TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-26-2011, 08:05 AM   #26
JP Jones
IndyFan
 
JP Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Space between Spaces
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
If you were a fan of Indy as he appeared in Raiders then you might not have appreciated Lucas and Spielberg's take on the character in KOTCS.
Why do you say that? Lucas and Spielberg made the character of Indy excatly the same as in all the other movies. If your going to praise the movie for anything, the Indy character is it.
JP Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 10:30 AM   #27
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
We could make it stop.

I think all it would take is for one of us to post a picture of a scantily clad Amy Adams...


That'll do it.

Back on topic though, I'm going to just go ahead and say it, because it has to be said: there should be a rule that people who use derogatory nicknames for films they don't like (i.e. Stoo's usage of the incredibly asinine phrase 'Duh Dark Klown') are being incredibly immature.

Sorry, Stoo old buddy, but I needed to make that point.
kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 10:31 AM   #28
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Jones
Why do you say that? Lucas and Spielberg made the character of Indy excatly the same as in all the other movies. If your going to praise the movie for anything, the Indy character is it.

That's not exactly what I meant, since I've consistently defended Indy's character as being at least one thing in the favour of KOTCS.

What I meant was the difference between Raiders and KOTCS in general - the situations and the extreme cliffhangers that Indy faced in the latter. While Indy is the same man, albeit older, he was downtrodden by circumstances, and upstaged by extreme spectacles, not to mention misplaced humour and uninteresting companions.

Compared with Raiders, KOTCS is a letdown.

On the other hand, a fan of Batman who read some of the darker, more serious stories that appeared in the '80s and '90s, may be much more impressed by Nolan's interpretation. (A big improvement over the camp post-Burton efforts).
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 12:01 PM   #29
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith

Compared with Raiders, KOTCS is a letdown.

On the other hand, a fan of Batman who read some of the darker, more serious stories that appeared in the '80s and '90s, may be much more impressed by Nolan's interpretation. (A big improvement over the camp post-Burton efforts).

Compared to Raiders they are all a let down...

As far as Batman is concerned, from a personal perspective, I have some friends who are serious Batman aficionados... and they are not the biggest fans of TDK. Their criticism is that it strays too far from the original source material and is too aligned to the Frank Miller comics of the late 80's (as you rightly allude to). Not all Batman fans want something as dour as TDK it appears.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 12:47 PM   #30
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
D'uh! You basically repeated what I wrote. Congratulations, WillKill! You've proven the original point of Raiders1123905673081231823801283916723710273123!
I'd like to retract this statement because WillKill did not repeat what I wrote. Sorry, Will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kongisking
Back on topic though, I'm going to just go ahead and say it, because it has to be said: there should be a rule that people who use derogatory nicknames for films they don't like (i.e. Stoo's usage of the incredibly asinine phrase 'Duh Dark Klown') are being incredibly immature.

