|
I can't believe anyone could see that scene as anything other than Bruce whispering some key advice to the guy. It seemed very clear to me both times I've seen the movie. What "rigging" of the fight club would he even be doing in that scene? He just wants the fight to be over quickly in a way that will get the dude who has the information over to the bar so that he can hack his phone. That's it.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Also he wants to screw the guy over, since he's the World's Greatest/Angriest Detective and would certainly know which fighter he bet on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In MoS, don't they imply that Kryptonians have basically just discovered that Earth exists right before Krypton dies? There's a scout/colony ship on Earth. It's what the military finds buried beneath millennia of ice in Canada and where Kal-El meets Jor-El and gets his suit. Lara and the computer were looking for suitable worlds to send baby Kal to. Jor-El figured there would be a compatible world with a yellow sun, and the search resulted in Earth. There's enough records on Earth in the computer to have a scan of humans and to know that they're similar enough to Kryptonians that Kal won't be "alone". K. Waste posted:There is no "for whatever reason." Bruce Wayne has personally made the decision to brand sex traffickers and "short eyes" so that they will be marked and executed extrajudicially in prisons. Luthor does not compel him to do this, in the theatrical or the ultimate edition, because he doesn't need to. What does happen in both versions is that Clark Kent receives photographs of the doomed man, playing him against Batman so that he ignores the figure Perry told him to pay attention to all along... Lex Luthor. He marked two or three dudes, who subsequently died in prison. While there seems to be a correlation between being branded and getting killed in prison, there's nothing really pointing to Batman branding them so that they'll get killed in prison. Which is kind of a weird plan for Batman, who could just kill them there and is shown elsewhere in the film to have no real problem with killing bad guys. The implication however is that Lex takes note of Batman suddenly branding dudes and proceeds to have them killed in prison. This information, along with the pictures, is what he then uses to try and get Superman to move against Batman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Violator posted:You do see Wayne whisper to the fighter. Then the fighter looks at Bruce confused, gets pushed out to the fight and beats his opponent, and then nods at Bruce to thank him. Huh, yeah, I was remembering some details incorrectly. But describing that actor's performance as "surprised" is way over-selling it. He's exhausted and bloodied more than anything. There's no shot where he's, like, "Oh my God, how did I do that?" Because why would he? The point is that he has a private exchange with Bruce, and suddenly he's beating the tar out of the guy, where as previously we were just introduced to him being hit, throwing absolutely no blows of his own at all. That this montage is orchestrated not around the fighter's subjective - his losing a "fair fight" and only winning because of a pointer whispered to him by a stranger - but around Wayne's marking the Russian provides important context. The fight doesn't matter - what matters is that it's a hustle, and Bruce is behind the whole thing. Would the fighter have lost or given up without Bruce's pointer? Would he even be there that night? It doesn't matter, because there is no fighter without Bruce, there is no ring except outside of instrumental rationalist pursuit of the white Portuguese. Basebf555 posted:What "rigging" of the fight club would he even be doing in that scene? He just wants the fight to be over quickly in a way that will get the dude who has the information over to the bar so that he can hack his phone. That's it. Right, that's how the hustle works. The merc can't just lose a bet and then go over to the bar at some point, that's leaving too much to chance. Bruce is trying to lure him into an encounter, just long enough to collect his data. The critical shot-reverse-shot moment in that fight club scene is not between Bruce and the fighter - it's between the merc and Bruce, the latter deliberately attempting to make himself aware to the former so that when they both hit the bar, there'll be wiggle room for shady noir conversation. Notice how Bruce plays up his victory in the betting pool as "luck"? Are we to understand that it was obviously not just luck that the fighter Bruce bet on won the fight, but that it was just luck that the fighter was there that night at all? Gyges posted:He marked two or three dudes, who subsequently died in prison. While there seems to be a correlation between being branded and getting killed in prison, there's nothing really pointing to Batman branding them so that they'll get killed in prison. Which is kind of a weird plan for Batman, who could just kill them there and is shown elsewhere in the film to have no real problem with killing bad guys. There is no way in Hell that Bruce Wayne didn't know that "two or three dudes" were stabbed in prison, with the media playing up a connection between their deaths and the mark. Bruce first needed to have the anger within him to brand a person - he then needed the callousness to continue this pattern of justice even after he learned its consequences within prisoner culture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
