blockbusters.

If you were to go into my head, reverse every single opinion I have about the Batman series, it would look something like this.

[Sxottlan]

Saw it again today. Not perfect, but I love it just the same. Real quick cutting between scenes really gave the impression that Joker must have had a ridiculously lucky streak because it seemed he was improvising these schemes incredibly fast. Or maybe the whole chaos thing is a joke too. Sure seemed like he had a plan.

I do wish all the Titanic talk would stop. The film did drop more than 50% in its second weekend. It's just that it had such a great start. Seems like the #2 spot is doable, but c'mon.

[Skitch]

French accent?

Yeah, but he's trying to scare criminals, not make them think he's trying to surrender.

[megladon8]

I did, every single second. It's like Ledger and Bale were having a competition or something.

As for the movie in general, it's a big fat meh. The story is pedestrian for so long, and the storyline editing so poor, that I couldn't wait for it to be over. The the Rachel/Harvey thing happened, and it picked up steam, and I was looking forward to seeing where it went. And where it went was nowhere at all. Two-Face was gypped big time.

The "creation" of Two-Face should have been the first act end. I can express strongly enough how totally pointless the whole Joker robs the bank/Batman goes to Hong Kong thing was. And the action is terribly staged - again.

Bring back Burton.



In all honesty, I could have written this review for you.

It's one of those movies where I would have been flabbergasted if you liked it in the least.

Not that my adoring it was any less predictable, but still :P

[Duncan]

I don't think Two Face should have been a villain in this film at all. It would have made a lot more sense to me if by the end Dent had lost his mind and was a symbol of an ambiguously conflicted Gotham in the wake of a horrific crime spree. As it stands, too much stuff to fit in one movie.

[Qrazy]

Batman(1989) was a fairly good, solid picture. But Batman Returns completely crumbled under too much weirdness, plus the fact that The Penguin and Catwomen really aren't very good villains to begin with. I'm thankful that Burton stopped with two Batman movies.

Where as Batman Begins was very well done, and tackled the rather thankless task of serving as both an origin tale and diving into the nature of Batman. And of course TDK absolutely blew me away, and managed to actually meet high expectations. Unlike some past summer blockbusters.

Have you seen the original Burton Batman recently? It's not nearly as good as my childhood had me remember. It's quite cheesy and stupid actually, although not nearly as cheesy and stupid as the next three entries. I enjoy the second for Catwoman's arc and a few other moments but everything else in it is fairly forgettable and worthless.

[Qrazy]

Saw it again today. Not perfect, but I love it just the same. Real quick cutting between scenes really gave the impression that Joker must have had a ridiculously lucky streak because it seemed he was improvising these schemes incredibly fast. Or maybe the whole chaos thing is a joke too. Sure seemed like he had a plan.

I do wish all the Titanic talk would stop. The film did drop more than 50% in its second weekend. It's just that it had such a great start. Seems like the #2 spot is doable, but c'mon.

I wouldn't say it's a joke so much as a blatant lie. Joker is a character who lives Sartre's bad faith.

[megladon8]

I, too, must side with the people who think Joker's intentions weren't suicidal, but simply a means to an end.

He meant to corrupt. Since Batman and Dent both represent the good in Gotham, it didn't matter who he corrupted, as long as he showed the people of Gotham that no one is incorruptable.

He wanted Batman to run him down on the Batpod, not so that he would die, but so that Batman would have killed him.

[Qrazy]

And the action is terribly staged - again.

Bring back Burton.

Yeah, Burton really knows how to choreograph action. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMRvCiVviuc&feature=related

[Sven]

... but everything else in it is fairly forgettable and worthless.

Not true!

[megladon8]

I still adore Batman Returns, but I've never understood the following Batman has.

Especially that Prince soundtrack...*shudder*

[Qrazy]

Not true!

The film demonizes penguins, so heartless.

But yeah in earnest I guess my claim was a bit hyperbolic in reaction to others inverse hyperbole, I don't really mind it that much. It is cheesy though.

[Sven]

But yeah in earnest I guess my claim was a bit hyperbolic in reaction to others inverse hyperbole

Lolz.

[Dukefrukem]

They chose to use Gordon in the second plan at a later time, they initially faked his death to keep Joker away from his family.

Ahhh. I like that!!

[Dukefrukem]

A somewhat interesting thread on RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=641136

Oh relax. I said "somewhat." :P

It's a good theory ... and William Fichtner does play a great villain... or the character you love to hate. Prison Break is a good example.

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, Burton really knows how to choreograph action. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMRvCiVviuc&feature=related

That's kind of my point. Burton is no great shakes action-wise, but he is leagues above Nolan, who is simply terrible at it.

[Rowland]

I actually like that action sequence at the end of Batman. *shrug*

[Sven]

I actually like that action sequence at the end of Batman. *shrug*

Me too. More for the mood than the choreography, which is what I think is being emphasized.

[Qrazy]

That's kind of my point. Burton is no great shakes action-wise, but he is leagues above Nolan, who is simply terrible at it.

I'll take dive bombs off skyscrapers and semi-flips to old man punches any day.

[number8]

I don't think Two Face should have been a villain in this film at all. It would have made a lot more sense to me if by the end Dent had lost his mind and was a symbol of an ambiguously conflicted Gotham in the wake of a horrific crime spree. As it stands, too much stuff to fit in one movie.

Then the third movie would have to take place immediately afterwards, because Two-Face's scarring would have him die of infection in about 2 months.

[Mysterious Dude]

So what's the deal with this movie not having any opening credits? I kept waiting for the pre-credits sequence to end, but it just went on and on...

[Qrazy]

So what's the deal with this movie not having any opening credits? I kept waiting for the pre-credits sequence to end, but it just went on and on...

I find more films are doing that these days... Punch-Drunk Love doesn't have any either.

[number8]

Neither did Batman Begins.

[Spinal]

I still adore Batman Returns, but I've never understood the following Batman has.

Especially that Prince soundtrack...*shudder*

The Prince soundtrack is awesome. It's the way it's used in the film that doesn't work.

[megladon8]

I thought the lack of credits in both movies was pretty neat.

After the last shot fades out, a black screen and BATMAN BEGINS. Pretty epic.

[Izzy Black]

Perhaps more than anything we've been discussing, I'm subconsciously responding the debate a few pages back between Q and 'rafel where Q stated that narrative, plotting, and form in relation to content were objective elements, and 'rafel suggested that aesthetics were objective. This is very hard for me to swallow.
)

I suppose I should respond to this. In general, most of us in this thread have been more or less arguing and ultimately agreeing around the same central premise. The argument that says we generally give and take from one another is not a particularly radical one. Yet, I would like to draw attention to a discussion that is over on RT presently with resident posters YARN, LEAVES, and ergill_sanchez. I would say my stance there is probably more radical than some here are prepared to agree with, but as there are several intelligent posters on this forum, I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter. I am essentially carving out a space for a more objective attitude about aesthetics using Wittgenstein as my principle lens. My initial, rather dense, post:



To the extent that if some people or posters on this board - whose opinions on film I respect - may pan a movie or, vice versa, gush about a movie, thereby influencing whether or not I wait until DVD or go to see it in a theater, yes, it may affect whether or not I drop the cash with, say, Regal Theaters or use a Netflix rental.

Outside of that, I like what I like and don't like what I don't like; so no, other people's opinions don't influence me on movies. I figure I should chime in here since I have not said anything yet relevant to the topic. What you have said here is echoing what several other posters have added in the thread. There is this notion that we resort to other people's opinions we trust only as a means to get an idea of whether or not they liked a movie, which in turn may lend us to consider other possibilities, but beyond that, people "do not influence" us on movies. The suggestion here is no doubt that, in general, we form our own value judgments on film completely independent of other people's opinions. This was brought up in a similar topic on the Match-Cut forums to which several RT members contribute.

This suggestion is probably what is generally considered to be the norm. We generally consider our valuation of particular films to be a wholly independent task. The majority of us are probably willing to admit that our methods of valuation, however, is informed, at least in part, by societal norms. We shape our methods of valuation from what we have learned is the important technique to a proper analysis of film, but are not our general values informed by this very same context? On the general level, we might say our values are informed by society inasmuch as we mostly agree that movies should A) entertain us and/or B) strike us as meaningful. Yet, both (A) and (B) are predicated on two factors: what entertains us and is meaningful to us is largely a social phenomenon. What artistic values have we formed independent of another? The individualist might make the point to me that someone might happen to agree with another on what is valuable, but that person's opinion on a given artwork is not necessarily informed by another individual's opinion or taste. The possibility of the latter is a reality we seem rather reluctant to accept. We efface any competing notions that challenges our subjective individuality. Thus, for example, one's favorite film might be Taxi Driver, and while this person might agree with the positive and normative criticisms made by another person who esteems the film, the two opinions were formed independent of each other, or in general, independent from social opinion. Is it not the case, however, that you measure the success and worth of Taxi Driver's merits based on the agreed context by which shaped the film and our general social values? The film's value must pass the standard of our agreed institutions and rules. In short, can we really say that one's opinion is formed privately from all other general opinions of value? Our inclination to praise Taxi Driver upon first viewing, then, is at least partially rooted in a general appraisal of approved modes of creation. We would not be able to recognize Taxi Driver's noirish stylisms, focus on male alienation, and moral ambiguity as a good quality unless it were indicative of a particular believed truth about the nature of being in society. An individual might add that, "No I believe this film is an accurate representation of male alienation based on my own interactions with the world" - but is this not just rephrasing it the same way? One does not need to individually experience Vietnam, social alienation, or personal amorality to acknowledge the veracity of the themes presented on the screen. This is because our social values are, at least in part, socially informed. Thus, what we value as "good" in this context is based on other people's opinion on Vietnam, modern society, and ethics, and independent of our own actual experience of these realities (specifically, but is coupled with our personal experiences and relative relationship to them via others). The belief that these issues are "important to society" is shared by the individual filmgoer. We can easily see how this point applies to valuation of the formal qualities of cinema as well.