Sorry, Stoo old buddy, but I needed to make that point.
It's about as asinine as a movie where a guy's voice changes the minute he dresses up like a bat. Anyway, don't take it personally, Kong. It's just a movie. (I guess you didn't like it when Resident Alien would refer to "Skull" as KOCKS?)
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 01:37 PM   #31
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
As far as Batman is concerned, from a personal perspective, I have some friends who are serious Batman aficionados... and they are not the biggest fans of TDK. Their criticism is that it strays too far from the original source material and is too aligned to the Frank Miller comics of the late 80's (as you rightly allude to). Not all Batman fans want something as dour as TDK it appears.
Good for them. I hate Temple of Doom for similar reasons, but I don't speak for all Indy fans on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I have many friends who think that the Batman (yes- including TDK) and Indiana Jones movies are fine examples of ‘low brow’ culture made to be consumed by the feckless masses. Are they right? Does that mean, by default, we have no taste for liking Indiana Jones and Batman movies?
People said that kind of thing about Charles Dickens, too. And he wrote for the masses and the paycheck.
I'm not saying that TDK is the best film ever or a work of art that we should all love and study. But if you say that there is no such thing as "good taste" and "bad taste," you'll have to justify the popularity of Stephanie Meyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Firstly, I’m not sure how true that is. Even here, in some sections, the criticisms started way before the movie was released. I remember arguments/debates about Indy’s hat and jacket looking too clean in publicity shots… etc. etc.
What do you mean even here? This would be the number one place to expect that kind of thing. I remember an episode of Bill Maher's talk show when he started criticizing America to three Brits and they all told him he was being to hard on his country. Friends (and by extension, fans) are the harshest critics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Secondly, I’d be wary of IMDB and Empire Magazine rankings.
I was using IMDB to gauge popularity. There's nothing wrong with such an application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Are you stating that ‘taste’ is an attribute only available to an intellectual few?
...
It’s a bit like asking McDonalds to poll their customers for opinions on the world’s best cuisine.
Are you saying that 'taste' is an attribute only available to an intellectual few? Is there is such a thing as good taste and bad taste?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Your link is to a 2008 fluff article about that year's buzzwords.
1.) It's a TIME article about the most popular things that year.
2.) All of the other buzzwords on that list were popular... The association should be clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Tomorrow, go stop an average man/woman or guy/girl on the street and ask him/her if they know what "nuking the fridge" is supposed to mean.
His response: "Wasn't that something that happened in that ****ing Indiana Jones movie that came out two or three years ago?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
You don't need to go back a decade to find a crappy Batman film because they are all terrible.
Ah-ha! You're biased. If you don't like superhero films that's fine, but as superhero films go, TDK is pretty good. As films go, it's not on par with a lot of other dramas, but as superhero films go, it's among the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
In 2008, how many Indy fans joined BATMAN FORUMS and compared "Dark Knight" to "Skull", posted photos of themselves dressed as Spalko or Dovchenko, started Indy games, etc.?
I don't know, but you have yet to show that a single person joined this forum just to talk about TDK. A lot of people on this board talk about religion; does that mean people just join to talk about religion? Or does it mean that that sort of things interests Indy fans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
(The "Indy around the globe" has ZERO relevance to this conversation.)
Uh-huh. Both threads are pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
You're avoiding the point. In 2008, many termites came out of the woodwork to join The Raven in order to say that "Skull" was garbage but "Dark Knight" was the best film ever made. (Spielberg should have taken lessons from Nolan, etc.)
Find one "termite" who joined just to do that. Just one. Refer to my previous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
FLIP-FLOP! According to you: "They're two completely different movies". Now, you're attempting to show how they are similar...
They fall into different genres. Indy's status as a "superhero" is debatable. TDK is a darker drama-action-thriller-whatever. KotCS is campy fun (or tries to be). You don't leave one film feeling the same way as you leave the other film. There are similarities between them, just like there are similarities between Apocalypse Now and Tropic Thunder, but they are completely different films thematically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
LOADS of people did. (Off the top of my head: Agent Spalko, The Man and a plethora of forgettable chumps.) If you want more examples, go look for yourself.
Now that's bullsh!t. The Man still posts last time I checked; Agent Spalko was banned for some unknown reason. And neither of them joined just to talk about The Dark Knight. They joined to talk about Indy, like everyone else.
Also, ResidentAlien was a Ravener for years and he was also one of KotCS's harshest critics (like you and your batmuffins).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
It's about as asinine as a movie where a guy's voice changes the minute he dresses up like a bat.
Your voice changes when you get on the phone with your mom, probably. People change their voices all the time depending on the social situation. Changing his voice is a part of how Wayne hides his identity in the Nolan films...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
D'uh! You basically repeated what I wrote. Congratulations, WillKill! You've proven the original point of Raiders1123905673081231823801283916723710273123!
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
I'd like to retract this statement because WillKill did not repeat what I wrote. Sorry, Will.
Yes, you misread what I was saying (I should have used 'or' instead of 'and').
There are a lot of TDK fans.
There are a lot of KotCS detractors.
There are fewer KotCS fans.
There are fewer TDK detractors.
How's that?
So of course there will be more overlap over the first two because there are more people who fit into those categories.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 02:17 PM   #32
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
1.) It's a TIME article about the most popular things that year.
A fluff article in TIME magazine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Ah-ha! You're biased. If you don't like superhero films that's fine, but as superhero films go, TDK is pretty good. As films go, it's not on par with a lot of other dramas, but as superhero films go, it's among the best.
No, I'm not biased against superhero movies because I like "Iron Man", "Spiderman", the Ed Norton Hulk movie and the 1978 "Superman".
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Now that's bullsh!t. The Man still posts last time I checked; Agent Spalko was banned for some unknown reason. And neither of them joined just to talk about The Dark Knight. They joined to talk about Indy, like everyone else.
Also, ResidentAlien was a Ravener for years and he was also one of KotCS's harshest critics (like you and your batmuffins).
I never mentioned Resident Alien and never said anything about people joining to ONLY talk about Batman. Agent Spalko and The Man consistently bashed "Skull" (as well as Lucas & Shia) while simultaneously showing their love for "Dark Knight". I don't remember the names of the fly-by-nighters and I'm not going to bother looking for their posts. (You wanted 1 example and I provided 2.)

Agent Spalko was banned after his comments about an assassination attempt on the U.S. president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Your voice changes when you get on the phone with your mom, probably.
Heh. No, it doesn't (unless I'm playing a joke on her).
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
People change their voices all the time depending on the social situation. Changing his voice is a part of how Wayne hides his identity in the Nolan films...
Batman spoke is his Batman voice to a woman who knew his identity and no one else was within hearing distance.

Anyway, I'll be away for a few days. Will talk to you later, Will. Bye!
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 02:28 PM   #33
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
A fluff article in TIME magazine.
"Fluff" in the sense that it is not particularly important, sure, but the article was talking about the most popular "things" of the year, so the article was quite applicable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
No, I'm not biased against superhero movies because I like "Iron Man", "Spiderman", the Ed Norton Hulk movie and the 1978 "Superman".
So you just don't like bats?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
...never said anything about people joining to ONLY talk about Batman. Agent Spalko and The Man consistently bashed "Skull" (as well as Lucas & Shia) while simultaneously showing their love for "Dark Knight".
ACTUALLY...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Would you join a Batman forum to shoot down Batman and gush about Indy?
...
In 2008, many termites came out of the woodwork to join The Raven in order to say that "Skull" was garbage but "Dark Knight" was the best film ever made. (Spielberg should have taken lessons from Nolan, etc.)
That's exactly what you said. If people join the Raven to talk about Indy, then what's the issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
I don't remember the names of the fly-by-nighters and I'm not going to bother looking for their posts. (You wanted 1 example and I provided 2.)
Those two are not fly-by-nighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Heh. No, it doesn't (unless I'm playing a joke on her).
It doesn't become softer and sweeter? Your poor mother.
I, for one, can tell who my mom is talking to on the phone by the tone of her voice. Softer for my grandmother, louder and most respectful to my grandfather, either really lovey-dovey or brusque if to my father, etc. People change their voices, however slightly, all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Batman spoke is his Batman voice to a woman who knew his identity and no one else was within hearing distance.
I don't remember this and I do not see the relevance.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 05:02 PM   #34
Forbidden Eye
IndyFan
 
Forbidden Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: With the Treasure of Mara...
Posts: 991
If this were 2008, you'd have a point. I remember on sites like BoxOfficeMojo.com, that makes a game out of predicting the highest grossing film of the year, there were a lot of Nolan/Batman fanboys who were wanting Indiana Jones to flop/bashing Lucas/asking "Why does there need to be another film?" etc. before the film ever came out. TDK did hurt the film a little bit(and every film, not just Kingdom).

