|
Bedevere posted:Is there some joke here? My anti-virus has a poo poo over that site and it's listed in a bunch of block lists. Block lists? Anyway to see? This is the first I've heard of anyone having any issues with the stie. I mean, we get at least 400 views most days, so I'd like to know if there is an issue.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
Bedevere posted:Is there some joke here? My anti-virus has a poo poo over that site and it's listed in a bunch of block lists. Comodo has no problem with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
No kidding: http://global.sitesafety.trendmicro.com/  BTW I did check blacklisting and I don't see any blocks so not sure why Trend is all in a wad about your site. Bedevere fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Maybe the insane marketing campaign for Dark Knight Rises is trying to wipe out all record of previous Batman films... Edit- for the record, I had no problems reading the article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
That's strange. We'll have to see if we can get to the bottom of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises yet. But, IF I don't like it you guys aren't going to send me death threats, are you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises yet. But, IF I don't like it you guys aren't going to send me death threats, are you? Nah, the bulk mail rates to England are just too high.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 13:28
|
|
|
Will it be like the time System of a Down fans sent a bunch of emails in explaining how Something Awful didn't "get" it? That'd be funny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises yet. But, IF I don't like it you guys aren't going to send me death threats, are you? You should just have someone review it in all caps just saying stuff like "THIS MOVIE WAS AWESOME!!!1! BATMAN TOTALLY RULES + IS WAY BETTER THAN SUPERMAN" and then at the end have some really passive aggressive statement about the alternative to well thought out criticism and journalistic integrity. edit: maybe have some grandiose political statement in the review too so we can see if you can get gabusan riled up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:Will it be like the time System of a Down fans sent a bunch of emails in explaining how Something Awful didn't "get" it? That'd be funny. God, I hope so. Seems like we haven't been pissing off our fair share of student clowns/Christian filmmakers/nu metal fans lately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:God, I hope so. Seems like we haven't been pissing off our fair share of student clowns/Christian filmmakers/nu metal fans lately. Remember that time you got us lawsuit threats? Those were the days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Remember that time you got us lawsuit threats? Those were the days. Oh to be a fly on the wall when they discovered us...
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises yet. But, IF I don't like it you guys aren't going to send me death threats, are you? I'm going to be contrarian and send you very specific and creepy threats of torture and murder if you actually like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
You should promise to review The Dark Knight Rises, but review The Shadow instead. For added effect, repeatedly ask why they thought casting Alec Baldwin as Batman was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
Edit- In the light of what's happened, I withdraw my snarky comment. It no longer feels appropriate.
BoldFrankensteinMir fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jul 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
Shouldn't there be an entry for the 1966 Batman film in the Batman film retrospective?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Onomarchus posted:Shouldn't there be an entry for the 1966 Batman film in the Batman film retrospective? Ah, yes, well you see, the reason for that is
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
Onomarchus posted:Shouldn't there be an entry for the 1966 Batman film in the Batman film retrospective? It's there, turn around and look more closely... *runs away*
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
I have to say, I agree more with Keanu Grieves' take on Bane's revolution. It seemed to me that the subtext there was trying to present all self-described populists as anarchists in sheep's clothing who want to tear down society. Even if OWS had never happened, there were strong parallels to the French Revolution, and the whole thing is presented as bad, even the movie's version of the storming of the Bastille. (Historical note: The prisoners in the Bastille were not evil savages and mob bosses.) Ultimately, I really think it was an expression of the upper class's actual fear of what the lower class would do to them if the power structure were reversed. In that way, it's kind of empowering, knowing that they're that scared of us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
I think most superhero movies can be boiled down to the central idea that there are only a select few people- the physically or socially powerful, those empowered by science, whatever. They're basically gods. All the rest of us basically continue to exist and thrive at the whims of these gods. We are incapable of saving ourselves, and really don't deserve to be saved at all. All we can hope for is that one of these gods like Batman (philanthropist) or the Avengers (the military-industrial complex) will be merciful enough to fight those with more insidious causes on our behalf. These movies aren't really making a political statement, they're just echoing how the world actually works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
The only clear subtext I got was that the League Of Shadows is the Illuminati.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 08:28
|
|
|
Onomarchus posted:Shouldn't there be an entry for the 1966 Batman film in the Batman film retrospective? If you ever get a chance to watch the 1966 Batman with West and Ward's commentary track playing, do it. It's the most insightful and hilarious drunken half-bitter-half-nostalgic actor commentary you'll ever hear, and it turns a film that's already a Warholian masterwork into something like a dadaist Casavettes title. I seriously cannot recommend it enough. For example, their discussion of the stunt actor who almost died during the jet ski sequence, and how nonchalant the rest of the crew was about it. Or Adam West growling at his younger self on the screen with palpable disgust. "Those two... IDIOTS..."
