The Dark Knight Rises

Off Topic
381

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Reygekan wrote:
I think it’s pretty racist how neither DC Comics or Marvel has yet to make a movie about a nazi superhero. I mean I’m not some comic geek and I don’t know of all the nazi superheros out there are but c’mon even if the material isn’t there why not make Batman nazi - I’m thinking between Hitler and Feder. And at the very least why can’t they even put one nazi villain into a superhero flick. Is it so hard to imagine a nazi dude that wants to take over the world? Are like jews people the only ones who have the motivation to cause massive cataclysmic destruction?[/quote]

Nice effort, but Captain America will showcase Nazi villains. [/quote]
I know, when I got there I went “wait… shit.” I considered changing up the word in switch in so that it was jews taking over the world instead, but I wanted to stay true to the source material.

382

The 90s we much more friendly to black actors in my opinion compared to now, both in TV and movies. Back in the 90s you had Tv sitcoms like The Fresh Prince, The Crosby Show, etc now you don’t see any of that. The only black actor on TV is LL Cool J…are you serious? Instead they give us Charlie Sheen trying to act like he’s 20 and the “doctors” from the 50 TV dramas about the medical profession. Then you move over to movies and it’s still the duo of Will and Denzel holding the fort for black actors - like it’s been since the 90’s. Where the fuck is the young black talent in Hollywood? I assume (saying with effect) that they’re out there but they’re not getting the opportunities. It’s not that Hollywood is racist, more like it’s that the writers aren’t thinking about them when they’re designing their characters.

Whatever though just something to think about.

Anyway - back to topic - I was watching the 1989 Tim Burton Batman starring Michael Keaton as Batman. Surprisingly I found it very nicely made and very entertaining. The acting was great and the film had what I think the Nolan films are lacking; sex appeal.

I don’t know about you but Kim Basinger was HOTTTT back then, it’s almost criminal to compare her to Katie Holmes or Maggie Gyllenhaal. I understand Nolan’s films are supposedly “deeper” but there’s absolutely no harm in making the leading lady actually attractive. And Anne Hathaway? Can act but lacking the T&A?

383

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Where the fuck is the young black talent in Hollywood?
[/quote]

They’re getting killed first in horrible slasher movies…

384

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Where the fuck is the young black talent in Hollywood?
[/quote]

They’re getting killed first in horrible slasher movies…[/quote]

Don’t all black actors have to do four Tyler Perry movies before they can branch out?

385

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Well, Blade is still considered successful…but the reality is, Marvel didn’t even put their logo on the first movie at all because they expected it to fail. Blade gained more success as a cult following after the first movie was in theaters. That is why Blade is the ONLY Marvel movie made without the “flipping comic book and logo” intro of every other Marvel hero movie. [/quote]

IMO, Blade is the best comic movie made to date. I’m not sure what it is about it, but I don’t get the “itch” to watch other comic book movies over and over like I have with that one. 2 and 3 I can take or leave, but the original is just bad ass.

[/quote]

“Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill…”

^^^^^Loved that line. Yes the original was great (even with Stephen Dorff; didn’t know that was possible) and the sequels were entertaining yet shitty. I’ve probably watched the original 30 times, and never rewatched the sequels once.

386

[quote]JLD2k3 wrote:

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Where the fuck is the young black talent in Hollywood?
[/quote]

They’re getting killed first in horrible slasher movies…[/quote]

Don’t all black actors have to do four Tyler Perry movies before they can branch out?[/quote]

lololol

387

[quote]JLD2k3 wrote:

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Where the fuck is the young black talent in Hollywood?
[/quote]

They’re getting killed first in horrible slasher movies…[/quote]

Don’t all black actors have to do four Tyler Perry movies before they can branch out?[/quote]

It’s common for white people to not understand those movies/television shows right?

388

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
The 90s we much more friendly to black actors in my opinion compared to now, both in TV and movies. Back in the 90s you had Tv sitcoms like The Fresh Prince, The Crosby Show, etc now you don’t see any of that. The only black actor on TV is LL Cool J…are you serious? Instead they give us Charlie Sheen trying to act like he’s 20 and the “doctors” from the 50 TV dramas about the medical profession. Then you move over to movies and it’s still the duo of Will and Denzel holding the fort for black actors - like it’s been since the 90’s. Where the fuck is the young black talent in Hollywood? I assume (saying with effect) that they’re out there but they’re not getting the opportunities. It’s not that Hollywood is racist, more like it’s that the writers aren’t thinking about them when they’re designing their characters.