But as others said its 2011, the Nolan/Batman fanboys have moved on to other targets (such as whining about Nolan not receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Director for Inception). And honestly, how many people even remember that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Dark Knight came out the same year? They're probably as aware of it as they are that Last Crusade and Batman came out in the same year. We're at a point where the only film Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has to live up to is the other Indiana Jones movies.

I think if you read the consensus you'll find that while there are people who hate KOTCS, more and more people are (re)watching it and realizing its not as bad as the hype is making it out to be.

You mention "Nuke The Fridge", that phrase is pretty null and void as I have not heard that phrase ONCE since 2008. Not once, and there were plenty of times where it would have been appropriate to use(Terminator 4 and Wolverine for instance). It obviously has not caught on and will never be as common as "Jump the Shark" has become. You don't have anything to worry about here.

Finally I can only give my opinion that I love both TDK and KOTCS. Maybe TDK a little more, but I own both on Blu-Ray and am willing to watch either at any time. Frankly if you want to blame something other than the Indiana Jones movies on Kingdom's negative response, I think South Park would've been a better target.
Forbidden Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 06:33 PM   #35
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Good for them. I hate Temple of Doom for similar reasons, but I don't speak for all Indy fans on the matter.

People said that kind of thing about Charles Dickens, too. And he wrote for the masses and the paycheck.
I'm not saying that TDK is the best film ever or a work of art that we should all love and study. But if you say that there is no such thing as "good taste" and "bad taste," you'll have to justify the popularity of Stephanie Meyer.

What do you mean even here? This would be the number one place to expect that kind of thing. I remember an episode of Bill Maher's talk show when he started criticizing America to three Brits and they all told him he was being to hard on his country. Friends (and by extension, fans) are the harshest critics.

I was using IMDB to gauge popularity. There's nothing wrong with such an application.

Are you saying that 'taste' is an attribute only available to an intellectual few? Is there is such a thing as good taste and bad taste?

1.) It's a TIME article about the most popular things that year.
2.) All of the other buzzwords on that list were popular... The association should be clear.
Will – I’m asking the questions because I’m genuinely unclear as to your position. I get that you like TDK, but I’m not sure if you believe it to be a greater, equal to or lesser movie than KOTCS (or the other Indy movies)…

As far as taste goes… no I don’t believe that it’s as black and white as people having good or bad taste. I’m more of the opinion that people are able to make better judgments when they can contextualize their responses. The less informed one is, the less informed one’s judgment will be. However, I know several PhD's who have some very dodgy taste when it comes to fashion, music etc. so it's really not about intelligence per se.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 10:36 PM   #36
JP Jones
IndyFan
 
JP Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Space between Spaces
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
That's not exactly what I meant, since I've consistently defended Indy's character as being at least one thing in the favour of KOTCS.

What I meant was the difference between Raiders and KOTCS in general - the situations and the extreme cliffhangers that Indy faced in the latter. While Indy is the same man, albeit older, he was downtrodden by circumstances, and upstaged by extreme spectacles, not to mention misplaced humour and uninteresting companions.

Compared with Raiders, KOTCS is a letdown.

On the other hand, a fan of Batman who read some of the darker, more serious stories that appeared in the '80s and '90s, may be much more impressed by Nolan's interpretation. (A big improvement over the camp post-Burton efforts).
Look at this... KotCS tried hard to stay with the tradition and did it well, but TDK puposely drifted away from the other movies to make it more "real".
JP Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 11:05 PM   #37
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Will – I’m asking the questions because I’m genuinely unclear as to your position. I get that you like TDK, but I’m not sure if you believe it to be a greater, equal to or lesser movie than KOTCS (or the other Indy movies)…
It's an unfair question, I would say. I wrote a paper on TDK for a class on postmodernism in which I fleshed out the motivations and inspirations behind the film, the subtleties of the plot and the characters, in particular. I could not do the same for KotCS, but maybe you could write a paper on one of the first three Indy movies (though the focus would probably be less on the story's merits and more on what the film says about US attitudes to religion and other cultures).
TDK is, foremost, an action film, but it has more to it than a Michael Bay film or what have you. It has a driving emotional core, but I think someone who doesn't want to be receptive to that aspect of the film *cough* Stoo *cough* would probably ignore it. I don't think most people ignore it. If you read into it past the surface level, there's a meat there that you don't find in a lot of other films... such as KotCS. I left the theater almost satisfied with KotCS. I don't think it lives up to the other films (maybe it surpasses Temple of Doom... at least there weren't insanely inaccurate stereotypes in KotCS), but I think you have to say, at the end of the day, that TDK was the better film.
Comparing TDK to Raiders is a lot harder. You can say TDK is a better film than KotCS because TDK is among the best of its genre, while the same cannot be said for KotCS. Raiders is arguably the best of its genre, so to determine which is "better" would require you to evaluate the genres rather than the films, and that's not really something you can do. I mean, which is better: a flashy film that makes you think and feel sad or a flashy film that takes you into a different world and makes you feel happy (and possibly angry at Shia LaTarzan)? I can't answer that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
However, I know several PhD's who have some very dodgy taste when it comes to fashion, music etc. so it's really not about intelligence per se.
I never said that intelligence drives enjoyment. The "intellectual value of the subject" I mentioned earlier referred to the "value" of the media: the film, the novel, the whatever. I would never assign an "intellectual value" to a person...

