The Dark Knight Rises Anticipation Station

[Admiral James Kirk]

[Aragorn]

Has this been posted in here yet? If not, y'all might appreciate it:

Batman: The Animated Series Rises

[RoJoHen]

That is amazing, and I need it to be real.

[Samurai8472]

It's amazing they could bring back Kevin Conroy and Adrienne Barbeau and Efrem zimbalist jr

[Brikar99]

Aragorn wrote:

---

Has this been posted in here yet? If not, y'all might appreciate it:

Batman: The Animated Series Rises

Very awesome.

[Yminale]

I don't know about critics being corrupt but I am tired of their "I'm better than you because I flunked out of film school" shtick. Their so called "criticism" is just meaningless and usually a sign of them trying to live their vicariously through their reviews or worse putting down a film because it was successful/popular. Some one should tell these morons that no one wants to make another "Bonnie and Clyde", "Easy Rider" or "Chinatown" and no one wants to watch them.

"The Dark Knight Rises" doesn't need to be reviewed. Chris Nolan has a record of excellence and I don't mind spending $12 on the movie.

[M-Red]

OK, I'm very excited now. Can't wait to see it.


If it's as awesome as I'm hoping, it's time to start talking about Greatest Trilogies lists. Just watched BB and planning to watch TDK tomorrow. Fantastic Batman stories, great movies.


And if it is that awesome, hopefully Batman will take a break for a little while and give us all some time to soak up this interpretation before starting a new film series. Don't want a re-boot too soon with Batman.


Trek and Superman are up to bat.

[Brikar99]

Yminale wrote:

---

I don't know about critics being corrupt but I am tired of their "I'm better than you because I flunked out of film school" shtick. Their so called "criticism" is just meaningless and usually a sign of them trying to live their vicariously through their reviews or worse putting down a film because it was successful/popular. Some one should tell these morons that no one wants to make another "Bonnie and Clyde", "Easy Rider" or "Chinatown" and no one wants to watch them.

"The Dark Knight Rises" doesn't need to be reviewed. Chris Nolan has a record of excellence and I don't mind spending $12 on the movie.

And they all have small penises, I bet!

[Warped9]

This is nuts. After all is said and done it's all just a matter of opinion. I've certainly disliked films critics loved and liked films critics panned. Who cares???

[Aragorn]

Warped9 wrote:

---

This is nuts. After all is said and done it's all just a matter of opinion. I've certainly disliked films critics loved and liked films critics panned. Who cares???

The psychopaths on Rotten Tomatoes who threaten critics?

The tin foil hat wearers on TrekBBS?

There was someone who used to post here whose name I forgot, but he said Roger Ebert was a tool for not liking what he liked. The movie in question? Stealth!

[JacksonArcher]

[sonak]

Yminale wrote:

---

I don't know about critics being corrupt but I am tired of their "I'm better than you because I flunked out of film school" shtick. Their so called "criticism" is just meaningless and usually a sign of them trying to live their vicariously through their reviews or worse putting down a film because it was successful/popular. Some one should tell these morons that no one wants to make another "Bonnie and Clyde", "Easy Rider" or "Chinatown" and no one wants to watch them.

"The Dark Knight Rises" doesn't need to be reviewed. Chris Nolan has a record of excellence and I don't mind spending $12 on the movie.

Er, both "Chinatown" and "Bonnie and Clyde" are amazing movies and I love to watch them both. "Easy Rider" not so much, too much a product of its time, dated, and mostly plotless.

And I love Christopher Nolan movies, the Batman ones and the other ones. I don't know what this makes me.

[Harvey]

stj wrote:

---

You should ask yourself how you could get so irate that you deluded yourself into thinking that pointing out that reviewers weren't taking dictation was somehow a rebuttal.

That's a caricature of my argument that you've repeated twice now, not the one I've been making. You claimed that the movie reviewing system was "amazingly corrupted." For this to be true, you would expect the Hollywood studios to be able to exert enough influence to be able to get good reviews for bad movies. By and large, however, they can't even get mixed reviews for those movies, which is why studios regularly release bad movies without screening them to critics. I'm sorry I even brought up the manufactured film critic, which you've fixated on as a way of eliding this point.

This debate began when you claimed that movie reviewers were required by the studios to omit certain items in their reviews. This surprised me, and I asked for evidence of its veracity. So far, you've provided none. It still interests me, however, and I'd be happy to read about it if you can direct my attention to the appropriate place.

The rest of your post seems to be under the impression that I have ambitions to be a part of the film industry (I once did, but haven't for several years), as well as arguing over semantics. Scratch reaction for observation if you'd like. My point is no different.

Lastly, I've done my best to keep this conversation respectful. However, this is difficult when you see fit to call me "irate" and "deluded." I might very well be the latter, but I draw exception to the former.

sonak wrote:

---

Er, both "Chinatown" and "Bonnie and Clyde" are amazing movies and I love to watch them both. "Easy Rider" not so much, too much a product of its time, dated, and mostly plotless.

Easy Rider is mostly plotless, but I can't help but enjoy it. It has a rocking soundtrack, and a great supporting turn from Jack Nicholson. Bonnie and Clyde, as influential as it is, has always bored me. I should probably view it again at some point.

[sonak]

Harvey wrote:

---

That's a caricature of my argument that you've repeated twice now, not the one I've been making. You claimed that the movie reviewing system was "amazingly corrupted." For this to be true, you would expect the Hollywood studios to be able to exert enough influence to be able to get good reviews for bad movies. By and large, however, they can't even get mixed reviews for those movies, which is why studios regularly release bad movies without screening them to critics. I'm sorry I even brought up the manufactured film critic, which you've fixated on as a way of eliding this point.

This debate began when you claimed that movie reviewers were required by the studios to omit certain items in their reviews. This surprised me, and I asked for evidence of its veracity. So far, you've provided none. It still interests me, however, and I'd be happy to read about it if you can direct my attention to the appropriate place.

The rest of your post seems to be under the impression that I have ambitions to be a part of the film industry (I once did, but haven't for several years), as well as arguing over semantics. Scratch reaction for observation if you'd like. My point is no different.

Lastly, I've done my best to keep this conversation respectful. However, this is difficult when you see fit to call me "irate" and "deluded." I might very well be the latter, but I draw exception to the former.

Easy Rider is mostly plotless, but I can't help but enjoy it. It has a rocking soundtrack, and a great supporting turn from Jack Nicholson. Bonnie and Clyde, as influential as it is, has always bored me. I should probably view it again at some point.

what are your thoughts on Chinatown?

[Harvey]

Love it. Polanski, Towne, and Nicholson at their best. Goldsmith's score is perfect; the cinematography is excellent (it's no surprise that the best lensed Star Trek movie was shot by the same DP). I've never mustered up the courage to see The Two Jakes, though.