Whatever though just something to think about.

Anyway - back to topic - I was watching the 1989 Tim Burton Batman starring Michael Keaton as Batman. Surprisingly I found it very nicely made and very entertaining. The acting was great and the film had what I think the Nolan films are lacking; sex appeal.

I don’t know about you but Kim Basinger was HOTTTT back then, it’s almost criminal to compare her to Katie Holmes or Maggie Gyllenhaal. I understand Nolan’s films are supposedly “deeper” but there’s absolutely no harm in making the leading lady actually attractive. And Anne Hathaway? Can act but lacking the T&A?[/quote]

Maggie G. was ideal casting in the sense that it was totally understandable from the audience’s POV that The Joker would throw her out of a window and then try to blow her up…not so with Kim Basinger.

I agree though, that Bruce Wayne’s public appearances could’ve been more outrageous, more consistent with a trust fund child’s behaviour and punctuated with a hottie or five. The scene in BB where he ends up in the fountain with the two pieces of arm candy and buys the restaurant to avoid getting thrown out is just the perfect cover for an ultra-grim crimefighter.

You see this kind of behaviour again in 'Begins when Wayne is pretends to be an obnoxious, spoiled drunk to save his guests from being killed by Ra’s - they blame him for being an ungrateful brat, oblivious to the fact that he sacrifices his reputation to save them (it foreshadows his sacrifice as Batman by taking the blame for Dent’s crimes in TDK).

It’s one of the things Green Hornet got right:

Seth Rogen wasn’t miscast as most people believe. The movie was driven by the idea that a spoiled, silver spoon-fed brat woke at the crack of noon (with the help of a good cup of coffee) and decided to use his newly inherited fortune and somebody else’s talents (Kato) to make something of himself and not seek credit for it.

He did it because he wanted to and he could.

It wasn’t a classic adaptation nor was it meant to be one. It was a satire. Most people born into money within the last three decades wouldn’t have the inclination to fight crime. If they did, they would definitely seek credit for fighting it.

Gondry and Rogen basically took Britt Reid, and updated him to the point that he became a modern trust fund child with superheroic aspirations. Just imagine Paris Hilton as Wonder Woman…

A modern Bruce Wayne, taking into account everything that happens in the Batman movies to date, would play it closer to Rogen’s take on Britt Reid, if only to divert attention away from who he actually is. Sleeping all day because you’ve been fighting crime all night? Then pretend you’ve been out partying and / or are a lazy bastard with more money than sense.

389

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
The 90s we much more friendly to black actors in my opinion compared to now, both in TV and movies. Back in the 90s you had Tv sitcoms like The Fresh Prince, The Crosby Show, etc now you don’t see any of that. The only black actor on TV is LL Cool J…are you serious? Instead they give us Charlie Sheen trying to act like he’s 20 and the “doctors” from the 50 TV dramas about the medical profession. Then you move over to movies and it’s still the duo of Will and Denzel holding the fort for black actors - like it’s been since the 90’s. Where the fuck is the young black talent in Hollywood? I assume (saying with effect) that they’re out there but they’re not getting the opportunities. It’s not that Hollywood is racist, more like it’s that the writers aren’t thinking about them when they’re designing their characters.

Whatever though just something to think about.

Anyway - back to topic - I was watching the 1989 Tim Burton Batman starring Michael Keaton as Batman. Surprisingly I found it very nicely made and very entertaining. The acting was great and the film had what I think the Nolan films are lacking; sex appeal.

I don’t know about you but Kim Basinger was HOTTTT back then, it’s almost criminal to compare her to Katie Holmes or Maggie Gyllenhaal. I understand Nolan’s films are supposedly “deeper” but there’s absolutely no harm in making the leading lady actually attractive. And Anne Hathaway? Can act but lacking the T&A?[/quote]

Maggie G. was ideal casting in the sense that it was totally understandable from the audience’s POV that The Joker would throw her out of a window and then try to blow her up…not so with Kim Basinger.