I would like to borrow some excerpts from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations to emphasize this point.


293. If I say of myself that is only from my own case that I know what the word "pain" means - must I not say the same of other people too? And how can I generalize the one case so irresponsibly?

Now someone tells me that he knows what pain is only from his own case! - Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "beetle". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. - Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. - But suppose the word "beetle" had a use in these people's language? - If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even by empty. - No, one can 'divide' through by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is.

That is to say" if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of 'object and designation' the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant.

295. "I know... only from my own case" - what kind of proposition is this meant to be at all? An experiential one? No. - A grammatical one?

296. "Yes, but there is something there all the same accompanying my cry of pain. And it is on account of that I utter it. And this something is what is important - and frightful." - Only whom are we informing of this? And on what occasion?

298. The very fact that we should so much like to say: "This is the important thing" while we point privately to the sensation - is enough to shew how much we are inclined to say something which gives no information.

303. "I can only believe that someone else is in pain, but I know it if I am." - Yes: one can make the decision to say "I believe he is in pain" instead of "He is in pain". But that is all. - What looks like an explanation here, or like a statement about a mental process, is in truth an exchange of one expression for another which, while we are doing philosophy, seems the more appropriate one.

Just try - in a real case - to doubt someone else's fear or pain.

304. "But you will surely admit that there is a difference between pain-behaviour accompanied by pain and pain-behavior without any pain?" - Admit it? What great difference could there be? - "And yet you again and again reach the conclusion that the sensation itself is a nothing" - Not at all. It is not a something, but not a nothing either! The conclusion was only that a nothing would just as well as a something about which nothing can be said. We have only rejected the grammar which tries to force itself on us here.

Ludwig, Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G E. M. Anscombe. Ed. G. H. Von Wright. (UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1958.)

What Wittgenstein is illustrating here is that our linguistic conception of the word "pain" is interdependent on how others express their pain. It is not the sensation of pain that shows itself to us, but rather the behavioral expressions that indicate that another is in pain. Similarly, when applied as lens to the context of the present discussion, our linguistic conception and value on states of affairs is interdependent on how others value these conditions. Filmgoing is not a private venture - but is a social activity that is informed by the shared aggregate values and meanings that shape our culture. We cannot divorce our own private experience with a film's themes from the opinions of others that shape our beliefs. In other words, we do not form our "meaning" of the word 'pain' alone - just the same, we do not form our appraisals of artistic value alone. We share the word "pain" as much as we share the languages of cinema. In this sense, we could say there is a loose objective criteria for why film's become part of our cannon - that is to say, what other people like about movies tends to impact what we like about movies.

[Izzy Black]

If you are interested, you can view the thread here (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=640611&page=3&pp=30) (the link begins with the page of my initial post). It contains mine and LEAVES subsequent responses should you wish to read them first before responding (if you should so choose to respond).

[Ezee E]

Spinal's thoughts, despite the slight controversy about Christian Bale, is pretty well thought-out. He liked it, but his criticisms are the best I've read, especially the idea of Gotham really needing Batman. I've never thought about that before. Most of his work is undercover and not even noticed. It's Eckhart and Gordon that get most of the credit.

However, the idea that Bale in "American Psycho" is close to negating everything he said. Bummer.

[Qrazy]

Spinal's thoughts, despite the slight controversy about Christian Bale, is pretty well thought-out. He liked it, but his criticisms are the best I've read, especially the idea of Gotham really needing Batman. I've never thought about that before. Most of his work is undercover and not even noticed. It's Eckhart and Gordon that get most of the credit.

However, the idea that Bale in "American Psycho" is close to negating everything he said. Bummer.

Well if we're going to float along on this useless Batman cloud someone will have to actually address my points as to the many ways in which Batman was integral to saving lives and shaping the events of the story.

[Ezee E]

Well if we're going to float along on this useless Batman cloud someone will have to actually address my points as to the many ways in which Batman was integral to saving lives and shaping the events of the story.
It would help if I read them, but I didn't.

[Qrazy]

It would help if I read them, but I didn't.

Furthermore, the influence of his actions aside, if the concern is that he's not taking the spotlight for saving the city that's not really a criticism, it's actually kind of the point of the film.

[Morris Schæffer]

Spinal's thoughts, despite the slight controversy about Christian Bale, is pretty well thought-out. He liked it, but his criticisms are the best I've read, especially the idea of Gotham really needing Batman. I've never thought about that before. Most of his work is undercover and not even noticed. It's Eckhart and Gordon that get most of the credit.

I think he started out as a symbol. Neeson mentioned it to him that if he turned himself into more than just a man.... So even when individual actions aren't exactly made public down to the smallest of details, Gotham's citizens know he's watching over them and that is a comforting thought. Which perhaps transcends the actual apprehension of perps. To be fair, this probably no longer really applies to The Dark Knight.

[megladon8]

Gillian Anderson blames The Dark Knight for the poor reception of The X-Files: I Want to Believe...


She says, "It's (The X-Files film) had a bit of a rough time in the States. It's opening against one of the highest grossing movies, Batman.

"People in the States are so used to lots of CGI (computer-generated imagery), action and sex and we don't really offer a lot of that in this film."

Yes, Batman was absolutely filled to the brim with CGI and sex.

[Rowland]

You know, the single image from this movie that has really stuck with me is the last one. Anyone else love the closing shot and its abrupt cut to black?

[megladon8]

You know, the single image from this movie that has really stuck with me is the last one. Anyone else love the closing shot and its abrupt cut to black?


I honestly don't remember what the final shot was.

I really need to see it again.

[Ezee E]

I honestly don't remember what the final shot was.

I really need to see it again.
Batpod up a street, into a tunnel or something along those lines.

[Rowland]

Batpod up a street, into a tunnel or something along those lines.Batpod out of a tunnel, up into the light. It's a haunting image, all the more so for how Nolan doesn't linger on it.

[megladon8]

I'm hoping to see this again in the next week or so with my brother.

I should write a second review :)

[number8]

Batpod out of a tunnel, up into the light. It's a haunting image, all the more so for how Nolan doesn't linger on it.

I love the shot, but it's really not as haunting as the Hong Kong base-jumping and the subsequent glide through the HK skyline.

My favorite shot is probably the one with Harvey, half bandaged, screaming silently about Rachel. The score is just perfect at that moment too.

[megladon8]

I love the shot, but it's really not as haunting as the Hong Kong base-jumping and the subsequent glide through the HK skyline


I didn't find that shot haunting, really. It was awesome, but not haunting.

I quite liked the part at the end where Two-Face has Gordon's family, and the burnt side of his face is hidden in the shadows. That was well done.

[Rowland]

I love the shot, but it's really not as haunting as the Hong Kong base-jumping and the subsequent glide through the HK skyline.Ehh, I disagree. It's poetic in its brevity and almost-fortuitous quality, and the abrupt cut to black after the shot lingers for only a few seconds adds immensely to its power. I've seen it compared to Mann, which I think is apt, especially in regards to Miami Vice, which is another recent movie I can think of with a poetically generic closing shot. Comparatively, I've seen plenty of showy people-fly-through-the-air shots before.

[Ezee E]

Seeing it on the IMAX makes that Hong Kong shot all the better.

For the most part, I didn't notice many differences, but that particular scene played better.

[Izzy Black]

Seeing it on the IMAX makes that Hong Kong shot all the better.

For the most part, I didn't notice many differences, but that particular scene played better.

Same. I just saw it in the IMAX. This scene was the only one that was noticeably enhanced in the experience. For the rest, it was just a bigger, clearer picture.

[number8]

Same. I just saw it in the IMAX. This scene was the only one that was noticeably enhanced in the experience. For the rest, it was just a bigger, clearer picture.