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
Senior Woodchuck posted:I have to say, I agree more with Keanu Grieves' take on Bane's revolution. It seemed to me that the subtext there was trying to present all self-described populists as anarchists in sheep's clothing who want to tear down society. Even if OWS had never happened, there were strong parallels to the French Revolution, and the whole thing is presented as bad, even the movie's version of the storming of the Bastille. (Historical note: The prisoners in the Bastille were not evil savages and mob bosses.) This comes up alot in the TDKR tpic in CineD but I think it's more muddled than that. While some of the imagery is lifted from occupy and popular social movements, there's also a distinct feel of US occupation with the high tech tanks patroling the streets, the forces made up of hired mercanaries and masses huddled together with only periodic electricity and food and water. There's also the fact that Bane's movement is funded by the 1%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 09:52
|
|
|
The forces weren't made up of hired mercenaries. They were made up of blue-collar workers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
You know, I'm surprised TDKR didn't lose any points simply for how stupid it assumed the audience would be. Particularly in regards to Catwoman's MacGuffin. 'Oh she's got a huge record, she can't be a good master thief with a record, she's looking for Clean Slate.' I mean the name of the program and her determination to get it, backed by her issues, should have spelled it out. Nope. Instead, she gets to the guy who was supposed to give it to her and he's all 'oh are you looking for the CLEAN SLATE, the computer program what will erase all of your records which are making your life difficult and will give you no record and make life better and give you a CLEAN SLATE, do you mean that CLEAN SLATE?' I just really didn't like the writing, and I don't mean anything related to Batman canon; it just feels like they were expecting everyone to not pay attention to anything but the pretty explosions. Bane's jaw not moving when he talked also bugged me, but I may have just been imagining that. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
Well, one of my facebook friends is trying to say that the movie isn't political, so it's not really a bad thing to expect the audience to be dumb. (I agree, though, that stood out as clunky expository dialogue.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
I'm sort of disappointed that the new Step Up doesn't revolve around a group of Marxist dancers overthrowing the capitalist system and seizing the means of production by doing some really cool dancing.
FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jul 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
The thing I hated about it was the number of characters that could be completely removed without really affecting the movie. Alfred, Catwoman and Philanthropist Lady where all basically in the movie for their own sake as far as I could tell. It also had a disturbing lack of Batman doing awesome Batman stuff for a Batman movie. At least Bane was cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Dark Knight Returns was a cool Christopher Nolan techno-thriller that just happened to have Batman in it as the protagonist. It was not a Batman movie. I liked it anyway, because I like good techno-thrillers and it was easily good enough that my love for the Batman character wasn't crushed by it not being a Batman movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
I think I might agree with that if you look at it as its own movie, but as a part of all three as one overarching interpretation of the Batman story it fit perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
It's not a batman film. It's a Bruce Wayne film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
Not to backseat mod here guys, but we have a Batman thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
Well here are this week's reviews, and I saw Total Recall and I agree with the assessment for the most part. I left the movie feeling like I had just witnessed a lot of potential lost. Not a terrible movie though. Anyways, that said, where the hell was Ethan Hawke? I had no idea he was even supposed to be in there, and the review says he was "all but cut" but I don't remember seeing him. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/current-movie-reviews/total-recall.php
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Johnny Walker posted:Well here are this week's reviews, and I saw Total Recall and I agree with the assessment for the most part. I left the movie feeling like I had just witnessed a lot of potential lost. Not a terrible movie though. http://movieline.com/2012/08/01/total-recall-arnold-schwarzenegger-cameo-ethan-hawke-remake/ Try as I might, I can't find the ad. Furthermore, it seems like my review might have been wholly incorrect, as this article indicates Wiseman was a teenage fan of Total Recall. Oh well, the finer point still stands: Wiseman's version rips off everything but Verhoeven. Specifically, the scenes to which I was referring which have been "remixed" for this remake are: - The old-lady disguise. A very similar-looking woman walks through the checkpoint and even says her signature "two weeks" before Quaid is revealed to be the guy behind her. - The scene in which someone "appears" in the memory to convince Quaid it's all in his head. In the original, Quaid deduced it was really happening because he saw a bead of sweat roll down the doctor's forehead. In this version, it's a single tear running down Jessica Biel's cheek because she's part Native American and even in the future people still litter, I guess. Verhoeven did a lot of things, but he rarely insulted his audience's intelligence. This time around, it felt like Wiseman didn't trust us to come to our own conclusions. The doctor's explanation, that Quaid is making up his delusion as he goes along, is traded for a less graceful scene this time around, although I like the twist on the Mexican standoff. Whatevs. Maybe I'm just becoming a bitter old man. Or maybe Wiseman's displaying a little too much hubris by trying to make such a tonally different film. Again, this usually doesn't bother me, but because this remake retains and simplifies the same general story but employs a drastically different (and inferior) aesthetic, Total Recall marks the exception. Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Aug 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
All kinds of red flags went up for me when the main lady from the movie on the Daily Show said something like "it's not a remake of total recall - we went back to the source, it's based more on the short story!" because that short story had a cool concept but ended immediately. It was ludicrously short.He figures out he's a spy, has a mexican stand off in his kitchen, agrees with the company thugs sent to subjugate him to a compromise - to go back and get his memory erased again, and his spy-wife promises to keep him away from the memory vacations from now on (but it hints that he feels like sneaking off for another memory vacation which will undo the mind erasure and whoops!) So basically 99% of the 90's movie was made out of whole cloth. It was basically "what if we started off like that, but then didn't do that at all". How do you go back to the book, avoid remaking the 90s version, and end up with barely enough film to fill out a teaser trailer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
"It's kind of like an extended episode of King of the Hill, in which someone finally up and shoots Peggy." Thank you for your awesome review of Bernie, a movie I had no idea existed until this review, and because of the above sentence, I now need to see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
jeremy oval office posted:IMDb trivia says they cut his five-minute monologue from the film and used it for viral marketing instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Senior Woodchuck posted:See, I think it just boils down to Wiseman being a talentless hack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:...it seems as though Galifianakis is essentially playing Jack McBrayer. They share the same sort of clean-cut wholesomeness, and it's difficult to tell whether that sort of character is being lampooned here or if it's just here to be a stark contrast to Cam Brady's cruder constituency. I haven't seen The Campaign yet, but the impression I got, based on the trailer, is that Marty Huggins is based on one of Zach Galifianakis' characters, his brother, Seth Galfianakis. I guess that character could be based on Jack McBrayer, though. I've been looking forward to The Campaign since I first saw the trailer for it. I find the Seth Galifiankis character incredibly funny for some reason. I want to name my next dog Funyuns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
Fell posted:I haven't seen The Campaign yet, but the impression I got, based on the trailer, is that Marty Huggins is based on one of Zach Galifianakis' characters, his brother, Seth Galfianakis. I guess that character could be based on Jack McBrayer, though. Oh wow, I'd forgotten all about that. It makes more sense for Zach to base Marty on one of his own creations, the same way Will Ferrell sort of does. Still, McBrayer does get some decent screentime, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the director tried to give him a nudge in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 01:33
|
|