So you know this could even be applied to fashion or food. When you go to McDonalds, someone just slaps together some beef and a bun. When you go to a fine restaurant, the cooking process is (hopefully) more detailed and the chefs more thoughtful. When you put on a t-shirt and wornout jeans, you're probably thinking less about your presentation than when you put on a button-up and khakis or designer jeans or whatever. Likewise, when you put on a suit and don't think about the ensemble (this makes me sound like a pr!ck), you're probably not going to look as "tasteful" or fashion-minded as someone who maybe puts on less expensive clothing but does so in a thoughtful manner, matching colors or styles or whatever.

The thought behind the product is everything.

So when it comes to film or literature or what have you, I would think it natural that the stimulation of any media (the "intellectual value of the subject") would play a large role in determining how much any person enjoys it. The effect may be negative (I may not read Finnegans Wake for pleasure because it requires too much out of me), but the effect is still there. There's something to be said for a person whose taste directs them to more nuanced media, such as Thomas Pynchon over Stephanie Meyer (I'm having a hard time coming up with irrevocably bad authors), or to a lesser degreeTDK over KotCS.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 04:12 AM   #38
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
I left the theater almost satisfied with KotCS. I don't think it lives up to the other films (maybe it surpasses Temple of Doom... at least there weren't insanely inaccurate stereotypes in KotCS), but I think you have to say, at the end of the day, that TDK was the better film.

I’m not sure I can say that Will… although I respect your opinion. The primary function of these movies, in this example TDK and KOTCS, is to entertain. If we’re talking about movies that enlighten and have something serious to say about existence, we’re better off watching a Mike Leigh movie and discussing that… as they are infinitely more intelligent (and have something 'real' to say) than either the Batman or Indiana Jones movies (IMHO).

In this instance, I didn’t particularly find TDK to be that engaging. I’d agree that it’s definitely a more serious movie (and takes itself more serious) than KOTCS, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to “better” (unless one agrees what constitutes “better” in the first instance). I’m not trying to take anything away from TDK (or those who love it), but in the scheme of things, I think you’d struggle to slip a cigarette paper between the two movies when it comes to actual significance. TDK may well be a superior superhero movie… it may be superior to KOTCS (and the other Indy sequels), but within context, it’s a lot closer to KOTCS than it is to Battleship Potemkin, Seven Samurai, Star Wars, The Red Shoes etc. etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
I never said that intelligence drives enjoyment. The "intellectual value of the subject" I mentioned earlier referred to the "value" of the media: the film, the novel, the whatever. I would never assign an "intellectual value" to a person...

So when it comes to film or literature or what have you, I would think it natural that the stimulation of any media (the "intellectual value of the subject") would play a large role in determining how much any person enjoys it. The effect may be negative (I may not read Finnegans Wake for pleasure because it requires too much out of me), but the effect is still there. There's something to be said for a person whose taste directs them to more nuanced media, such as Thomas Pynchon over Stephanie Meyer (I'm having a hard time coming up with irrevocably bad authors), or to a lesser degreeTDK over KotCS.
As mentioned before (and we’ve used the helpful food analogies quite a bit here) sometimes a burger can be the tastiest, most enjoyable meal to eat. Time/money/effort (and a serious demeanour) doesn’t automatically equate to the best product/the best experience… High and low art (if you believe in such a thing) is not mutually exclusive. One should be able to love a pizza and beer just as much as foie gras and veuve clicquot... What’s more important I think is one’s ability to discern the differences and make informed choices about what is consumed.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:10 PM   #39
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
That's exactly what you said.
I think you need a pair of reading glasses. (If you already have some, it`s time to get a new prescription.)
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:25 PM   #40
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
Regarding this thread:

"A man may fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else." - John Burroughs
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 02:24 PM   #41
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Jones
This Dark Knight fan happens to love KotCS more than anyone here... Guaranteed!

Well, at least I'm not the only one on here who thought both were terrific movies. Though if I absolutely had to compare them, I would instantly say KOTCS is like a Ritz cracker compared to the gourmet five-star meal that is The Dark Knight...
kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 06:44 PM   #42
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo, the moving target
I think you need a pair of reading glasses. (If you already have some, it`s time to get a new prescription.
Once and for all, why don't you clarify just exactly what you did mean, if I am somehow misconstruing your arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’m not sure I can say that Will… although I respect your opinion. The primary function of these movies, in this example TDK and KOTCS, is to entertain.
And TDK is more entertaining, to me, and a lot of other folks. If you liked KotCS more, that's all well and good. I don't know what tool we're supposed to use to gauge which is the better film. If entertainment is your choice, then the aggregate public opinion on the question tells us that TDK is better. If you're looking for some "enlightening" question, then TDK, with all its moral conundrums, certainly wins, as well. What aspect of KotCS is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
TDK may well be a superior superhero movie… it may be superior to KOTCS (and the other Indy sequels), but within context, it’s a lot closer to KOTCS than it is to Battleship Potemkin, Seven Samurai, Star Wars, The Red Shoes etc. etc.
That doesn't mean you can't grade them. Some fast food is better than other fast food, even though you might say that all fine cuisine is better than all fast food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
As mentioned before (and we’ve used the helpful food analogies quite a bit here) sometimes a burger can be the tastiest, most enjoyable meal to eat. Time/money/effort (and a serious demeanour) doesn’t automatically equate to the best product/the best experience… High and low art (if you believe in such a thing) is not mutually exclusive. One should be able to love a pizza and beer just as much as foie gras and veuve clicquot... What’s more important I think is one’s ability to discern the differences and make informed choices about what is consumed.
I wrote the above before I saw your analogy. It just happens that I, and a lot of other people, think that TDK's gourmet pizza wins out over KotCS's crappy hamburger. Raiders, on the other hand, is about the best hamburger you can get, so we can't compare it to TDK's gourmet pizza, because they're both the best at what they do. And at the end of the day, they're all just tasty fluff, but TDK just happens to have fresher ingredients.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 04:50 AM   #43
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food