I can't agree with this, because there were a few establishing shots that really benefit from the format. Two that immediately come to mind: 1) the shot of Gotham's bridges closed and thousands of cars surround them, and 2) the God's-Eye shot of the Dent convoy riding through Gotham's empty street and there's a burning firetruck. That shot was fucking awesome.

[Izzy Black]

I can't agree with this, because there were a few establishing shots that really benefit from the format. Two that immediately come to mind: 1) the shot of Gotham's bridges closed and thousands of cars surround them, and 2) the God's-Eye shot of the Dent convoy riding through Gotham's empty street and there's a burning firetruck. That shot was fucking awesome.

Maybe. I was not paying much attention to the establishing shots. In general, I was not overly impressed.

[Ezee E]

I can't agree with this, because there were a few establishing shots that really benefit from the format. Two that immediately come to mind: 1) the shot of Gotham's bridges closed and thousands of cars surround them, and 2) the God's-Eye shot of the Dent convoy riding through Gotham's empty street and there's a burning firetruck. That shot was fucking awesome.
The only other scene that I even noticed in a different format was the opening scene. The rest seemed about the same.

The firetruck shot is a great one though

[Watashi]

You guys are weird. It's a completely different experience in IMAX. Almost an entire different movie because of it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

You know, the single image from this movie that has really stuck with me is the last one. Anyone else love the closing shot and its abrupt cut to black?

That was a good one. The one I really dug was the truck jack-knifing, because that's one of the few times in the film that Nolan allows an image to linger.

I do think he improved the spatial geography of his chases and action, but I still don't get why he feels the need to cut so quickly. I was watching Minority Report last night, and I was struck by how Spielberg lets shots play to longer lengths without losing a sense of pace.

For my money, Spielberg, Cameron, and George Miller still leave Nolan in the dust.

[Winston*]

For my money, Spielberg, Cameron, and George Miller still leave Nolan in the dust.
Surely we can all agree that Mad Max II is better than The Dark Knight. I mean that's just common sense.

[transmogrifier]

For my money, Spielberg, Cameron, and George Miller still leave Nolan in the dust.

Uh, pick a director, any director - yes, even Nora Ephron - and chances are you've got someone better than Nolan at staging action sequences.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Surely we can all agree that Mad Max II is better than The Dark Knight. I mean that's just common sense.

Heavens yes. I found The Dark Knight entirely satisfying and frequently thrilling, but The Road Warrior has arguably the greatest action ever put to film.

[Grouchy]

Surely we can all agree that Mad Max II is better than The Dark Knight. I mean that's just common sense.
I... agree.

[Boner M]

Surely we can all agree that Mad Max II is better than The Dark Knight. I mean that's just common sense.
But it didn't have an ELABORATE and BELIEVABLE backstory detailing why everyone wore S&M clothing. Suxxx.

[Qrazy]

Surely we can all agree that Mad Max II is better than The Dark Knight. I mean that's just common sense.

See it's posts like these where you tread that line... and I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.

[Qrazy]

Heavens yes. I found The Dark Knight entirely satisfying and frequently thrilling, but The Road Warrior has arguably the greatest action ever put to film.

Yes it is arguable, I would argue against this belief.

[Qrazy]

Uh, pick a director, any director - yes, even Nora Ephron - and chances are you've got someone better than Nolan at staging action sequences.

His hand to hand combat sequences could still use work, his chase sequences are just fine.

[DavidSeven]

His hand to hand combat sequences could still use work, his chase sequences are just fine.

Agreed. The hand-to-hand stuff wasn't Earth shattering, but everything else was properly exhilarating.

[Winston*]

See it's posts like these where you tread that line... and I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.
I am never sarcastic when it comes to Mad Max II.

[Watashi]

I'm pretty a Nora Ephron helmed Batman movie would be terrible. I don't need to see John Travolta as Batman.

[transmogrifier]

His hand to hand combat sequences could still use work, his chase sequences are just fine.

Nope, disagree. The semi flipping over was the only time in the whole movie where the more base part of my brain took over and went "Whoa!". Up to that, I was wondering why they had Nicky Katt delivering some of the worst reaction dialogue this side of a Stephen Sommers film.

[Bosco B Thug]

But it didn't have an ELABORATE and BELIEVABLE backstory detailing why everyone wore S&M clothing. Suxxx. :lol: Hmmm, you know, The Dark Knight definitely could've used some scuzz.

[Izzy Black]

I hate Mike D'Angelo. His latest masterpiece: Is Christopher Nolan the Greatest Director Alive (http://www.esquire.com/features/the-screen/christopher-nolan-0708)?

(forgive if already posted)

[Barty]

You guys are weird. It's a completely different experience in IMAX. Almost an entire different movie because of it.

In-fucking-deed. Anyone who isn't impressed by IMAX is insane, or their IMAX screen isn't big enough.

[Spinal]

I hate Mike D'Angelo. His latest masterpiece: Is Christopher Nolan the Greatest Director Alive (http://www.esquire.com/features/the-screen/christopher-nolan-0708)?

(forgive if already posted)

That premise is so absurd that I cannot even comprehend how someone who makes their living as a film critic can arrive at such a conclusion. Reading the article does not help.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yes it is arguable, I would argue against this belief.

Then we have an accord.

[megladon8]

Catching up...

The Dark Knight is so much better than the monumentally overrated The Road Warrior it almost hurts.

Nolan's action sequences are just dandy. I can sympathize with complaints about the hand-to-hand stuff in Batman Begins, but the stuff in The Dark Knight was greatly improved. I don't understand the complaints that the scenes in this movie were incoherent - I never had any trouble understanding what was going on. Besides, I wasn't expecting high-flying kung-fu fights - they're quick, tactical fights like something you'd see in the military. It's not about flashiness, and I thought it worked quite well.

Christopher Nolan the best director alive? No. Best (fairly) young director? Maybe. He's still got a pretty small filmography, but 4 out of 6 of his films are modern masterpieces.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Dark Knight is so much better than the monumentally overrated The Road Warrior it almost hurts.

Dude, take my advice. Walk away. Just walk away.

[megladon8]

Dude, take my advice. Walk away. Just walk away.


I've never, ever been able to understand the love that movie gets.

It literally confuses me.

I tried watching it again earlier this year, thinking it might have been one of those movies that my opinion changed on, but no.

It's not even good in a "so bad it's good" kinda way. Ugh.

[Spinal]

... like the offspring of Clint Eastwood and a grizzly bear ...


... like a 10-year-old putting on an `adult' voice to make prank phone calls ...


... somewhat akin to Brenda Vaccaro doing a Miles Davis impression ...

Link. (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080803/121779624000.html)

[number8]

Of course it's not so bad it's good. That's because it has no bad--it is FUCKING AWESOME.

I will continue, however, to search for people who'd agree with me that Mad Max is really boring and all sorts of terrible (< Thunderdome).

[Dead & Messed Up]

I've never, ever been able to understand the love that movie gets.

It literally confuses me.

I tried watching it again earlier this year, thinking it might have been one of those movies that my opinion changed on, but no.

It's not even good in a "so bad it's good" kinda way. Ugh.

http://www.ceopen.com/January_2006/woods.jpg

[Spinal]

I will continue, however, to search for people who'd agree with me that Mad Max is really boring and all sorts of terrible (< Thunderdome).

I tried to rewatch it not too long ago and got bored pretty quickly. Didn't finish it.

[Ezee E]

Mad Max - ok
Road Warrior - damn good
Thunderdome - silly

[Spinal]

Thunderdome - silly

I won't deny that it's silly, but it's also lots of fun. So quotable.

[number8]

Link. (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080803/121779624000.html)


(Bale and Nolan were unavailable to comment for this story.)

No shit, sherlock.

"Mr. Nolan, we're doing a story on Batman's raspy voice. Can you comment on why Bale did a terrible Eastwood impersonation?"

[Russ]

... somewhat akin to Brenda Vaccaro doing a Miles Davis impression ...
This was my favorite one.

[Ezee E]

No shit, sherlock.

"Mr. Nolan, we're doing a story on Batman's raspy voice. Can you comment on why Bale did a terrible Eastwood impersonation?"

"You want a comment. I'm rich bitch!" - Christopher Nolan doing his Chappelle impression

[Qrazy]

Of course it's not so bad it's good. That's because it has no bad--it is FUCKING AWESOME.

I will continue, however, to search for people who'd agree with me that Mad Max is really boring and all sorts of terrible (< Thunderdome).

I agree that Road Warrior is better than Mad Max in the same way that I prefer T2 to T1. I can't say I enjoy either Mad Max or Road Warrior though, I just prefer the latter to the former. I haven't seen Thunderdome... but since I recently finished the Die Hard quadrilogy and am soon to finish the alien quadrilogy I guess I should finish the Mad Max trilogy.

[megladon8]

I, too, would prefer The Road Warrior to Mad Max.

But that's kind of like saying I would prefer drinking my urine to eating my feces.

[Qrazy]

I, too, would prefer The Road Warrior to Mad Max.

But that's kind of like saying I would prefer drinking my urine to eating my feces.

