Page 1 of 2
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:25 pm
by GORDON
Ok, so you got the microwave-emittin' device that can literally instantly vaporize all water 50+ feet away....
yet it's perfectly harmless to the human bags of water standing right next to it?
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:22 pm
by thibodeaux
Engineering staff at work went to see it this afternoon. That was the #1 comment everybody had after the movie.
And at least 3 people said "Parts: the Clonus Horror!" after the trailer for The Island.
There was another trailer for some self-aware futuristic fighter jet movie. The only reason the trailer gave to see the movie is that Jessica Biel looks SMOKING.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:15 pm
by Vince
Ok, so you got the microwave-emittin' device that can literally instantly vaporize all water 50+ feet away....
yet it's perfectly harmless to the human bags of water standing right next to it?
I noticed no one stood in front of it. 
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:20 pm
by GORDON
Ok, so you got the microwave-emittin' device that can literally instantly vaporize all water 50+ feet away....
yet it's perfectly harmless to the human bags of water standing right next to it?
I noticed no one stood
in front of it.
Yeah but it wasn't pointed at the floor of the train, and the water below it was vaporizing.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:52 pm
by Vince
Yeah, I kinda noticed that part of it too =)
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:53 pm
by GORDON
I was also glad about...
in the TV commercials it showed Scarecrow with live bugs crawling all over his mask, and it showed a horse breathing fire. It had me thinking the movie jumped the shark before it even started, because if they tried to portray either of those things as serious, it would have everyone saying "BULLSHIT.".
I'm glad to see it was the hallucinations peeps were having.
Those hallucinations really set Batman up to be feared by almost everyone, huh.
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:54 pm
by GORDON
And oh yeah... why do peeps need to be in the prone position to use the Batmobile's weapons?
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:21 am
by TheCatt
That water-human thing annoyed me.
But overall, much better than the other ones.
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:23 pm
by GORDON
So are they going to start the batman franchise all over again, ignoring Keaton's work?
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:31 am
by TheCatt
Sounds like it.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:58 pm
by Malcolm
So are they going to start the batman franchise all over again, ignoring Keaton's work?
Good part is that if they give Keaton's the ol' '86, they can also give it to Clooney's.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:11 pm
by GORDON
Real-world legal remifications for Bruce Wayne.,..
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/002462.html
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:47 pm
by Vince
So are they going to start the batman franchise all over again, ignoring Keaton's work?
Yes. Good call, in my opinion.
The biggest problem with the 90's run was that there was too little about Batman. It was never about Batman, so people never really cared too much that the franchise was heading further down the shitter with each movie.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:56 pm
by GORDON
I picked up Keaton's first Batman recently, and watched it last night.
It was a little.... goofier than I remembered. Keaton walking around flapping his cape/wings for no reason, for example.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:16 pm
by Leisher
I liked it.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:30 pm
by GORDON
Bought the DVD a while ago... and the more I think about it, the more I detest the Katie Holmes bullshit, in that movie.
Someone said "Yeah but you gotta get women in the theatres." I don't care. It fucks up the purity and art of a movie. I watched "The Thing" (Carpenter's) last night... not a single damned woman in the cast, much less a love interest. And it is an incredible, classic horror flick. A remake w/a love interest (and you know it's coming eventually, chock full of cgi goodness) would equate to a shit movie. Because some movies aren't intended to be about a love interest.
"Fargo." There was a good flick with a woman that didn't get fucked up with a love story. Hell, she didn't even have the baby at the end... unique in and of itself.
And "Alien" and the first sequel, too. Classics.
Edited By GORDON on 1130783505
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:10 pm
by Mommy Dearest
Somehow "purity""art" and Batman don't seem to belong in the same thread
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:14 pm
by GORDON
Heh, but even a pig can have purity, as long as it's being a pig. It's when you put perfume on the pig that the message gets all screwed up.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:26 pm
by Paul
I saw it over the weekend.
Best Batman movie evar.
However... yeah, that microwave thing bugged me as well. People should have been boiling. Water is water. They should have said that the device causes <some other chemical> to explode. Then when they put that with the drug into the water supply.
The "I need to get horizontal for the Batmobile to shoot it's load" weaponry is lame.
What bugged me second-most (water being #1) was that the people of Gotham turned into flesh eating zombies instead of being afraid of everything. A few people where scared, but for the most part they all teamed up with each other to get Batman.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:31 pm
by Leisher
Gordo does make a good point though and one I've been preaching for a while.
Hollywood keeps getting blasted for cookie cutter garbage and not making movies people want to see. The proof is in the dropping ticket sales.
If they would just stop trying to make every movie for every possible audience then they'd start making classics again.
Look at the Harry Potter films. They appeal to nobody outside of those who read the books, yet they're doing great.
Now imagine if they made an X-Men film like it really could be done.
Make your movies for the audience that will buy the ticket and they'll see it again and again and buy the DVD.
Make it for "everyone" and nobody will be thrilled with it and nobody will rush out to buy the DVD or see it again. Not to mention, how stupid is it to think that anyone wants to go see a movie just because one token character happens to be the same skin color as them.