I agree though, that Bruce Wayne’s public appearances could’ve been more outrageous, more consistent with a trust fund child’s behaviour and punctuated with a hottie or five. The scene in BB where he ends up in the fountain with the two pieces of arm candy and buys the restaurant to avoid getting thrown out is just the perfect cover for an ultra-grim crimefighter.

You see this kind of behaviour again in 'Begins when Wayne is pretends to be an obnoxious, spoiled drunk to save his guests from being killed by Ra’s - they blame him for being an ungrateful brat, oblivious to the fact that he sacrifices his reputation to save them (it foreshadows his sacrifice as Batman by taking the blame for Dent’s crimes in TDK).

It’s one of the things Green Hornet got right:

Seth Rogen wasn’t miscast as most people believe. The movie was driven by the idea that a spoiled, silver spoon-fed brat awoke up at the crack of noon (with the help of a good cup of coffee) and decided to use his newly inherited fortune and somebody else’s talents (Kato) to make something of himself and not seek credit for it.

He did it because he wanted to and he could.

It wasn’t a classic adaptation nor was it meant to be one. It was a satire. Most people born into money within the last three decades wouldn’t have the inclination to fight crime. If they did, they would definitely seek credit for fighting it.

Gondry and Rogen basically took Britt Reid, and updated him to the point that he became a modern trust fund child with superheroic aspirations. Just imagine Paris Hilton as Wonder Woman…

A modern Bruce Wayne, taking into account everything that happens in the Batman movies to date, would play it closer to Rogen’s take on Britt Reid, if only to divert attention away from who he actually is. Sleeping all day because you’ve been fighting crime all night? Then pretend you’ve been out partying and / or are a lazy bastard with more money than sense.

[/quote]

Please watch/read Green Hornet.

390

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
The 90s we much more friendly to black actors in my opinion compared to now, both in TV and movies. Back in the 90s you had Tv sitcoms like The Fresh Prince, The Crosby Show, etc now you don’t see any of that. The only black actor on TV is LL Cool J…are you serious? Instead they give us Charlie Sheen trying to act like he’s 20 and the “doctors” from the 50 TV dramas about the medical profession. Then you move over to movies and it’s still the duo of Will and Denzel holding the fort for black actors - like it’s been since the 90’s. Where the fuck is the young black talent in Hollywood? I assume (saying with effect) that they’re out there but they’re not getting the opportunities. It’s not that Hollywood is racist, more like it’s that the writers aren’t thinking about them when they’re designing their characters.

Whatever though just something to think about.

Anyway - back to topic - I was watching the 1989 Tim Burton Batman starring Michael Keaton as Batman. Surprisingly I found it very nicely made and very entertaining. The acting was great and the film had what I think the Nolan films are lacking; sex appeal.

I don’t know about you but Kim Basinger was HOTTTT back then, it’s almost criminal to compare her to Katie Holmes or Maggie Gyllenhaal. I understand Nolan’s films are supposedly “deeper” but there’s absolutely no harm in making the leading lady actually attractive. And Anne Hathaway? Can act but lacking the T&A?[/quote]

Maggie G. was ideal casting in the sense that it was totally understandable from the audience’s POV that The Joker would throw her out of a window and then try to blow her up…not so with Kim Basinger.

I agree though, that Bruce Wayne’s public appearances could’ve been more outrageous, more consistent with a trust fund child’s behaviour and punctuated with a hottie or five. The scene in BB where he ends up in the fountain with the two pieces of arm candy and buys the restaurant to avoid getting thrown out is just the perfect cover for an ultra-grim crimefighter.

You see this kind of behaviour again in 'Begins when Wayne is pretends to be an obnoxious, spoiled drunk to save his guests from being killed by Ra’s - they blame him for being an ungrateful brat, oblivious to the fact that he sacrifices his reputation to save them (it foreshadows his sacrifice as Batman by taking the blame for Dent’s crimes in TDK).

It’s one of the things Green Hornet got right:

Seth Rogen wasn’t miscast as most people believe. The movie was driven by the idea that a spoiled, silver spoon-fed brat awoke up at the crack of noon (with the help of a good cup of coffee) and decided to use his newly inherited fortune and somebody else’s talents (Kato) to make something of himself and not seek credit for it.