Urine goes down quicker.

[megladon8]

Urine goes down quicker.


It also protects from mustard gas.

[Ezee E]

I, too, would prefer The Road Warrior to Mad Max.

But that's kind of like saying I would prefer drinking my urine to eating my feces.
who would honestly pick eating feces?

[megladon8]

who would honestly pick eating feces?


Who would watch Mad Max? :P

[Boner M]

I, too, would prefer The Road Warrior to Mad Max.

But that's kind of like saying I would prefer drinking my urine to eating my feces.
Just... stop.

[Russ]

Just... stop.
Sadly, there's no rewind.

Curse you, Internets!

[megladon8]

That feeling of perplexion you get when you read me saying that The Road Warrior is crap? That's the feeling I get when I see haters of The Dark Knight.

It just doesn't make logical sense. It's like saying the sky is purple, or the moon is made of scissors.

[Russ]

It's like saying the sky is purple, or the moon is made of scissors.
Where the heck do you shop? Similes 'R' Us?

[megladon8]

Where the heck do you shop? Similes 'R' Us?


Did I miss something? :confused:

[D_Davis]

I'd watch Mad Max and The Road Warrior a billion times in a row before watching Batman Begins again.

Seriously.

No.

Make it a gojillion times in a row - times 2 to the power of infinity.

No hyperbole what-so-ever.

[megladon8]

I'd watch Mad Max and The Road Warrior a billion times in a row before watching Batman Begins again.

Seriously.

No.

Make it a gojillion times in a row - times 2 to the power of infinity.

No hyperbole what-so-ever.


I've always found your aversion to American superheroes kind of perplexing, because most of the kung-fu/wuxia type heroes that you love so much are pretty much superheroes themselves.

[Qrazy]

I've always found your aversion to American superheroes kind of perplexing, because most of the kung-fu/wuxia type heroes that you love so much are pretty much superheroes themselves.

Too close to home.

[megladon8]

Too close to home.


I'm confused.

Are you saying that my questioning his aversion to superheroes is "too close to home" (ie, offensive)? If so, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it...

[Russ]

Did I miss something? :confused:
Nah. It's just all that talk of Mad Max feces and Road Warrior urine and skies and moons and purple scissors, I just thought a discount metaphor shop opened up down the street from you.

:)

[megladon8]

Nah. It's just all that talk of Mad Max feces and Road Warrior urine and skies and moons and purple scissors, I just thought a discount metaphor shop opened up down the street from you.

:)


That'd be like an octopus at a boner buffet!

[Qrazy]

I'm confused.

Are you saying that my questioning his aversion to superheroes is "too close to home" (ie, offensive)? If so, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it...

I'm saying the superheroes are too close to home for him to enjoy them. They lack exoticism.

Such an assumptive sentiment will probably offend but... I think D is thick skinned enough to take it.

[D_Davis]

Too close to home.

This is partially true.

I haven't been inundated with the exploits of Wong Fei Hung and Hung Hsi Kuan and other Asian heroes my whole life. They are still new to me, and so I find their adventures and stories more fresh and exciting.

Even I am not immune to the effects of exoticism when it comes to foreign cinema - it is part of the appeal. There is a hint of curiosity for the other.

Also, many characters have heroic qualities, but this in no way means that I must like all things that include a heroic character.

This is akin to people asking me why I dislike the Saw films even though I like The Haunting. They're both horror films, right?

This is a fallacy often thrust upon genre fans.

The studios believe that horror is horror, make a horror film and the fans will come simply because it is a horror film. There is a tendency to think of genre fans as not having a discerning eye when it comes to things that fall within the boundaries of a particular genre.

There is no reason why liking A (either a certain archetype or genre convention) means that one will and should automatically like B (a similar archetype or genre convention).

There is also a lot of baggage associated with comic book superheroes that I just don't like anymore. The extremely passionate fanboy culture really turns me off - it always has.

There are also many logistic things that bug me, such as the age of these characters, and how so little seems to change. I also have problems with the way women are often depicted in the drawings, and the strength of much of the prose used to tell the stories.

I have a hard time over looking these, and because I like some genre stuff people are always shocked that I am not into it.

I had someone last week ask me if I was bummed that I was missing Comic-con. I was like, what? They assumed that because I like SF, or video games and stuff that I also must love comic books and that culture. I simply do not. I used to, but it is just something I've outgrown - not to say that I am too mature or anything. This part of geekdom is just something that does not appeal to me at all on any level.

I know this will probably be met with responses like "you shouldn't let the crowd ruin the experience," or "you should try reading such and such..."

Save it.

I've heard it all before.

:)

I simply do not find these particular characters and kinds of super hero stories appealing.

I don't want to disparage anyone who does, or belittle the hobby, because I am clearly in the minority when it comes to these things.

[megladon8]

I wasn't just making a blanket statement that "since you like A, you must like B".

I see a lot of similarities between the kung-fu/wuxia films, and superhero stories.

The One-Armed Swordsman is pretty much a paint-by-numbers superhero origin story.

I was just wondering why you like one and not the other, when there are many genuine similarities.

I guess it is the exoticism, as you and Qrazy said.

[D_Davis]

I guess it is the exoticism, as you and Qrazy said.

And all the other stuff I said.

:)

On top of just not liking Batman. Remember, I thought that BB was simply a poorly made film. It did nothing for me as a work of cinema.

TDK looks much better, hopefully I will see it soon.

[D_Davis]

The One-Armed Swordsman is pretty much a paint-by-numbers superhero origin story.


But it is a film that I like for a number of reasons, so comparing to a certain set of films that I don't like for a number of reasons is pointless.

[megladon8]

But it is a film that I like for a number of reasons, so comparing to a certain set of films that I don't like for a number of reasons is pointless.


I'm too tired to run around in circles.

I was just curious about why you like one and dislike the other, when I find them to be fundamentally the same, but in different settings/cultures.

You explained. I understood.

[D_Davis]

I was just curious about why you like one and dislike the other, when I find them to be fundamentally the same, but in different settings/cultures.


They are the same on the surface only, if that I might argue.

Chang Cheh is a fundamentally different filmmaker than Nolan. He makes different kinds of films that have different themes. They are differently made beyond archetypes and conventions. Even on a purely aesthetic level I like Chang more than Nolan. I appreciate his techniques more, and think that he was a better director than Nolan.

Sure, there is also the element of the exotic found in the different culture and setting, but there is also a lot more to it than that.

To put it simply, and to stick with Chang and Nolan, I like the One-Armed Swordsman film(s) because I think they are good movies, and I dislike Begins because I don't think it is a good movie.

However, remember that I also really like Ang Lee's Hulk and Burton's two Batman Flicks. I also like the Matrix films which are super hero films.

My tastes are complex like that. :)

[megladon8]

But I wasn't just comparing Chang and Nolan, and I don't think it's a superficial comparison at all.

Many of the kung fu films I've seen - surely nowhere near as many as you, but I've seen a good bunch now - have very similar narrative structures to superhero films.

A hero is betrayed or wronged, they train until they are superior to everyone else, and seek vengeance/justice.

I agree Chang's films are gorgeous - The One-Armed Swordsman is one of the most beautiful films ever made. But while the themes in these films are different than those found in modern American superhero cinema, I would never say that one is "deeper" than the other, or more worthy of conscienscious thought.


On a semi-related note - I remember a few weeks ago you said that Hulk was your favorite superhero movie of all time.

Didn't you also love Donner's original Superman? I thought I remembered you and I discussing it a LONG time ago, and we said how its beginning with the planet Krypton and the slowly building orchestral score was almost like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Maybe I'm remembering wrong...

[number8]

I think D's problem has more to do with status quo than culture. The fact is, superhero comics depend on maintaining a status quo to survive, and some can see that as a lack of creativity. To a certain degree, that's very much true. Even progressive works are still working under the confines of a work-for-hire and they are totally dispensable. Grant Morrison's work on Doom Patrol and Animal Man were groundbreaking to a ridiculous level, but the need to have Animal Man continue as a semi-member of the JLA in the company's universe, or to keep Doom Patrol connected to Teen Titans by way of Beast Boy... pretty soon those groundbreaking, status quo-shaking stories are just "old issues" and things revert to the way they are. No more Dada-ist imageries in the latest Doom Patrol books, that's for sure, and why should there be? It's a DC Comics superhero book, always have been, always will be. This is a big part of why I've (for the most part) outgrown the loyalty to a character's mythology and enjoy individual stories as self-contained works.

It's also what I've adopted into my superhero movie manifesto. If there's a good story, one that warrants a thought-provoking and entertaining movie to be made that speaks towards something, I will support it all the way. If it's just to service fanboys that want to see Superman fight Metallo in live action, then it's really a waste of time.

[D_Davis]

But while the themes in these films are different than those found in modern American superhero cinema, I would never say that one is "deeper" than the other, or more worthy of conscienscious thought.


While one may not be deeper than the other, it is perfectly acceptable to say that one resonates with you more.