And TDK is more entertaining, to me, and a lot of other folks. If you liked KotCS more, that's all well and good. I don't know what tool we're supposed to use to gauge which is the better film. If entertainment is your choice, then the aggregate public opinion on the question tells us that TDK is better. If you're looking for some "enlightening" question, then TDK, with all its moral conundrums, certainly wins, as well. What aspect of KotCS is better?
Like I said Will… If you are looking for something to really enlighten then there are literally thousands of movies out there (both old and new) that do that much better than Batman and Indiana Jones. KOTCS may very well be more superficial than TDK, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that TDK is also superficial, albeit well made, Hollywood fodder.

I'm really not trying to say you shouldn't like or have a preference for TDK, I'm just not swayed that you can convince me that KOTCS is substantially, scientifically inferior... and that one has better taste for preferring TDK.

If you are asking what aspect of KOTCS works better for me… that depends whether you mean in empirical terms or emotional terms. In emotional terms I found KOTCS to be more engaging and enjoyable. What KOTCS lacked in any sense of real 'peril' or danger, it made up for (well partly) with a genuine sense of fun. It's lightweight brevity may have been the wrong approach to take, but it did it well (IMHO). On the other hand, I found TDK to be massively pretentious in the way that nouvelle cuisine is. It took itself far too seriously which, for me, left me unengaged. I didn't feel anything for the characters (specifically Bruce Wayne) and I found the action scenes to be as pedestrian, if not more so, than KOTCS. I don’t for a second doubt the effort/talent that went into the movie… I just thought it was a backwards step from Batman Begins (which for me had the right mix of comic book vibe and verisimilitude).

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food

That doesn't mean you can't grade them. Some fast food is better than other fast food, even though you might say that all fine cuisine is better than all fast food.
Yep – but the point I was making is that it quickly becomes self defeating and obtuse to compare/contrast KFC with McDonalds. IMHO, TDK and KOTCS are good examples of well made, imaginative… but ultimately insignificant Hollywood conveyor belt/production line movies. The fact that TDK may indeed be "better" than KOTCS doesn't take away from TDK's overall insignificance... and what it represents. However, I firmly believe there is a whole other strata underneath the TDK's, KOTCS, The Phantom Menance's and Iron Man's... which contain poorly made/unimaginative and insignificant Hollywood type movies. They are the ones more worthy of castigation... if castigation is the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food

I wrote the above before I saw your analogy. It just happens that I, and a lot of other people, think that TDK's gourmet pizza wins out over KotCS's crappy hamburger. Raiders, on the other hand, is about the best hamburger you can get, so we can't compare it to TDK's gourmet pizza, because they're both the best at what they do. And at the end of the day, they're all just tasty fluff, but TDK just happens to have fresher ingredients.
But again that’s all very subjective/relative… as the head chef at Le Gavroche or Pétrus would think that all fast food was equally as sh*t. I think it’s healthy to express a preference… but it would be a mistake to think that just because one has a preference for a cheeseburger over a chicken leg, that one is automatically a connoisseur of fine dining.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 05:36 AM   #44
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Like I said Will… If you are looking for something to really enlighten then there are literally thousands of movies out there (both old and new) that do that much better than Batman and Indiana Jones.
I never said anything contrary to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
KOTCS may very well be more superficial than TDK, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that TDK is also superficial, albeit well made, Hollywood fodder.
Don't read to much into what follows:
Let's assign Casablanca a theoretical film value score of 999.
Let's assign Plan 9 From Outer Space a theoretical film value score of 1.
Let's give TDK a 650.
Let's give KotCS a 649.
Even if KotCS is only ever the slightest bit crappier than TDK (and I would argue that KotCS is exponentially crappier), 650 > 649. Unless you're going to argue that KotCS is the better film (which you don't seem willing to do), then whether TDK is "Hollywood fodder" is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I'm really not trying to say you shouldn't like or have a preference for TDK, I'm just not swayed that you can convince me that KOTCS is substantially, scientifically inferior... and that one has better taste for preferring TDK.
TDK had an emotional basis beyond the sit-com level of KotCS. TDK lacked Tarzan antics and bad CGI. TDK asked moral questions. On at least some level, TDK referenced some aspects of current events and the war on terror. I'm not sure liking TDK over KotCS makes you have better taste, but I think there's the distinct possibility that preferring KotCS over TDK indicates that you have worse taste. Again, I think the genre concept lays out the situation very well. TDK is among the best superhero films; Raiders is among the best adventure films. However, KotCS is not anywhere close to Raiders in quality, and I don't think you could find a single person at the Raven who would say otherwise. KotCS is not the better film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I just thought it was a backwards step from Batman Begins (which for me had the right mix of comic book vibe and verisimilitude).
That's clearly a matter of personal taste. Did you prefer KotCS to TDK?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Yep – but the point I was making is that it quickly becomes self defeating and obtuse to compare/contrast KFC with McDonalds.
Why? To make a point you must first provide a warrant. You're giving us conclusions without reasons. To put it into completely different terms, you would not say that killing an old man is insignificant because, oh look, the Holocaust. That's a horrible analogy, I fully acknowledge this. But the point is that degrees are important.
I'm not talking about film masterpieces, and you clearly do not think that film must be a masterpiece to be enjoyable. But you have not yet been willing to say that a person's taste is not indicated at all by their consumption. If you can have high-brow and low-brow art, why is it not possible to have highs and lows within each?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
The fact that TDK may indeed be "better" than KOTCS doesn't take away from TDK's overall insignificance...
Insignificant for gaining nearly universal critical acclaim and redefining the superhero genre?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
But again that’s all very subjective/relative… as the head chef at Le Gavroche or Pétrus would think that all fast food was equally as sh*t.
To think it all "equal" would be ignorant, and I imagine that the head chefs at those restaurants are most likely pompous arses if they think such a thing. Degrees matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
...but it would be a mistake to think that just because one has a preference for a cheeseburger over a chicken leg, that one is automatically a connoisseur of fine dining.
Now see, this is just ridiculous. You've completely turned around everything that I have said. I have never said that TDK represents the best of cinema. I've never claimed to be a connoisseur of film on any level.
I adopted the fast food analogy myself. A burger is not just a burger. Ingredients matter, and KotCS was stale and unfilling.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 07:26 AM   #45
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
"Before pop art, there was such a thing as bad taste. Now there's kitsch, schlock, camp, and porn." - Don DeLillo, Running Dog
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 01:15 PM   #46
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
I never said anything contrary to this.