He did it because he wanted to and he could.

It wasn’t a classic adaptation nor was it meant to be one. It was a satire. Most people born into money within the last three decades wouldn’t have the inclination to fight crime. If they did, they would definitely seek credit for fighting it.

Gondry and Rogen basically took Britt Reid, and updated him to the point that he became a modern trust fund child with superheroic aspirations. Just imagine Paris Hilton as Wonder Woman…

A modern Bruce Wayne, taking into account everything that happens in the Batman movies to date, would play it closer to Rogen’s take on Britt Reid, if only to divert attention away from who he actually is. Sleeping all day because you’ve been fighting crime all night? Then pretend you’ve been out partying and / or are a lazy bastard with more money than sense.

[/quote]

Please watch/read Green Hornet. [/quote]

Please, fuck you already for not reading my post. I know exactly who the Green Hornet is and I know exactly who he was. You can’t do a modern re-telling of a pulp hero like Green Hornet without reducing Kato to an oriental stereotype and you can’t do a straight period piece either, because it’s still going to come across as ‘racist’. You seem to know it all so please feel free to give your opinion as to how it should be done other than telling me to watch and read Green Hornet. I’ve done both.

391

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
Black Panther has so much potential to be one of those Dark Knight time movies, but from what I’m seeing from Marvel I have my doubts. Like the Thor movie, Kat fucking Dennings making one liners only an 11 yr old would laugh at. Fuuuuucccckkkk that is going to get annoying. These movies need serious directors only.[/quote]

What, like Kenneth Branagh isn’t a serious director? Black Panther has the best potential for a movie out of all Marvel’s heroes to date, even moreso than Blade and more than D.C’s Batman. Imagine Blood Diamond except that instead of diamonds, an isolated African nation called Wakanda has developed around a fallen meteorite made of vibranium. The metal becomes the most sought-after commodity on Earth… everybody wants it, and they think they can take it by force, except for the fact that Wakandans are bona-fide bad asses.

Kat Dennings’ character is going to make those kind of comments because Thor is going to swagger around announcing himself as a god and nobody believes that he is one. He is tied down on a hospital gurney in the trailer and Natalie Portman plays a nurse. No Donald Blake (unless Thor is going to be smuggled out of the hospital using an ID with ‘Dr. Donald Blake’ written on it), so they are going with ultimate Thor for at least part of the movie. What don’t you get?

392

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
Black Panther has so much potential to be one of those Dark Knight time movies, but from what I’m seeing from Marvel I have my doubts. Like the Thor movie, Kat fucking Dennings making one liners only an 11 yr old would laugh at. Fuuuuucccckkkk that is going to get annoying. These movies need serious directors only.[/quote]

What, like Kenneth Branagh isn’t a serious director? Black Panther has the best potential for a movie out of all Marvel’s heroes to date, even moreso than Blade and more than D.C’s Batman. Imagine Blood Diamond except that instead of diamonds, an isolated African nation called Wakanda has developed around a fallen meteorite made of vibranium. The metal becomes the most sought-after commodity on Earth… everybody wants it, and they think they can take it by force, except for the fact that Wakandans are bona-fide bad asses.

Kat Dennings’ character is going to make those kind of comments because Thor is going to swagger around announcing himself as a god and nobody believes that he is one. He is tied down on a hospital gurney in the trailer and Natalie Portman plays a nurse. No Donald Blake (unless Thor is going to be smuggled out of the hospital using an ID with ‘Dr. Donald Blake’ written on it), so they are going with ultimate Thor for at least part of the movie. What don’t you get?

[/quote]

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?

393

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
Black Panther has so much potential to be one of those Dark Knight time movies, but from what I’m seeing from Marvel I have my doubts. Like the Thor movie, Kat fucking Dennings making one liners only an 11 yr old would laugh at. Fuuuuucccckkkk that is going to get annoying. These movies need serious directors only.[/quote]

What, like Kenneth Branagh isn’t a serious director? Black Panther has the best potential for a movie out of all Marvel’s heroes to date, even moreso than Blade and more than D.C’s Batman. Imagine Blood Diamond except that instead of diamonds, an isolated African nation called Wakanda has developed around a fallen meteorite made of vibranium. The metal becomes the most sought-after commodity on Earth… everybody wants it, and they think they can take it by force, except for the fact that Wakandans are bona-fide bad asses.