[D_Davis]

I think D's problem has more to do with status quo than culture. The fact is, superhero comics depend on maintaining a status quo to survive, and some can see that as a lack of creativity. To a certain degree, that's very much true. Even progressive works are still working the confines of a work-for-hire and they are totally dispensable. Grant Morrison's work on Doom Patrol and Animal Man were groundbreaking to a ridiculous level, but the need to have Animal Man continue as a semi-member of the JLA in the company's universe, or to keep Doom Patrol connected to Teen Titans by way of Beast Boy... pretty soon those groundbreaking, status quo-shaking stories are just "old issues" and things revert to the way they are. No more Dada-ist imageries in the latest Doom Patrol books, that's for sure, and why should there be? It's a DC Comics superhero book, always have been, always will be. This is a big part of why I've (for the most part) outgrown the loyalty to a character's mythology and enjoy individual stories as self-contained works.


Nicely said, and this sums up some of the my feelings quite well.

Especially concerning Doom Patrol - a comic that I loved when Morris was working on it.

And I must agree - why did his work have to assimilated into the DCU and become just another cog in the machine? It lessens the impact of Morrison's original vision, and cheapens them a bit.

Remember what Barfield did to the New Mutants after Bill Sienkiewicz?

So you hit one of the nails on the head with this one.

[megladon8]

While one may not be deeper than the other, it is perfectly acceptable to say that one resonates with you more.


Of course, and it just happens that one works with you, and the other works with me.

It's not like we respect each other less because of it or something :) Just different strokes.

You're probably the one person I have learned the most from regarding cinema, so I'm hardly going to begrudge you because you don't share my borderline fetishistic obsession with superheros.

[number8]

Nicely said, and this sums up some of the my feelings quite well.

Especially concerning Doom Patrol - a comic that I loved when Morris was working on it.

And I must agree - why did his work have to assimilated into the DCU and become just another cog in the machine? It lessens the impact of Morrison's original vision, and cheapens them a bit.

Remember what Barfield did to the New Mutants after Bill Sienkiewicz?

So you hit one of the nails on the head with this one.

Coincidentally, today I've been slowly reading a long-ass in-depth interview with Glen Murakami regarding his Teen Titans show (which I've never watched, but as a TV writer hopeful, I'm always interested in creators speaking), and I just came across this good bit:


BW: You finally got permission to use Kid Flash in season five. How did that fit into your plans?

Glen: He's a little bit like JUSTICE LEAGUE's Flash. But he's not quite as goofy. And I liked using Michael Rosenbaum [who voices the Flash on JUSTICE LEAGUE]. I thought that was cool. That was my idea. I like that people asked about that - and wondered how that might fit into the continuity.

BW: Any theories on that?

Glen: [laughs] I don't know! I don't know why it bothers people so much. Can you explain that to me? Do you think it fits into continuity?

BW: Um, well, I think it's one of those that you leave up to the fan's imaginations. If you want Teen Titans to fit into the animated continuity, my theory is this: Teen Titans takes place before BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, but is told through Beast Boy's point-of-view, which is why it's a little goofier.

Glen: [laughs] OK.

I used to work at a comic book store, and people would bring up various Batman trade paperbacks and ask me which one they should read first. Then would ask "Where does DEATH IN THE FAMILY GO? Where does KILLING JOKE fit in?" I don't understand why that's always so important. If you read KILLING JOKE and like it, that's good enough for me. If you read DARK KNIGHT and like it, that's good enough for me. I don't understand the need to make it all fit. I mean, Alan Moore's interpretation of Batman is completely different from Frank Miller's interpretation of Batman. Or Denny O'Neil's.

I think sometimes people think we're not comic book fans, before we don't fit into continuity or we don't tell Robin's identity. And trust me, I'm not trying to betray those fans. But I'm not Bruce Timm or Alan Burnett or Paul Dini. And that doesn't mean I don't have respect for those guys. I'm just trying to make Teen Titans a cool show. Just because it's aimed at 6-11 year olds, that doesn't mean it can't be a cool show.

Just because our JUDAS CONTRACT story isn't 100% faithful to the comic book version, that doesn't mean I didn't like the comic book version. It's a weird thing to me. There's certain DC things I can't do or can't use - but in our "animated Teen Titans Universe," I think we've discovered some interesting things to explore.

[megladon8]

I've never really given a shit about continuity.

The only continuity I care about when I read a story is whatever is required for me to understand the events in that story.

As for where "Dark Victory" fits into the grand scheme of things, I don't really have any idea. I think it's a great story by itself.

[D_Davis]

I'll tell you exactly what killed it for me regarding Batman.

Up through high school, I collected a number of comics. My favorite super hero books were Alpha Flight, Excalibur, and Cloak and Dagger. Then I got out of them - too much money among many other reasons. However, during the late 90s, or early 00s can't remember, I got back into them, and I started to really like Batman.

There was an artist, I think his name was McDaniels or something, that I just loved. So I started collecting Batman - my first non-Vertigo DC title. Everything was going great, until a little thing called "Officer Down". I was suddenly reminded of many of the reasons why I quit collecting. Once they started this arc, I couldn't just read Batman to get the story. I had to buy something like 5 different titles that I didn't care about simply to read about Batman. It was lame. I instantly canceled my small saver and got out of the superhero comic book reading for good.

[transmogrifier]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but this clip is better than anything in the real movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc

[Scar]

Who would watch Mad Max? :P

I would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2x8RhadlpA

[Qrazy]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but this clip is better than anything in the real movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc

Pretty funny but no, you're wrong.

[megladon8]

There was an artist, I think his name was McDaniels or something, that I just loved. So I started collecting Batman - my first non-Vertigo DC title. Everything was going great, until a little thing called "Officer Down". I was suddenly reminded of many of the reasons why I quit collecting. Once they started this arc, I couldn't just read Batman to get the story. I had to buy something like 5 different titles that I didn't care about simply to read about Batman. It was lame. I instantly canceled my small saver and got out of the superhero comic book reading for good.


Yes, I hate this too.

It's why I buy trades :P

[D_Davis]

Yes, I hate this too.

It's why I buy trades :P

The trade market is a godsend. I'm really glad they are releasing most things in this format, this way even the libraries get them. I like picking up trades now and again just to thumb through

[megladon8]

The trade market is a godsend. I'm really glad they are releasing most things in this format, this way even the libraries get them. I like picking up trades now and again just to thumb through


Have you ever checked out "Ex Machina"?

I could see you really digging that series. Puts a huge spin on typical superhero stuff, and has some very poignant writing and images.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2x8RhadlpA

Love it.

[Spinal]

"Are you speaking bat?"

:lol:

[number8]

There was an artist, I think his name was McDaniels or something, that I just loved. So I started collecting Batman - my first non-Vertigo DC title. Everything was going great, until a little thing called "Officer Down". I was suddenly reminded of many of the reasons why I quit collecting. Once they started this arc, I couldn't just read Batman to get the story. I had to buy something like 5 different titles that I didn't care about simply to read about Batman. It was lame. I instantly canceled my small saver and got out of the superhero comic book reading for good.

Well, sucks for you, I guess. Batman in the 90s sucked ass, except for the Brubaker/Rucka stuff. Officer Down as a whole was terrible, but two of the chapters by Brubaker and Rucka were really well-written (if I remember correctly, they did the opening and closing chapters). They're good at the cop stuffs.

But what you're referring to is, of course, nothing to do with Batman at all. All crossovers are retarded.

[Morris Schæffer]

Love it.

Me too. It's only now that it dawns upon me that Saw's Jiggsaw got his sicko ideas from Mad Max.:)

Anyway, I'm seeing The Dark Knight again tonight (2nd) with some fresh faces. I'm insanely pumped, but I wish we had an IMAX in the neigborhood.

EDIT: Yep. Four stars!

[Morris Schæffer]

http://blog.cardomain.com/blog/2008/08/incredible-diy.html

:eek::cool::eek:

[megladon8]

Apparently a lot of the hits that Batman inflicts on The Joker during the interrogation scene were real.

Ledger asked Bale to actually beat him as hard as possible for the scene, to make it more realistic.

[number8]

Yep, and the sounds you hear were not foley-ed. That was actually the sound of Ledger's head banging against stuff.

Method acting: it's the bomb!

[Scar]

Yep, and the sounds you hear were not foley-ed. That was actually the sound of Ledger's head banging against stuff.

Method acting: it's the bomb!

Ken Foree + Tyler Mane + Bathroom Stall!

[Spinal]

Apparently a lot of the hits that Batman inflicts on The Joker during the interrogation scene were real.

Ledger asked Bale to actually beat him as hard as possible for the scene, to make it more realistic.

If true, that's really stupid. There's no reason for actors to risk physical injury like that. There's just not going to be much of a difference for the audience.

[Ezee E]

I'm sure some of that is over-exaggerated still.

[Sven]

I'm sure some of that is over-exaggerated still.