Don't read to much into what follows:
Let's assign Casablanca a theoretical film value score of 999.
Let's assign Plan 9 From Outer Space a theoretical film value score of 1.
Let's give TDK a 650.
Let's give KotCS a 649.
Even if KotCS is only ever the slightest bit crappier than TDK (and I would argue that KotCS is exponentially crappier), 650 > 649. Unless you're going to argue that KotCS is the better film (which you don't seem willing to do), then whether TDK is "Hollywood fodder" is irrelevant.
Will – what’s the point of me trying to argue that KOTCS is the better movie??? I don’t need to… I preferred KOTCS to TDK and that should be enough. What I’m saying is that you can’t demonstrate that TDK is any better (unless you have a scientific equation or stone written tablet from God that proves otherwise)… and, using your score system, even if TDK is 1 point better than KOTC; it’s still closer to KOTCS than it is to Casablanca (which was sort of my point in the first place).

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food

TDK had an emotional basis beyond the sit-com level of KotCS. TDK lacked Tarzan antics and bad CGI. TDK asked moral questions. On at least some level, TDK referenced some aspects of current events and the war on terror. I'm not sure liking TDK over KotCS makes you have better taste, but I think there's the distinct possibility that preferring KotCS over TDK indicates that you have worse taste. Again, I think the genre concept lays out the situation very well. TDK is among the best superhero films; Raiders is among the best adventure films. However, KotCS is not anywhere close to Raiders in quality, and I don't think you could find a single person at the Raven who would say otherwise. KotCS is not the better film.
I don’t agree. You are assigning merit to a movie simply to justify your own emotional response to it… ”Moral questions? “War on terror”? TDK is about as intellectually challenging as a bath. Unfortunately by attempting to take the intellectual high ground vis-à-vis an action movie about a man who fights crime dressed up as a bat, you’ve actually undermined your entire argument….

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
That's clearly a matter of personal taste. Did you prefer KotCS to TDK?
As I stated above, I’d take any Indiana Jones movie over TDK (including Temple of Doom). That’s not to say that I hate TDK… as I don’t… but I certinaly don’t believe it to be a great movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food

Why? To make a point you must first provide a warrant. You're giving us conclusions without reasons. To put it into completely different terms, you would not say that killing an old man is insignificant because, oh look, the Holocaust. That's a horrible analogy, I fully acknowledge this. But the point is that degrees are important.
I'm not talking about film masterpieces, and you clearly do not think that film must be a masterpiece to be enjoyable. But you have not yet been willing to say that a person's taste is not indicated at all by their consumption. If you can have high-brow and low-brow art, why is it not possible to have highs and lows within each?
You ask why? You first have to ask yourself if you believe in the concepts of high and low art. If not, then surely it can be argued that every expression is a legitimate form of art… ergo any assigning of value/scoring becomes completely subjective.
However, if you do believe in the concept of high and low art, you then have to ask yourself where does a movie about a man dressed as a bat manufactured by a bourgeois, Capitalist Western system fit into that criteria for art.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food

Insignificant for gaining nearly universal critical acclaim and redefining the superhero genre?
Titanic had lots of acclaim and won more Oscars… so I’m assuming that if you prefer TDK to Titanic then it probably indicates you have inferior taste… nes pa? Also, not entirely sure how TDK has ‘redefined the superhero genre’??? It was a popular movie for sure… but surely we’re not going to use popularity as a gauge for worthiness?


Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food

To think it all "equal" would be ignorant, and I imagine that the head chefs at those restaurants are most likely pompous arses if they think such a thing. Degrees matter.
Believe me when I say that I have quite a few friends in the British movie/TV industry; and they find it highly amusing when I tell them that people are willing to argue the toss between what’s better… Batman, Indiana Jones or Star Wars. When you look at the genuine artistry involved in a movie like, for example, The King’s Speech; TDK and KOTCS don’t even register… the degrees between them are indivisible. You may find it a worthwhile pursuit debating why a KFC is better than a McDonalds, but I find it quite depressing…


Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food

Now see, this is just ridiculous. You've completely turned around everything that I have said. I have never said that TDK represents the best of cinema. I've never claimed to be a connoisseur of film on any level.
I adopted the fast food analogy myself. A burger is not just a burger. Ingredients matter, and KotCS was stale and unfilling.
Never said you were Will. I specifically used the pronoun “one”.
As far as food analogies go… KOTCS may have had some “stale” and “unfilling” ingredients… but I found that preferable to the complex carbs that constituted TDK… left me feeling uncomfortable and nauseas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
"Before pop art, there was such a thing as bad taste. Now there's kitsch, schlock, camp, and porn." - Don DeLillo, Running Dog
"Bad taste" is a term used by the ruling class to put down the bourgeois middle classes who started to seize influence and power (historically by the growth of commerce and industry) from the wealthy few. I too don't subscribe to the view that people are born with taste and standing, as it's a simple method for the ruling classes to legitimise their position (inherited power).
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2011, 12:45 AM   #47
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Will – what’s the point of me trying to argue that KOTCS is the better movie??? I don’t need to… I preferred KOTCS to TDK and that should be enough.
I'm sure plenty of people prefer pornography to Citizen Kane. Does this prevent us from determining which are the better films?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
What I’m saying is that you can’t demonstrate that TDK is any better (unless you have a scientific equation or...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
...a stone written tablet from God that proves otherwise)…
-http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080716/reviews/55996637
-http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20080709212755/http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/the_dark_knight
-http://www.emanuellevy.com/review/dark-knight-the-4/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I don’t agree. You are assigning merit to a movie simply to justify your own emotional response to it… ”Moral questions? “War on terror”? TDK is about as intellectually challenging as a bath.
"A bath and a tenderloin steak. Those are the high points of a man's life." -
Curt Siodmak
Famed sycholgist Richard Ryder is known to philosophize in his bath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Unfortunately by attempting to take the intellectual high ground vis-ŕ-vis an action movie about a man who fights crime dressed up as a bat, you’ve actually undermined your entire argument….
That's inane. I suppose The King's Speech is merely a story about a voice lesson, and Citizen Kane is about a sled. Potempkin is about a baby falling down some stairs.
Surely you must recognize that films run deeper than just what you see on screen? The situations are often irrelevant to the quality of the film and the plot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
As I stated above, I’d take any Indiana Jones movie over TDK (including Temple of Doom). That’s not to say that I hate TDK… as I don’t… but I certinaly don’t believe it to be a great movie.
But why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
You ask why? You first have to ask yourself if you believe in the concepts of high and low art. If not, then surely it can be argued that every expression is a legitimate form of art…
Where is the artistry in dropping an atomic bomb on a refrigerator? Lucas succeeded in undermining half a century's worth of paranoia. Don't worry kids, the Cold War ain't nothin'. Let's all just hide in a fridge. If only the Japs knew what Indy knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
...ergo any assigning of value/scoring becomes completely subjective.
No. Where is KotCS's emotional core?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
However, if you do believe in the concept of high and low art, you then have to ask yourself where does a movie about a man dressed as a bat manufactured by a bourgeois, Capitalist Western system fit into that criteria for art.
Nolan hardly qualifies as a bourgeois director only interested in the bucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Titanic had lots of acclaim and won more Oscars… so I’m assuming that if you prefer TDK to Titanic then it probably indicates you have inferior taste… nes pa?
They're two entirely different films. It's irrelevant. You could compare TDK to Spider-man or Iron Man, but not a romantic drama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Also, not entirely sure how TDK has ‘redefined the superhero genre’???
http://www.slashfilm.com/spider-man-...emporary-take/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Believe me when I say that I have quite a few friends in the British movie/TV industry; and they find it highly amusing when I tell them that people are willing to argue the toss between what’s better… Batman, Indiana Jones or Star Wars.
TDK cannot be compared to the Phantom Menace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
"Bad taste" is a term used by the ruling class to put down the bourgeois middle classes who started to seize influence and power (historically by the growth of commerce and industry) from the wealthy few. I too don't subscribe to the view that people are born with taste and standing, as it's a simple method for the ruling classes to legitimise their position (inherited power).
This position seems rather incompatible with your insistence on throwing around your connections to the British film industry. If there's no such thing as good and bad taste, then why do you find it necessary to defer to these people or top chefs? What's wrong with McDonald's if bad taste doesn't exist? Is fast food bad for your body? Hm. Are crap films bad for your mind?
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2011, 08:57 AM   #48
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
I'm sure plenty of people prefer pornography to Citizen Kane. Does this prevent us from determining which are the better films?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/
So from someone who purports to have superior taste and understand better what constitutes higher artist merit, you seem to have a very simplistic method for measuring that i.e. popular opinion. Perhaps we should defer to the ‘X-Factor’ method for our entire critical appraisal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
That's inane. I suppose The King's Speech is merely a story about a voice lesson, and Citizen Kane is about a sled. Potempkin is about a baby falling down some stairs.
Surely you must recognize that films run deeper than just what you see on screen? The situations are often irrelevant to the quality of the film and the plot.
Are you seriously trying to make us believe that TDK compares to those other movies? What I recognize is that you are simply trying to rationalize your enjoyment by assigning more value to it that it actually warrants, which in itself is not a problem (I do that with Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies)… but what is a problem is when you attempt to take the intellectual higher ground based solely on your emotional responses to a movie. I have numerous friends who are much better and wiser than me who think Raiders and Star Wars are utter garbage. Do I think their taste is inferior? Absolutely not. The problem with where your argument is going is that you’re basically stating that if one doesn’t see TDK’s intelligence/artistic merit, then one must have inferior taste. Hmmm - “the king was in the altogether” – Hans Christian Andersen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
But why?
Why don’t I believe TDK to be a great film? I thought I’d already stated my reasons? I think it’s pretentious, overblown, overly long, it’s dull in many places. For an action movie, the action is more pedestrian and less imaginative than KOTCS, Christian Bale seems to be doing a pastiche of Christian Bale in Batman Begins, the movie doesn’t make me care for any of the characters, the character of Two Face is pointlessly squeezed into the plot at the expense of pacing, it has gratuitous location shooting in Hong Kong simply to look “cool”. Etc. etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Where is the artistry in dropping an atomic bomb on a refrigerator? Lucas succeeded in undermining half a century's worth of paranoia. Don't worry kids, the Cold War ain't nothin'. Let's all just hide in a fridge. If only the Japs knew what Indy knows.
Personally I thought there was more imagination in the first 30 minutes of KOTCS than there was in the entire running time of TDK. But that’s just my opinion and not an absolute, Again, I think it’s a mistake to think that a movie that takes itself seriously is automatically better than one that doesn’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
No. Where is KotCS's emotional core?
Emotional core??? Where’s the emotional core in TDK? It’s just a bunch of characters you want to slap. For better or worse it’s the only Batman movie I’ve ever seen where I want the antagonist (in this case The Joker) to kill off the protagonists because they are such a bunch of self-righteous prigs. This is a fundamental flaw in TDK for me… by trying to set the movie in a more realistic world they make the characters less believable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Nolan hardly qualifies as a bourgeois director only interested in the bucks.
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
They're two entirely different films. It's irrelevant. You could compare TDK to Spider-man or Iron Man, but not a romantic drama.
I make the comparison because who where linking acclaim/popularity with artistic merit. It don’t work that way Will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
So you’re actually saying that TDK’s overriding influence and legacy is to show how a studio can make loads of cash out of remaking the same movie over and over again… and that if you call it a “reboot”, people will actually buy into it being something new. Yep – I’d agree. That’s a real artistic achievement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
TDK cannot be compared to the Phantom Menace.
Lol…