Kat Dennings’ character is going to make those kind of comments because Thor is going to swagger around announcing himself as a god and nobody believes that he is one. He is tied down on a hospital gurney in the trailer and Natalie Portman plays a nurse. No Donald Blake (unless Thor is going to be smuggled out of the hospital using an ID with ‘Dr. Donald Blake’ written on it), so they are going with ultimate Thor for at least part of the movie. What don’t you get?

[/quote]

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?[/quote]

How do you know? Have you seen it?

394

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
Black Panther has so much potential to be one of those Dark Knight time movies, but from what I’m seeing from Marvel I have my doubts. Like the Thor movie, Kat fucking Dennings making one liners only an 11 yr old would laugh at. Fuuuuucccckkkk that is going to get annoying. These movies need serious directors only.[/quote]

What, like Kenneth Branagh isn’t a serious director? Black Panther has the best potential for a movie out of all Marvel’s heroes to date, even moreso than Blade and more than D.C’s Batman. Imagine Blood Diamond except that instead of diamonds, an isolated African nation called Wakanda has developed around a fallen meteorite made of vibranium. The metal becomes the most sought-after commodity on Earth… everybody wants it, and they think they can take it by force, except for the fact that Wakandans are bona-fide bad asses.

Kat Dennings’ character is going to make those kind of comments because Thor is going to swagger around announcing himself as a god and nobody believes that he is one. He is tied down on a hospital gurney in the trailer and Natalie Portman plays a nurse. No Donald Blake (unless Thor is going to be smuggled out of the hospital using an ID with ‘Dr. Donald Blake’ written on it), so they are going with ultimate Thor for at least part of the movie. What don’t you get?

[/quote]

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?[/quote]

How do you know? Have you seen it? [/quote]

I don’t know about sardines, but I know this: I’ve seen it, AND the sequel.

All I’m going to say is: Ape Avengers. drops mike

395

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?[/quote]

…And please stop spouting nonsense like “these movies need serious directors only”. What in Ken Branagh’s CV leads you to the conclusion that he is in the same category as Brett Ratner, Tim Story or (gulp) Mark Steven Johnson? Marvel’s choice of directors so far has been excellent.

The ‘weakest’ (relatively speaking) was Louis Leterrier, who was chosen for his action movie pedigree. The way the movie turned out wasn’t his fault because Marvel deliberately went too far in the opposite direction after Ang Lee’s cerebral take on the Hulk under-performed. They ignored Ed Norton’s attempts to layer the story and that led to on-set frictions, which again, didn’t help the finished movie.

Norton wanted Banner to be suicidal: there was actually a planned scene where Banner attempts to kill himself but Hulks out and is unable to do so. It’s a vivid metaphor on a number of levels - it shows how Banner cannot escape his curse and the battle for control between himself and Hulk.

How’s that for depth?

Back to Thor: there is inevitably going to be a clash of cultures when Thor is banished to Earth and stripped of his power but not his ego. If some dude walked around pronouncing himself as a god, how would you expect people to react? Of course Kat Dennings’ character is going to make glib remarks. They think he’s an eccentric, though likeable drifter… he’s going to come across as a complete fruit loop until The Destroyer turns up.

It’s a trailer. A few quips are no indication that Dennings’ character is going to ruin the movie. Normally people review a movie and reserve judgement until after they’ve seen it. I suggest you try it sometime.

396

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?[/quote]

…And please stop spouting nonsense like “these movies need serious directors only”. What in Ken Branagh’s CV leads you to the conclusion that he is in the same category as Brett Ratner, Tim Story or (gulp) Mark Steven Johnson? Marvel’s choice of directors so far has been excellent.

The ‘weakest’ (relatively speaking) was Louis Leterrier, who was chosen for his action movie pedigree. The way the movie turned out wasn’t his fault because Marvel deliberately went too far in the opposite direction after Ang Lee’s cerebral take on the Hulk under-performed. They ignored Ed Norton’s attempts to layer the story and that led to on-set frictions, which again, didn’t help the finished movie.