Yeah, I smell urban legend. Not to say that I'm sure they weren't playing rough. But when you can know for certain that Ledger didn't actually crack a window with his head, it opens up doubt about the rest of that story. I'm with Spinal. That level of method is baloney.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't really get all that acting hooey, like all the different schools, and starting with a person's shoes, or whatever the hell people do to "become" their characters. It's acting. Get on with it.

[Skitch]

I don't really get all that acting hooey, like all the different schools, and starting with a person's shoes, or whatever the hell people do to "become" their characters. It's acting. Get on with it.

I agree with you, but everytime I see a scene of that nature, I think to myself, "If I was that actor, I would ask the dude to actually punch me." Not really full on, but give me some.

[megladon8]

I love Harrison Ford's stance on method acting...

"I'm from the 'let's pretend' school of acting."

[D_Davis]

There's no reason for actors to risk physical injury like that. There's just not going to be much of a difference for the audience.

http://www.completemartialarts.com/whoswho/actionstars/images/j_chan.jpg

Disagrees.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.completemartialarts.com/whoswho/actionstars/images/j_chan.jpg

Disagrees.

Yeah, but if it wasn't for this aspect, Chan's movies would be entirely worthless. His stuntwork is the movie!

[Spinal]

Yeah, Chan is more stuntman than actor anyway.

[number8]

I'm with Laurence Olivier on this one.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm with Laurence Olivier on this one.

And not with Tintin? :sad:

[Raiders]

"Try acting, my dear boy."

[Qrazy]

If true, that's really stupid. There's no reason for actors to risk physical injury like that. There's just not going to be much of a difference for the audience.

I find there is a noticeable difference (another example: Ellen Burstyn being ripped backward in The Exorcist) so that if the actor wants to do it I'm for it, but yeah it's not necessary.

[Qrazy]

I don't really get all that acting hooey, like all the different schools, and starting with a person's shoes, or whatever the hell people do to "become" their characters. It's acting. Get on with it.

I don't really get that cinema thing like the contemplating shot choices, the researching for scripts and the shooting on location. It's movie-making. Get on with it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't really get that cinema thing like the contemplating shot choices, the researching for scripts and the shooting on location. It's movie-making. Get on with it.

:)

Well-played, sir.

[Grouchy]

If true, that's really stupid. There's no reason for actors to risk physical injury like that. There's just not going to be much of a difference for the audience.
Well, if it works for him, who are we to criticize? Maybe he wanted to get into the aspect of the character where he didn't mind the pain. I remember an early interview with Oldman about how he saw that scene and was glad that Gordon didn't get into much of the action.

I think whenever an actor needs anything to feel more confident about the character, there's no reason to deny him that as long as it doesn't create problems for the rest of the workers. Plus, if you've ever done any filming, you'll know that doing things for real it's always a little more fun than tricking it.

[number8]

"The Dark Knight" Children's Book—Because Kids Like Batman, Too (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/3813-qthe-dark-knightq-childrens-bookbecause-kids-like-batman-too.html)

[Robby P]

If true, that's really stupid. There's no reason for actors to risk physical injury like that. There's just not going to be much of a difference for the audience.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with the way Lars von Trier allegedly treats his actors? Forgive me if you've addressed this before. Seems like a potential contradiction, is all.

[Spinal]

Just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with the way Lars von Trier allegedly treats his actors? Forgive me if you've addressed this before. Seems like a potential contradiction, is all.

Unless he's hitting them or pushing them into walls, I don't see the connection here.

[Qrazy]

:)

Well-played, sir.

Kudos for taking my ribbing lightly, as it is meant to be taken.

[Ezee E]

Unless he's hitting them or pushing them into walls, I don't see the connection here.
Constant harassment?

[Spinal]

Oh, and I think method acting is just fine and dandy as preparation for a role if that it what works best for someone. However, I don't think that this ever needs to extend to experiencing physical pain on camera. I would suggest that if you need that to achieve the desired effect, then you are not a very good actor.

[Spinal]

Constant harassment?

So I am supposed to equate hurt feelings with bashing your head into a wall?

Not gonna do it.

[Qrazy]

So I am supposed to equate hurt feelings with bashing your head into a wall?

Not gonna do it.

You're quite right, the internal pain is infinitely worse.

[Spinal]

*sheds single tear*

[number8]

Oh, and I think method acting is just fine and dandy as preparation for a role if that it what works best for someone. However, I don't think that this ever needs to extend to experiencing physical pain on camera. I would suggest that if you need that to achieve the desired effect, then you are not a very good actor.

now this might be true, but in this case Ledger was supposed to feel joy and laugh with glee as he is being hit. So does that make him an AWESOME actor, by your equation?

[dreamdead]

An interesting take on TDK (http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2008/08/suggested-reading-list-dark-knight-take.html)over at The House Next Door, given the recent discussion on von Trier...

[Ezee E]

So I am supposed to equate hurt feelings with bashing your head into a wall?

Not gonna do it.
Nah, no matter what job you do, you shouldn't be a victim of constant harassment.

[Duncan]

An interesting take on TDK (http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2008/08/suggested-reading-list-dark-knight-take.html)over at The House Next Door, given the recent discussion on von Trier...

"In essence, The Dark Knight is a moral duel between Batman (who, like Anne Frank, fundamentally believes in mankind's better instincts)..."
- Vadim Rizov

Uh, what? Why the fuck is he making that comparison?

[number8]

Early Joker concept was more Ichi the Killer-ish than what it ended up being:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/jokerart3.jpg

http://bitcast-a.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/images/jokerart1.jpg

http://joblo.com/newsimages1/thoo-jokerconc.JPG

[Dead & Messed Up]

An interesting take on TDK (http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2008/08/suggested-reading-list-dark-knight-take.html)over at The House Next Door, given the recent discussion on von Trier...

An interesting read. The two common complaints I've read come up again: the action-editing and the overt themes.

As for the former, I'm wondering if some extended discussion needs to take place. Nolan is very cognizant of the elements of his two Batman films - they're nothing if not consistent in the cinematography and fight style. So I guess the question comes up: why continue to shoot this way? Is Nolan trying to minimize the visceral thrill we receive from such action sequences? Is he trying to keep up with the times, as witnessed by progenitors like Michael Bay and Paul Greengrass? Is he inept? Or does he lack interest in longer shot lengths?

The fact that this problem for viewers has persisted throughout both movies makes it more than a dismissive complaint, but something worth investigating further.

As for the latter, I don't much mind. It's better than Begins (which is still awesome), and Nolan's targeting mass crowds, so he's probably inclined to make things a bit more accessible. I felt the themes were communicated well.

Did anybody else see that cool RT thread where they uncovered the dog motif? I really enjoyed reading the interpretations of that undercurrent, since it's a truer "subtext" than, say, the Joker as anarchy incarnate.

[Ezee E]

Ichi the Killer meets SLC Punk!

[megladon8]

I still don't see the complaints with the action sequences in The Dark Knight They were greatly improved from Batman Begins.

The fight in the parking garage between Batman and the faux-Batman's and the gangsters was very easy to follow, and nothing even close to the frantic, incoherent editing of the first film or the Bourne movies.

[Qrazy]

"In essence, The Dark Knight is a moral duel between Batman (who, like Anne Frank, fundamentally believes in mankind's better instincts)..."
- Vadim Rizov

Uh, what? Why the fuck is he making that comparison?

Because he just read The Diary of Anne Frank and feels like name dropping? Or because he's an idiot? Yeah, that one.

[Beau]

As for the latter, I don't much mind. It's better than Begins (which is still awesome), and Nolan's targeting mass crowds, so he's probably inclined to make things a bit more accessible. I felt the themes were communicated well.

I honestly don't mind the 'overt themes' aspect, since I consider that this is a movie-myth, a larger-than-life legend for modern times. It is the sort of story that, one thousand years ago, would have been sung by a 'scop' inside a 'mead-hall.' Except now we're looking up at a silver screen. The Dark Knight works with archetypes and symbols. It does so bluntly, because that's the nature of the approach. I can flow with it. In fact, in the case of such tales, the simpler and more straightforward the better.

[Robby P]

Unless he's hitting them or pushing them into walls, I don't see the connection here.

That's true, he doesn't physically abuse his actors, but he does subject them to rather extreme forms of emotional abuse and harassment, which shouldn't be taken lightly. One could just as easily argue that a good director shouldn't need to berate his actors in order to elicit a strong performance, just as an actor shouldn't need to physically harm themselves to do the same.

[Derek]

Unless he's hitting them or pushing them into walls, I don't see the connection here.

I heard von Trier shoved his cameraman behind a few times to get some of those wonderful handheld shots in Breaking the Waves. And didn't he slaughter a donkey for a cut scene in Manderlay?

[Morris Schæffer]

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff344/The-Killing-Joke/Frappa.gif

[Qrazy]

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff344/The-Killing-Joke/Frappa.gif

What is that from originally? Zoolander?