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
This position seems rather incompatible with your insistence on throwing around your connections to the British film industry. If there's no such thing as good and bad taste, then why do you find it necessary to defer to these people or top chefs? What's wrong with McDonald's if bad taste doesn't exist? Is fast food bad for your body? Hm. Are crap films bad for your mind?
You unfortunately just don’t seem to get it Will… It’s not about good and bad taste. It’s about understanding the context and exposing oneself to enough information that one can make informed choices. As mentioned before, if you think TDK is deep and asks questions about our moral compasses, war and terror etc. all I can say is watch more important movies so you can get some perspective.
As for my “connections”… I’m not sure I ever throw around my profession or that of friends and family… I’m just pointing out the irony that some of the people who actually worked on TDK don’t actually hold it in such high regard as you do (even thought they are proud of their work). "Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." David Hulme.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2011, 11:01 AM   #49
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile

Emotional core??? Where’s the emotional core in TDK? It’s just a bunch of characters you want to slap. For better or worse it’s the only Batman movie I’ve ever seen where I want the antagonist (in this case The Joker) to kill off the protagonists because they are such a bunch of self-righteous prigs. This is a fundamental flaw in TDK for me… by trying to set the movie in a more realistic world they make the characters less believable.

Sorry to interrupt your guys' argument, but this bit baffles me. You're telling me James Gordon, Alfred Pennyworth, Lucius Fox and Mayor Anthony Garcia were not admirably heroic characters? Boy, I'd hate to see an example of what you consider to be likable, righteous and heroic people. Oh, wait, I know...

kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2011, 11:36 AM   #50
indyclone25
IndyFan
 
indyclone25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: midlothian Illinois just south of chicago
Posts: 3,377
well to tell you honestly , i have only read some of the posts here on the subject.
i like dark knight, but not as much as i liked kotcs , that summer i saw kotcs 5 times and watched dk once, the dark knight was a good movie movie but i thought is was better than batman begins , both were long, drawn out movies.
i took kotcs as what it was and like the other indiana jones films were, a popcorn movie. it was meant to be light hearted and fun ,something not to be profound.
people can find something to argue about both films and all they want to do is complain about something , that is the way people are and have always been .
people may say that i may be dumb for liking kotcs. but it had enough action in it for my tastes, did it have some stupid stunts ? of course it did , like marion driving down a rubber tree? having mutt swing from far away to meet up with the jeep and duck to finally get the skull back ?
temple of doom had the jumping out of a plane witha boat thing , impossible , yes! but did we like it , yes!
i have seen the dark knight a few more times , i think it still an ok movie .but i like daredevil better than dark knight!
their will be always different tastes for different people .
was there a conspiracy that dark knights fans had against indy , maybe , maybe not .but is it something to worry about? no.
so just enjoy your movies and smile
indyclone25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 PM.