Norton wanted Banner to be suicidal: there was actually a planned scene where Banner attempts to kill himself but Hulks out and is unable to do so. It’s a vivid metaphor on a number of levels - it shows how Banner cannot escape his curse and the battle for control between himself and Hulk.

How’s that for depth?

Back to Thor: there is inevitably going to be a clash of cultures when Thor is banished to Earth and stripped of his power but not his ego. If some dude walked around pronouncing himself as a god, how would you expect people to react? Of course Kat Dennings’ character is going to make glib remarks. They think he’s an eccentric, though likeable drifter… he’s going to come across as a complete fruit loop until The Destroyer turns up.

It’s a trailer. A few quips are no indication that Dennings’ character is going to ruin the movie. Normally people review a movie and reserve judgement until after they’ve seen it. I suggest you try it sometime.[/quote]

The Hulk movies still sucked, what’s your point? Lee only did the Bana version btw. I hope it doesn’t suck, I really do, I like Thor a lot. But Kat Dennings? Are you some type of Marvel junkie?

397

[quote]Vash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
Black Panther has so much potential to be one of those Dark Knight time movies, but from what I’m seeing from Marvel I have my doubts. Like the Thor movie, Kat fucking Dennings making one liners only an 11 yr old would laugh at. Fuuuuucccckkkk that is going to get annoying. These movies need serious directors only.[/quote]

What, like Kenneth Branagh isn’t a serious director? Black Panther has the best potential for a movie out of all Marvel’s heroes to date, even moreso than Blade and more than D.C’s Batman. Imagine Blood Diamond except that instead of diamonds, an isolated African nation called Wakanda has developed around a fallen meteorite made of vibranium. The metal becomes the most sought-after commodity on Earth… everybody wants it, and they think they can take it by force, except for the fact that Wakandans are bona-fide bad asses.

Kat Dennings’ character is going to make those kind of comments because Thor is going to swagger around announcing himself as a god and nobody believes that he is one. He is tied down on a hospital gurney in the trailer and Natalie Portman plays a nurse. No Donald Blake (unless Thor is going to be smuggled out of the hospital using an ID with ‘Dr. Donald Blake’ written on it), so they are going with ultimate Thor for at least part of the movie. What don’t you get?

[/quote]

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?[/quote]

How do you know? Have you seen it? [/quote]

I don’t know about sardines, but I know this: I’ve seen it, AND the sequel.

All I’m going to say is: Ape Avengers. drops mike[/quote]

I wouldn’t put this past them.

398

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?[/quote]

…And please stop spouting nonsense like “these movies need serious directors only”. What in Ken Branagh’s CV leads you to the conclusion that he is in the same category as Brett Ratner, Tim Story or (gulp) Mark Steven Johnson? Marvel’s choice of directors so far has been excellent.

The ‘weakest’ (relatively speaking) was Louis Leterrier, who was chosen for his action movie pedigree. The way the movie turned out wasn’t his fault because Marvel deliberately went too far in the opposite direction after Ang Lee’s cerebral take on the Hulk under-performed. They ignored Ed Norton’s attempts to layer the story and that led to on-set frictions, which again, didn’t help the finished movie.

Norton wanted Banner to be suicidal: there was actually a planned scene where Banner attempts to kill himself but Hulks out and is unable to do so. It’s a vivid metaphor on a number of levels - it shows how Banner cannot escape his curse and the battle for control between himself and Hulk.

How’s that for depth?

Back to Thor: there is inevitably going to be a clash of cultures when Thor is banished to Earth and stripped of his power but not his ego. If some dude walked around pronouncing himself as a god, how would you expect people to react? Of course Kat Dennings’ character is going to make glib remarks. They think he’s an eccentric, though likeable drifter… he’s going to come across as a complete fruit loop until The Destroyer turns up.

It’s a trailer. A few quips are no indication that Dennings’ character is going to ruin the movie. Normally people review a movie and reserve judgement until after they’ve seen it. I suggest you try it sometime.[/quote]

And don’t tell me how to watch movies? You are taking this way too personal. Is your sister Kat Dennings?