[Morris Schæffer]

What is that from originally? Zoolander?

It's the gang celebrating the failure of Mummy 3.

Sorry, could be Zoolander yeah.

[Skitch]

Brilliant MS. :lol:

[Morris Schæffer]

Brilliant MS. :lol:

Yeah, I did kinda steal if from a RT thread though.

http://www.energeticforum.com/images/smilies/embarrassed.gif

[Skitch]

It's casual.

[Watashi]

The Dark Knight trailer.... with kids. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCqEIony0ZU)

[Ezee E]

The Dark Knight trailer.... with kids. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCqEIony0ZU)
Impressive.

[Ivan Drago]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/930419/the_curse_of_the_dark_knight_. html

People are paranoid. :rolleyes:

[number8]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/930419/the_curse_of_the_dark_knight_. html

People are paranoid. :rolleyes:

That's not the only article I've read about this subject today. Apparently a lot of people are hyping this so-called curse. Dumbest shit I've ever heard.

[Fezzik]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/930419/the_curse_of_the_dark_knight_. html

People are paranoid. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Please...if you want to talk about a "curse" - why not the curse of "Soul Men?"

Bernie Mac and Isaac Hayes were both going to be in that.

Should Samuel L Jackson be worried?

*sigh*

People need hobbies.

[Wryan]

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff344/The-Killing-Joke/Frappa.gif

It was inevitable...but still funny. I've also seen one with Joker's head on the shoulders of one of the manic-dancing kids in that one gif. That was pretty fuckin funny too.

[Spinal]

That's true, he doesn't physically abuse his actors, but he does subject them to rather extreme forms of emotional abuse and harassment, which shouldn't be taken lightly. One could just as easily argue that a good director shouldn't need to berate his actors in order to elicit a strong performance, just as an actor shouldn't need to physically harm themselves to do the same.

"Emotional abuse." Oh, good gravy. You're going to have to use specifics, because it really sounds like your information is taken from exaggerated accounts in gossip columns. I suggest that if you feel that injuring your body is OK and a director pushing a performer to emotional extremes is not, then you don't know very much about the actor-director relationship.

[number8]

Unless Von Trier was threatening his actors with a shotgun off-camera Herzog-style, I'd say he's just doing his job as a director.

[Spinal]

Sorry if my last post seemed rude, but getting Trier gossip thrown at me gets tiresome.

[Qrazy]

Sorry if my last post seemed rude, but getting Trier gossip thrown at me gets tiresome.

He raped my childhood.

[Grouchy]

Sorry if my last post seemed rude, but getting Trier gossip thrown at me gets tiresome.
You said "good gravy".

[Spinal]

You said "good gravy".

:lol:

[megladon8]

But should it really be necessary to push an actor to the point of it being abusive, whether it be physically or emotionally?

People were saying here that Ledger's physical damage seemed unnecessary and that he should "just act", yet people are defending emotional harm as "just being what a director/actor relationship is like"?

That seems a little twisted.

[D_Davis]

Sorry if my last post seemed rude, but getting Trier gossip thrown at me gets tiresome.

Trier is an extra-dimensional alien sent to Earth by God to free us from the demons of bloated filmmaking.

It's true.

[Qrazy]

But should it really be necessary to push an actor to the point of it being abusive, whether it be physically or emotionally?

People were saying here that Ledger's physical damage seemed unnecessary and that he should "just act", yet people are defending emotional harm as "just being what a director/actor relationship is like"?

That seems a little twisted.

Particularly when one is the choice of the actor and one the choice of the director... although to be fair we haven't had direct evidence of the emotional harm... just hearsay.

[Raiders]

What I hate most is how the grips are so mistreated. Every time you see the camera move, it's "oh, look how the cinematographer/director moves the camera," when actually it is likely the dolly grip doing the placing and moving. I even heard that Roger Deakins is such a tyrant to his grips that he starves them for days until they sign the waiver to give him credit for all the lighting and movements. And don't get me started on Malick. I have heard rumors he physically mounts the grips to the camera to make sure they get it right.

[Watashi]

Your plea for rep Phil, does not amuse me.

[Raiders]

Your plea for rep Phil, does not amuse me.

My sarcasm is not a plea for rep. It is a sign of exhaustion.

[Winston*]

Your plea for rep Phil, does not amuse me.

It amused me. Hence the rep I gave him.

[Spinal]

Trier is an extra-dimensional alien sent to Earth by God to free us from the demons of bloated filmmaking.

It's true.

One of the more rational posts in this thread. Kudos.

[Spinal]

You guys cannot name a single actor who has been emotionally damaged by Lars von Trier. All you can do is cite hearsay and gossip. Nicole Kidman laughs when talking about her experience on Dogville. Bjork, by most accounts, was more of an instigator in their feud than a victim. Many actors return to work with him again. No one has said, "Boy, that fucked me up. I needed therapy. I felt like I couldn't work on my next film. I felt like I couldn't be there for my family." In short, you guys are pulling stuff out of your ass because you want to justify this silly machismo method acting story about Bale and Ledger 'really' fighting each other to 'really' make it 'real'. Because, OMG, how badass would that be. It's nonsense.

[Raiders]

I still don't know what it matters if an actor chooses to be actually hit during a scene. You may think it is stupid and unnecessary, but ultimately, so what? I don't think Ledger ever considered it because later on people would consider it "badass" but because he felt it essential to his playing the scene. Perhaps someone should have stepped in and told him not to do it or Bale could have refused, but it's his choice and if it works and he's OK with it, fine.

[Qrazy]

You guys cannot name a single actor who has been emotionally damaged by Lars von Trier. All you can do is cite hearsay and gossip. Nicole Kidman laughs when talking about her experience on Dogville. Bjork, by most accounts, was more of an instigator in their feud than a victim. Many actors return to work with him again. No one has said, "Boy, that fucked me up. I needed therapy. I felt like I couldn't work on my next film. I felt like I couldn't be there for my family." In short, you guys are pulling stuff out of your ass because you want to justify this silly machismo method acting story about Bale and Ledger 'really' fighting each other to 'really' make it 'real'. Because, OMG, how badass would that be. It's nonsense.

There's actually not much correlation although it's true someone did make one along a slightly different angle.

[Spinal]

I still don't know what it matters if an actor chooses to be actually hit during a scene. You may think it is stupid and unnecessary, but ultimately, so what? I don't think Ledger ever considered it because later on people would consider it "badass" but because he felt it essential to his playing the scene. Perhaps someone should have stepped in and told him not to do it or Bale could have refused, but it's his choice and if it works and he's OK with it, fine.

The implication was that such an actor should be lauded for going beyond the point where other actors would go. That getting punched or thrown about somehow makes you more of a professional. What I was saying is that is poppycock and that such antics (if in fact they occurred at all) are nothing to get excited about. That's irresponsible, out-of-control performance that any fight instructor I have known would frown upon. That's not good acting.

[Raiders]

The implication was that such an actor should be lauded for going beyond the point where other actors would go. That getting punched or thrown about somehow makes you more of a professional. What I was saying is that is poppycock and that such antics (if in fact they occurred at all) are nothing to get excited about. That's irresponsible, out-of-control performance that any fight instructor I have known would frown upon. That's not good acting.

I don't think the act itself should be lauded in and of itself, but considering the end result, I thought that Ledger's "acting" was exceptional, and perhaps when they went through he found he had a hard time faking the punches. Maybe it makes him not a great actor at fight scenes, but I really doubt he was putting himself in any great physical risk (this is a high-profile Hollywood film after all, not maverick filmmaking) and if feeling the punch, however great, made it easier for him, so be it.

[Spinal]

Maybe it makes him not a great actor at fight scenes, but I really doubt he was putting himself in any great physical risk (this is a high-profile Hollywood film after all, not maverick filmmaking) and if feeling the punch, however great, made it easier for him, so be it.

I agree that it is unlikely that he would have been allowed to place himself in great physical danger and that the real story has probably been blown out of proportion.

[Ivan Drago]

Wow...page 66 and we're talking about Lars Von Trier. Eeeeerie.

[Winston*]

Wow...page 66 and we're talking about Lars Von Trier. Eeeeerie.
Because Lars Von Trier is some kind of half-arsed Devil?

[Russ]

You guys cannot name a single actor who has been emotionally damaged by Lars von Trier.
How about the donkey?














ok, I kid, I kid.

[Spinal]

How about the donkey?


If you had seen his performance in the dailies, you would have agreed that he needed to be put down. No emotional range whatsoever.

[Izzy Black]

You guys cannot name a single actor who has been emotionally damaged by Lars von Trier. All you can do is cite hearsay and gossip. Nicole Kidman laughs when talking about her experience on Dogville. Bjork, by most accounts, was more of an instigator in their feud than a victim. Many actors return to work with him again. No one has said, "Boy, that fucked me up. I needed therapy. I felt like I couldn't work on my next film. I felt like I couldn't be there for my family." In short, you guys are pulling stuff out of your ass because you want to justify this silly machismo method acting story about Bale and Ledger 'really' fighting each other to 'really' make it 'real'. Because, OMG, how badass would that be. It's nonsense.

