You've never seen any Martin Scorsese movies, ever. Not Taxi Driver, Goodfellas (confession, I've actually never seen this one) The Departed, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, not even Hugo?
Joker Origin Story Announced
- Thread starter Starbreaker
- Start date
People keep citing Scorsese in this thread but he’s only a producer. Todd Philips of the Hangover is directing it and co-writing it with Scott Silver, whose credits include the good (The Figher, 8 Mile) and the not-so-good (The Mod Squad). I hope this is a good film but I wouldn’t go expecting another Goodfellas or The Departed here.
Nope. They might be great movies, but they don't interest me personally. 90% of the movies I watch are Sci Fi/fantasy, and of the ones that aren't none of the things Scorsese makes are movies I'd ever watch.
God forbid someone doesn't feel like watching every critically acclaimed movie in existence
God forbid someone doesn't feel like watching every critically acclaimed movie in existence
Or any of them for that matter...
Yeah, because I've watched no critically acclaimed movies. I must have been hallucinating when I thought watched stuff like The Godfather, Shining, etc.
Come on, don't be so hard on Kirk. There are way too many good movies out there, even I haven't seen all the ones a movie fan's supposed to have seen. Besides, he doesn't have the time to watch all those movies, he needs it to go online and complain about the ones he has seen.
I wasn't actually sarcastic this time. Nobody has any obligation to anybody to see anything.
Because Scorsese is considered one of the greatest directors of all time, and I would figure anybody with even the slightest interest in film would have at least seen one of his movies. Obviously I wouldn't automatically expect someone to have seen all of his movies, but Kirk seems to be a pretty big movie goer, so I would have expected him to have seen at least Taxi Driver or Goodfellas or one of Scorsese's other big classics.
And on a side note this reminds me, I really do need to watch Raging Bull and Goodfellas sometime.
But the goal WAS to unite all the various comics lines and "universes" that had crossed and connected over the decades, including comic lines purchased from other companies (like Carleton), into a singular continuity. That's why, after the Crisis was over, DC published a 2-issue series called The History of the DC Universe, to set down how all of the historic characters and events fit together, and what the canonical origins of many of the major characters now were.
Did that mean that all of DC's output then fell into that singular universe? That no alternate takes on characters were allowed? No, of course not. There had always been, and would continue to be, DC titles that weren't tied into the greater DC universe -- funny animal/people books (Captain Carrot, 'Mazing Man, Hembeck Destroys the DC Universe), external crossovers (X-Men/Teen Titans), Elseworlds, some of the Vertigo titles, and yes, Watchmen and The Dark Knight, as you mentioned. Even when some of those titles had appearances by mainstream DC heroes, they generally weren't considered to be in continuity with the greater mainstream DC universe.
But DC leadership very definitely wanted all their mainstream titles firmly located in the same universe, with the multiverse banished -- no more Earth 1, Earth 2, Earth C, etc. That was explicitly stated.
Yes. I thought that I had already established as much, though in less detail, as I didn't feel it was needed for the sake of this discussion. Or do you think DC Comics had no trust in their shared universe, and the evidence is that they also produced comics outside of that universe?
I'm a fan of certain kinds of movies, but I'm fairly picky when watching movies that aren't specific genres. If its a mainstream superhero movie, I pretty much automatically watch it. I'm also predisposed to watch Sci Fi and fantasy/ movies, and I enjoy a good dumb action movie. Also stuff like Indiana Jones which I guess would be an adventure movie with fantasy elements. But outside of that I'm very picky about what I watch.
Fair enough. But that does kinda sound like something a kid or a teenager would say. I was probably a bit like that then. But if you're neither of those things (I've no idea) maybe try expand your horizons a bit. I'll just throw in Wolf of Wall Street as no ones said it, one of the funniest films I've seen in years
I think I've only actually seen two of his films (Departed and Cape Fear?). Some of his others, I do want to check out at some point, but it's getting round to it. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure we also have disk versions of his George Harrison, Peter Gabriel and The Last Waltz in the house
Some people give WB waaaay too much credit.
They have zero faith in the audience, otherwise Amanda Waller would still be running things on Arrow, Death Stroke would have a larger arc this season (huge loss to the show) and the Suicide Squad wouldn't have disbanded.
WB has no idea what they're doing and movies set outside the DCU is another reactionary experiement they hope will work and bring in the money, not because of faith in their audience, but because of lack of faith in how they're marketing their products of late.
I don't feel the need to "expand my horizons" when it comes to films. Its all entertainment, and I'm only going to watch movies that interest/entertain me. I'm not going to watch critically famous movies that bore me to tears just to say I've watched them. Some times I'll watch a movie that is outside my general tastes, but that's usually when I have the odd whim to watch something different, I don't plan stuff like that and I can't force myself to do it. I have to be in the right mood.
He's done some great stuff, there's a reason he's considered one of the greatest directors ever. Taxi Driver is dark as hell, but it is a great movie. If you're into historical stuff Gangs of New York is good.