399

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?[/quote]

…And please stop spouting nonsense like “these movies need serious directors only”. What in Ken Branagh’s CV leads you to the conclusion that he is in the same category as Brett Ratner, Tim Story or (gulp) Mark Steven Johnson? Marvel’s choice of directors so far has been excellent.

The ‘weakest’ (relatively speaking) was Louis Leterrier, who was chosen for his action movie pedigree. The way the movie turned out wasn’t his fault because Marvel deliberately went too far in the opposite direction after Ang Lee’s cerebral take on the Hulk under-performed. They ignored Ed Norton’s attempts to layer the story and that led to on-set frictions, which again, didn’t help the finished movie.

Norton wanted Banner to be suicidal: there was actually a planned scene where Banner attempts to kill himself but Hulks out and is unable to do so. It’s a vivid metaphor on a number of levels - it shows how Banner cannot escape his curse and the battle for control between himself and Hulk.

How’s that for depth?

Back to Thor: there is inevitably going to be a clash of cultures when Thor is banished to Earth and stripped of his power but not his ego. If some dude walked around pronouncing himself as a god, how would you expect people to react? Of course Kat Dennings’ character is going to make glib remarks. They think he’s an eccentric, though likeable drifter… he’s going to come across as a complete fruit loop until The Destroyer turns up.

It’s a trailer. A few quips are no indication that Dennings’ character is going to ruin the movie. Normally people review a movie and reserve judgement until after they’ve seen it. I suggest you try it sometime.[/quote]
and i see you didn’t confuse directors, my bad

400

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

This movie will suck, what don’t you get?[/quote]

…And please stop spouting nonsense like “these movies need serious directors only”. What in Ken Branagh’s CV leads you to the conclusion that he is in the same category as Brett Ratner, Tim Story or (gulp) Mark Steven Johnson? Marvel’s choice of directors so far has been excellent.

The ‘weakest’ (relatively speaking) was Louis Leterrier, who was chosen for his action movie pedigree. The way the movie turned out wasn’t his fault because Marvel deliberately went too far in the opposite direction after Ang Lee’s cerebral take on the Hulk under-performed. They ignored Ed Norton’s attempts to layer the story and that led to on-set frictions, which again, didn’t help the finished movie.

Norton wanted Banner to be suicidal: there was actually a planned scene where Banner attempts to kill himself but Hulks out and is unable to do so. It’s a vivid metaphor on a number of levels - it shows how Banner cannot escape his curse and the battle for control between himself and Hulk.

How’s that for depth?

Back to Thor: there is inevitably going to be a clash of cultures when Thor is banished to Earth and stripped of his power but not his ego. If some dude walked around pronouncing himself as a god, how would you expect people to react? Of course Kat Dennings’ character is going to make glib remarks. They think he’s an eccentric, though likeable drifter… he’s going to come across as a complete fruit loop until The Destroyer turns up.

It’s a trailer. A few quips are no indication that Dennings’ character is going to ruin the movie. Normally people review a movie and reserve judgement until after they’ve seen it. I suggest you try it sometime.[/quote]

The Hulk movies still sucked, what’s your point? [/quote]

If you took the time to read my posts properly before weighing in with a half-assed response, you’d see my point. I discussed why both Hulk movies didn’t hit the bullseye. I did so clearly and in depth. It was part of my response to your observation that Marvel don’t use serious directors.

Why am I having to explain my explanation to you? If you keep skimming over my posts like you’ve been doing, don’t make fucking asinine retorts like “what’s your point?”… Seriously, if my posts are too long for you to digest, say so and I’ll make them shorter. If however, it’s just you not being interested enough in the first place, then don’t weigh in with an opinion on posts you haven’t cared enough to read properly. It’s that simple.

[quote]
Lee only did the Bana version btw. [/quote] Dude, read my posts. Where did I say Ang Lee directed both Hulk movies? Where? [quote] I hope it doesn’t suck, I really do, I like Thor a lot. But Kat Dennings? Are you some type of Marvel junkie?[/quote]

So you’re willing to slate a movie based solely on Kat Dennings’ character in a trailer, when in reality her behaviour is consistent with what is shaping up to be an accurate portrayal of Thor? Again, before you start tapping out a response, do me the small courtesy of reading my posts properly and not ignoring entire paragraphs.