It is not as bad as people exaggerate, but method acting can be very taxing on the actor. The actor subjects themselves to extreme vulnerability that allows for emotional manipulation and control. In many ways, they give themselves over completely to the character, and in some cases, the director. The latter is the case with Kidman and Bjork. While, no, Trier was not abusive - as his collaborations with both actors were consensual - they were not exactly congenial either, as he is a demanding filmmaker and these actresses allowed themselves to be manipulated by the director. If you watch the behind the scenes interview with Bjork and Trier you can see that, despite common belief, Bjork is very proud of her work in Dancer in the Dark - she explains that she literally became the character, and this lead to the tensions between her and Trier. She also notes how Trier basically let her auto-pilot the score, and that despite his contrarian remarks about the score in early stages, she ultimately took matters into her own judgment because she knows music in ways that he does not.

The other thing is that Trier is very unconventional in not only his directorial methods but his personality, and this is mostly due to his background, which resulted in very odd behavior on the set. Such behavior can be difficult for not just the lead actresses, but all the actors to adjust to. I think it is more his odd behavior and unique directing methods that push actors away from wanting to work with him again - rather than it being anything psychological or personal against the director. In most interviews, the actors express high regard for the director.

In summary, method acting can be a very powerful approach to the material, but it can be dangerous to one's self. It is not because the director is abusive, but because the actor opens up parts of themselves psychologically, emotionally, and indeed, spiritually in ways that can lend themselves to harm and confusion. I think Trier actually had respect for the measures his actors were going through to invoke the characters, and really left them space so as not to be too affected by the part, but he was, at the same time, rather specific in what he wanted to accomplish with the performances, and this is where he clashes with Bjork - largely on artistic vision (once you in a sense become a character it is very difficult to have someone tell you how that character is to behave) - but he nonetheless had great respect and admiration for her approach to the material.

[Spinal]

Good post and I agree with pretty much everything you say. It's worth noting that Bjork was not really an actress to begin with and probably had more difficulty managing her emotions than most because she did not have the proper training.

[Izzy Black]

Good post and I agree with pretty much everything you say. It's worth noting that Bjork was not really an actress to begin with and probably had more difficulty managing her emotions than most because she did not have the proper training.

This is very true. Trier has sad she was like a child to the world of filmmaking, which was very much the case. Even in interviews, she talks about how oblivious she was to how other actors act. She is not even sure that what she did was "acting" because she does not know what methods other actors use. She was really in her own world, and if you listen to her speak about it, the way she describes her preparations is very different from any other actor. At the end of a day, a great artist is a great artist.

[D_Davis]

Filmmaking.

It's serious business.

[Ezee E]

Your plea for rep Phil, does not amuse me.
You stole the words out of my fingers.

[Ezee E]

You guys cannot name a single actor who has been emotionally damaged by Lars von Trier. All you can do is cite hearsay and gossip. Nicole Kidman laughs when talking about her experience on Dogville. Bjork, by most accounts, was more of an instigator in their feud than a victim. Many actors return to work with him again. No one has said, "Boy, that fucked me up. I needed therapy. I felt like I couldn't work on my next film. I felt like I couldn't be there for my family." In short, you guys are pulling stuff out of your ass because you want to justify this silly machismo method acting story about Bale and Ledger 'really' fighting each other to 'really' make it 'real'. Because, OMG, how badass would that be. It's nonsense.
John C. Reilly left Manderlay because of the animal abuse correct? It's a different case, but, it was enough for him to just quit a movie.

[Qrazy]

John C. Reilly left Manderlay because of the animal abuse correct? It's a different case, but, it was enough for him to just quit a movie.

He quit because Von Trier was a douche. No one likes donkeys. I know these things because Jesus told me.

[Spinal]

John C. Reilly left Manderlay because of the animal abuse correct? It's a different case, but, it was enough for him to just quit a movie.

Emotionally abused? That is the question at hand.

[number8]

I don't think he was emotionally abused. He quit the film as a protest because he didn't think it was acceptable to kill an animal for a movie. That's just rational thinking. He didn't want his career associated with something like that.

[Spinal]

I don't think he was emotionally abused. He quit the film as a protest because he didn't think it was acceptable to kill an animal for a movie.

Exactly.

[Qrazy]

I don't think he was emotionally abused. He quit the film as a protest because he didn't think it was acceptable to kill an animal for a movie. That's just rational thinking. He didn't want his career associated with something like that.

Trier may also have neg raped him at one point.

[Spinal]

I feel compelled to remind people that the donkey was selected because it was going to be put to death anyway. Also, Variety reported (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117904130.html?categoryid=1 3&cs=1) that the Reilly incident was greatly overblown (big shocker), that Reilly was never on set and possibly turned down the role as much due to schedule conflicts and the fact that his role had been trimmed to one scene as anything else. But that doesn't make for juicy gossip like a Hollywood actor facing down an asshole European director and drawing an ethical line in the sand.

So ... Batman. I liked when the Joker was dressed as a nurse. That was awesome.

[number8]

So ... Batman. I liked when the Joker was dressed as a nurse. That was awesome.

"Hi."

[Ezee E]

It's a shame that we'll probably never see Washington though.

[Izzy Black]

I'm glad. Manderlay showed he was moving in the wrong direction anyways. It somewhat detracts from the ingenuity of Dogville - I think. I am much more interested in his Antichrist project.

[Scar]

"Hi."

Oh how I laughed.

[Grouchy]

What's all this about Washington not being made? Last I heard, the two actresses were going to play the role together or something like that.

[Izzy Black]

Kidman declined. Not sure about Howard. He wanted to make a different movie anyways. He was frustrated with Manderlay for being too routine for his typical approach to filmmaking.

[Robby P]

"Emotional abuse." Oh, good gravy. You're going to have to use specifics, because it really sounds like your information is taken from exaggerated accounts in gossip columns.

That's probably true. I obviously don't know as much about Trier's methods as you do. I should have researched the issue further before bringing it up. My apologies. I wasn't trying to lend credence to rumors and hearsay, just trying to get some clarification.

[number8]

Lookit my new wallpaper!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v191/filthysize/tdk-wallpaper.jpg

[number8]

Speaking of Von Trier... Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg signed on for Antichrist today. So shooting's gonna start in a couple of weeks.

[Spinal]

Speaking of Von Trier... Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg signed on for Antichrist today. So shooting's gonna start in a couple of weeks.

Charlotte Gainsbourg! Oh man, oh man.

[Morris Schæffer]

Lookit my new wallpaper!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v191/filthysize/tdk-wallpaper.jpg

What's Joker's hand doing?

[Sycophant]

What's Joker's hand doing?Massaging Harvey Dent's erect penis.

[Qrazy]

Massaging Harvey Dent's erect penis.

Really? I kind of assumed he was fondling his testicles.

[Sycophant]

Really? I kind of assumed he was fondling his testicles.Hmm. The arm seems at kind of an odd angle to do that. Maybe, though. It also occurred to me that rather than massaging his erect penis, he might actually be kind of tweaking the glans in an effort to prompt an erection.

[Qrazy]

Hmm. The arm seems at kind of an odd angle to do that. Maybe, though. It also occurred to me that rather than massaging his erect penis, he might actually be kind of tweaking the glans in an effort to prompt an erection.

Do You Believe in Harvey Dent...'s erect penis?

[Sycophant]

Maybe Harvey Dent actually has a vagina?
The Joker's hand is at a reasonable angle for clitoral stimulation.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Do You Believe in Harvey Dent...'s erect penis?

Considering the character, it should only be at half-mast.

[number8]

Ummm, you guys are joking around, but I found the image on a yaoi/slash fanart collection, so he actually is doing what you think he's doing.

There are more explicit ones, but I liked that one.

[Watashi]

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/joker6.jpg

[Watashi]

Ummm, you guys are joking around, but I found the image on a yaoi/slash fanart collection, so he actually is doing what you think he's doing.

There are more explicit ones, but I liked that one.
Wait, so which one is it? Stroking his penis or massaging his testicles?

There can only be one possible answer.

[number8]

Wait, so which one is it? Stroking his penis or massaging his testicles?

There can only be one possible answer.

"Introduce a little erection."

[Sycophant]

Ummm, you guys are joking around, but I found the image on a yaoi/slash fanart collection, so he actually is doing what you think he's doing.

There are more explicit ones, but I liked that one.Oh, I know. Fanporn is serious business.

[number8]

So, it ain't official yet and we'll see by the end of the week, but Tropic Thunder did not do well on its opening day.

Holy 5 weeks in a row, Batman!

[Morris Schæffer]

So, it ain't official yet and we'll see by the end of the week, but Tropic Thunder did not do well on its opening day.

Holy 5 weeks in a row, Batman!

That would really stun me!