Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:35 pm
by GORDON
Just once I'd like to see a movie... simplify, instead of expand... in a sequel.
Alien3 tried it; they tried to remake 1 instead of the Marine-fest that was 2; but got all stupid in the anti-gun stance.
For example:
X-Men... sets the stage.
X-Men 2... shakes things up.
Alternate Reality X-Men 3... Magneto's childhood, and Logan's back story, and somehow they are subtly linked, or something. Instead of having the GOlden Gate bridge flying through the air in lieu of a good story, have a good, small story in lieu of the Golden Gate Bridge flying through the air.
+++
There is no need for each movie to get bigger with 33% more villains and an 86% bigger cgi budget. That isn't what makes a good movie.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:09 pm
by Vince
I'll reserve judgement until I see it. They had two villains in the first one. If they stick to that formula, I don't see a problem.
The Batpod thing doesn't bother me, either. Lots of cool tech stuff in the first one (bat mobile, the cape, the metal fin thingies on his gloves). Gadgets are a staple of the batman stories, really.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:13 pm
by GORDON
I dont really mind any of it, either. I am just saying it is a bad sign if they decide to go gadgetcentric instead of having a character driven story.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:12 am
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:Although, I will say this: I honestly think they stuff movies with tons of characters because they simply have no idea how to write a character for more than a few minutes. Character development is a concept completely foreign to Hollywood writers.
I'm grudgingly admitting that's probably true. After all the raping of more than a few of my pleasant memories via remakes & unnecessary sequels, it is becoming clearer and clearer than Hollywood is a factory that just produces the same shit product. Even now & then, they paste on some different decals, but it's the same thing. Innovation is punished harshly.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:57 pm
by Vince
GORDON wrote:I dont really mind any of it, either. I am just saying it is a bad sign if they decide to go gadgetcentric instead of having a character driven story.
I'll go with that. I think they did a good job with the first one with all those things in the mix.
We'll hope. All of us except Malcolm I mean.
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:53 am
by WSGrundy
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:16 pm
by Leisher
So we know Scarecrow will be making an appearance, the film is about the Joker, and Harvey Dent is two face (after an ccident, which may or may not happen here). Are any other villains scheduled to show up?
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:32 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:Are any other villains scheduled to show up?
Fuck, I hope not. They've got enough.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:01 pm
by Leisher
I was thinking the same Malcolm.
Hollywood could run any superhero franchise indefinitely and people would show up to see them. There's no need to cast every freaking villain in any given sequel.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:08 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:Hollywood could run any superhero franchise indefinitely and people would show up to see them.
To an extent. Even the public has a limit to how much they're willing to see their favourite superhero raped. But there is no reason why there couldn't be a flick per story arc or graphic novel.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:21 pm
by Leisher
But there is no reason why there couldn't be a flick per story arc or graphic novel.
And that is what I'm implying.
As for the "raped" thing, it'd be easy fixed: Just have Hollywood stop being so fucking arrogant that they can "fix" an establish property and make it "better". In other words, you're right, eventually, they'd get sick of seeing their characters get raped.
For example: As much as I enjoyed the X movies, anyone who has ever read their comics would know the movies were garbage compared to the comics.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:24 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:As for the "raped" thing, it'd be easy fixed: Just have Hollywood stop being so fucking arrogant that they can "fix" an establish property and make it "better".
Will never happen. Ev4r. P3r1od.
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:05 pm
by Paul
These pictures have shot my expectations even lower.
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:25 pm
by GORDON
Wow, that stuff looks dumb without the mood lighting.
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:46 pm
by GORDON
Ledger, the guy who had buttsex in that gay cowboy movie, talks about the joker.... but really I posted this because there's finally an interesting pic to see.
http://www.mania.com/56025.html
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:15 am
by Malcolm
If his performance can catch even 10% of what Jack did, it'll be above my expectations.
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:35 pm
by WSGrundy
I think the new movie poster is very cool.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:24 pm
by WSGrundy
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:47 pm
by Malcolm
He looks like a stock broker or IT specialist w\ Down's Syndrome.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:54 pm
by WSGrundy
So far the only thing I don't like is the Batbike. Beyond that everything else is cool so far.
