MovieChat Forums > Ace_Spade

Ace_Spade (5227)


Do people have a favourite episode? Best Alice in Wonderland Just re-watched it... Sympathy for the First Team Use of music Flashy text, black background Hey, Root Beer Fans: Strago's Magic Longer Sounds Cool View all posts >


Pam Grier would be Galadriel, surely. Somebody should create "Controversy Court" or something, some streaming service specifically for edgy persons. Greenlight a new Kevin Spacey series, establish a contract with Woody Allen, and fire up all the latest comedy specials from Louis C.K. Whatever happens I do hope they sort it, though, because I'd really like to see it. I don't think that it was a brilliant idea to have Joker responsible, or necessarily the only way to present the story on screen, I just think it was useful to the storytelling for that particular movie. Sam Hamm wasn't necessarily wrong. He also protested Vicki being let into the Cave. I think Hamm was a great writer for the movie partly because he was obviously a lover of the Batman comics. Ironically, Burton might have been a great director for the project because he didn't know them as well or hold them as precious, so he could fiddle with it and make it work for the version he was presenting. My favourite Batman comics artist is Kelley Jones. His style is so vivid and imaginative. It's also hyper-stylized and takes huge risks pushing the character designs the way he does. He could have slavishly stuck to the other Batman artists who did more standard comic art, but he didn't, and I think he did something great. Burton was the same way. The unwritten rule is written in the comics a few times. I'm not sure when it first showed up, but I bet it was early on. Somewhere around Batman #1 when he was transitioning out of Det-Com, Bats' editors were thinking, "This is for kids," and they ordered up a young sidekick for children to relate to, and I'm guessing shortly thereafter (if not concurrently) they pulled back on the violence and murder. I do think that the character having lines like "I don't kill" does help us understand how Bruce justifies his vigilantism and differentiates himself from the criminals he fights. He has lines he won't cross on principle because he has to tell himself that narrative to keep his crusade justified. That said, I'm not against having a Batman who will cross that line, or bend some of his rules. It is super-weird that TMC basically just scours the internet for articles, quotes, and lists, and then posts sub-quotations from those articles (plus links). 10, 8, 6, 4, 2 - Yes, agreed. 1, 7 - Adaptations change things from one medium to another. Movies tell more succinct stories than decades of comic books, so it's satisfying having this version of the mythos wrap up the Waynes' killer storyline because it doesn't have an extra hour and a half for Bats to track down Joe Chill. You also need new characters to fit new stories. 9 - Batman killed pretty casually for his first few adventures, even carrying guns. Not every version of the Dark Knight is against this. Don't all the movie Batmen kill? Keatonman stuffed bombs in guys' pants, Baleman used a train to kill Liam Ninjason, and I heard Affleckman wiped dudes out, too. I think this one's a wash. 5 - I don't remember the pace being slow or scenes being overly superfluous. 3 - Fair. It's better when movie characters are active and contribute directly to the story in a more meaningful way. I'll give you this: Vicki was not used particularly well. Such a beautiful song. Plus, the semi-comic audacity of Nick Cave's brilliant writing on display from line one. Who else can start a romance song with, "I don't believe in an interventionist God"? Yeah. You're right. It was a long time ago, though, certainly. Maybe that's just cynicism increasing as I get older? Maybe it's experience, I've seen a bunch of really awful adaptations, so I'm wary now. Could be external, too. More and more adaptations are being used to alter existing properties to preach sermons and make political points, undermining the source material for a propaganda film. Or, maybe it's the internet. An abundance of critical voices clamouring together has dialed up the trepidation and pickthankery of the nations. Do you have a theory? They might hand it back mid-film or they might give it back at the end. Or they'll kill him. There's a slim chance they'll want her to keep it and try to make it more the "007" series than the "James Bond" series and allow her character to move forward. Personally, unless her character is amazing in the film, I think that would be a mistake. Who knows, though? She might be an amazing character worthy of a spinoff. But if they killed off Bond or passed off the 007 mantel to her, I think I'd avoid the film on the principle of the thing; just send a message to the studio that I have no time for ersatz Bond. I think it's being done as a publicity stunt, honestly, so they can print up "Female 007!" headlines (which they have done) and goad people into talking about the film and I kinda resent that, too. Or it's a virtue signal. Or who knows? At this point, such a big deal has been made of Lynch's character, the only thing that would really surprise me at this point would be if they killed her off in the pre-title sequence. Which, frankly, if they did that, I'd take my cap off for the hype psyche. Gladiator for me. View all replies >