I can't believe I'm saying this, but for once, you guys are really putting too much thought into something. Batman give a punchman advice and punchman win fight because good punch advice Batman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
A rich man influences a fight for his own benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Huh, yeah, I was remembering some details incorrectly. But describing that actor's performance as "surprised" is way over-selling it. He's exhausted and bloodied more than anything. There's no shot where he's, like, "Oh my God, how did I do that?" Because why would he? The point is that he has a private exchange with Bruce, and suddenly he's beating the tar out of the guy, where as previously we were just introduced to him being hit, throwing absolutely no blows of his own at all. I usually love subtext and minutia, but man this whole post is bullshit. I agree with Halloween Jack here. It's a simple and straightforward scene and I don't believe there is a hidden backstory that Bruce Wayne setup an underground fighting event to lure the guy there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Violator posted:I usually love subtext and minutia, but man this whole post is bullshit. I agree with Halloween Jack here. It's a simple and straightforward scene and I don't believe there is a hidden backstory that Bruce Wayne setup an underground fighting event to lure the guy there. I didn't say there was a "hidden backstory that Bruce Wayne setup an underground fighting event." Wayne simply leaving it to chance that he can give the right fighter the right tip at the right time is not consistent with his utilitarian rationalism. There's more control in simply getting a good fighter and hustle some mercs. MacheteZombie posted:A rich man influences a fight for his own benefit. More importantly, a rich man communes with the 'criminal underbelly,' pantomiming that his role there is indistinguishable from any other crime boss, and thus proving that it is. Some other great little details from that scene: the way the bartender looks at Bruce's clothes after being handed the free drink card. You also have to question how public Bruce Wayne's profile is in these movies, and this is the level at which Snyder and the filmmakers are constantly mocking the pretense that his vigilantism somehow distinguishes him from either the compromised 'system' or the hive of scum and villainy with which he must frequently associate in order to collect information. How 'bad' is Bruce Wayne's credibility on the streets of Gotham? How many gangs actually admire Batman's assumption of pure 'honor culture' with branding sex offenders?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I can't believe anyone could see that scene as anything other than Bruce whispering some key advice to the guy. It seemed very clear to me both times I've seen the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I think there was an ambiguity to the main character's actions that wasn't entirely purposeful. Batman mutilating criminals might have been an attempt at showing his slipping grip on morality, yet I felt like the movie implicitly supported his actions as needed, and viewed a higher threshold for crime-fighting is an wholly good thing, as the neck and face damage Batman engages in feels like they are supposed to be cathartic and well deserved. Have you considered why both of your answers involve "ambiguity?" Your previous post indicated that Superman is written as the utterly righteous character. This contradicts your current reading of the movie implicitly supporting Batman's actions, considering what precipitates Superman to threaten Batman is precisely the death of the sex trafficker. Your belief that the movie endorsed the torture as "cathartic and well deserved" seems to be more of a reflection of your ideology. I'm really not sure why you think Superman's emotions are ambiguous in the Mexico scene.  Can we agree that he looks troubled? If so, why? Please consider that he's currently under Senate investigation for making state level interventions. K. Waste posted:Huh, yeah, I was remembering some details incorrectly. But describing that actor's performance as "surprised" is way over-selling it. He's exhausted and bloodied more than anything. There's no shot where he's, like, "Oh my God, how did I do that?" Because why would he? The point is that he has a private exchange with Bruce, and suddenly he's beating the tar out of the guy, where as previously we were just introduced to him being hit, throwing absolutely no blows of his own at all. The ultimate problem with this reading is that after Batman whispers in his ear, the fighter looks at him with utter confusion. Which makes no sense if it's supposed to be an elaborate hustle, rather than confusion from receiving fighting advice from some random well dressed white guy. 
KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Guys I really love Beavis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I didn't say there was a "hidden backstory that Bruce Wayne setup an underground fighting event." Wayne simply leaving it to chance that he can give the right fighter the right tip at the right time is not consistent with his utilitarian rationalism. There's more control in simply getting a good fighter and hustle some mercs. He went to the fights knowing that this guy would be there and that he'd figure out a way to get the data. That's it. If he hadn't observed a way to get the guy to the bar he would have found another way, like probably beating the poo poo out of him. Bruce isn't coming up with super complex conspiracies, he's actually kind of improvising, and not even just in that scene. Was it part of one of his master plans to almost get caught at LexCorp?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Batman knows where everyone is, at all times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
I love the look Superman has when he talks to Lex in the ship. It's a mix between pity and disgust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:He went to the fights knowing that this guy would be there and that he'd figure out a way to get the data. That's it. If he hadn't observed a way to get the guy to the bar he would have found another way, like probably beating the poo poo out of him. Bruce isn't coming up with super complex conspiracies, he's actually kind of improvising, and not even just in that scene. Was it part of one of his master plans to almost get caught at LexCorp? You know, is entirely possible Bruce only helped that fighter to be a dick and made KGBeast lose a couple of grands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:He went to the fights knowing that this guy would be there and that he'd figure out a way to get the data. That's it. If he hadn't observed a way to get the guy to the bar he would have found another way, like probably beating the poo poo out of him. Bruce isn't coming up with super complex conspiracies, he's actually kind of improvising, and not even just in that scene. Was it part of one of his master plans to almost get caught at LexCorp? KVeezy3 posted:The ultimate problem with this reading is that after Batman whispers in his ear, the fighter looks at him with utter confusion. Which makes no sense if it's supposed to be an elaborate hustle, rather than confusion from receiving fighting advice from some random well dressed white guy. I guess you guys are right, I was reading past the guy's pretty obvious reaction to the first instruction. To wit - can we just say, the bit parts in Beavis absolutely loving kill it. That guy has a whole story in just his expressions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
What are these rumors I'm hearing about Huge Jackedman, Ryan Reynolds, and Pierce Brosnan being all buddy buddy? Are we getting James Cable Bond?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Can't imagine Pierce as Cable but I'd be happy with Wolverine in Deadpool as a joke cameo
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Scyantific posted:What are these rumors I'm hearing about Huge Jackedman, Ryan Reynolds, and Pierce Brosnan being all buddy buddy? Are we getting James Cable Bond? They took a fun, perhaps cryptic picture together, so start your wildest casting speculation and slash fiction now!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Hugh Jackman will not play Wolverine again, but he will play Cable instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Haha yes, a lack of immorality makes me stronger, because....
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Haha yes, a lack of immorality makes me stronger, because.... also i barely use this weapon so i must be good with it somehow?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Haha yes, a lack of immorality makes me stronger, because.... If he had a proper healing factor then how would he get a sweet metal arm from his techno virus?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Haha yes, a lack of immorality makes me stronger, because.... A strong moral core is important in a dystopia ruled by Apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Can't imagine Pierce as Cable but I'd be happy with Wolverine in Deadpool as a joke cameo Hugh Jackman is going to put Pierce Brosnan on the HGH diet and he gonna get yoked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
I just don't buy Pierce Brosnan as James Marsden's son.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
[quote="Detective No. 27" post="468469606"] I just don't buy Pierce Brosnan as James Marsden's son. [/ Stephen Lang is a good serious pick but Dolph Lundgren may be fun to bounce off of Reynolds. So would Liam Neeson
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Also what is the chance next Deadpool is used to launch X Force?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Also what is the chance next Deadpool is used to launch X Force? Launch them, like start a movie series, or launch them, like into the sun?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:"im not a criminal! im not a criminal!!", i continue to insist as i slowly shrink and transform into the Batman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Gatts posted:[quote="Detective No. 27" post="468469606"] I thought people were taking Dolph seriously these days, or at least more seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:I thought people were taking Dolph seriously these days, or at least more seriously.  You would be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:
Harsh. I thought he had a pretty good turn on Arrow recently, that's too bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Harsh. I thought he had a pretty good turn on Arrow recently, that's too bad. He was on Arrow? drat, I am behind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:He was on Arrow? drat, I am behind. He's been really loving busy these last few years, it looks like The Expendables really kickstarted his career all over again. But he's mostly been doing poo poo like Kindergarten Cop 2 and these:   "Bachelor Party"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Lundgren seems like a pretty self-aware guy so I imagine he realizes that his acting career is ridiculous and that there's no shame in milking it for all its worth. Its not like he's got a shortage of ways to make money, he's very well educated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
He was very good in Universal Soldier: Regeneration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
I saw Lundgren in a post apocalyptic movie where he was a soldierguy and near the end, the city is blowing up and he fights robots or something It wasn't even B-level movie, it was at best C-level
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Lundgren seems like a pretty self-aware guy so I imagine he realizes that his acting career is ridiculous and that there's no shame in milking it for all its worth. Its not like he's got a shortage of ways to make money, he's very well educated. I watched one of them and it seemed like it was a good excuse for him to get a free trip to Moscow and ride his Harley all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Lobok posted:Launch them, like start a movie series, or launch them, like into the sun? Since Fassbender and Lawrence have made it clear they have no interest in doing more X-Men movies unless they're paid all the money in the world and then some, and Singer's done with the series, but McAvoy will do pretty much anything for a paycheck, there have been rumors that the next X-movie that Kinberg is working on will be used to start a new X-Force series that gets set up in Deadpool 2. This was further fueled by the Deadpool writers talking about having "obligations" to X-Force as they work on Deadpool 2. Timby fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:46
|
|
