• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Batman Begins Now it's my turn: Doc's problems with Begins...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bashing? Because he uses gimicks rather than what is needed? Cutting up the time frame for no actual reason, ie: The prestige.

35 isn't exactly young either. His cinematic style relies upon nothing, he uses a few gimicks but nothing even noteworthy, any director could come up with what he produces.

If it's so easy, then why haven't YOU done it hotshot? Somehow I doubt you'd talk all this trash to his face. Like I said before, it's all subjective. I think he's a great director; you hate his style. So be it.

35 is young in the film business, especially when you already have 5 good films (some great, some just good or very good) under your belt.
 
I wouldn't take Cyrusbales too seriously here, friends. He's one of those pretentious art house film lovers whose mouth is bigger than his brain and loves films that nobody else likes or cares about. Just let me demonstrate in the following posts...
 
if you watched this 500 times(B89), then you would have to be a most passive of audience members to not notice the subtlties of symbollism and social critique and it's expansive depth. Are you aware with any sociological issues or even expressionism at all? Universities have used B89 as a focus film for advanced film studies repeatedly, so I think you may have been watching a different film....

There is no doubt that visually B89 is quite the marvel and its art direction has a flair of its own, but substantially speaking, it's comes off as shallow on many levels (most importantly the over-emphasis on the villain and the back-hand treatment given to the protagonist himself). People who deem it to be oh-so-deep are simply connecting dots and seeing things that aren't there.

the Prestige is a popcorn flick, pretty effects and a plot that isn't half as intelligent as it thinks it is. Choosing what could be cool in favour of key filmic aspects like acting and directing quality, quite insulting as an audience member to watch.

See, this is what I like to call the ideal example of 'pretentious criticism'. It's just consistently annoying complaining gibberish that uses words without justifying them. Heck, it is so generic and universally applicable, I can throw that blabber at just about any film I want to and no one would be able to tell the difference:

"Citizen Kane is a popcorn flick, pretty effects and a plot that isn't half as intelligent as it thinks it is. Choosing what could be cool in favour of key filmic aspects like acting and directing quality, quite insulting as an audience member to watch"

See?

Memento is a blunt instrument of a film, bombarding the audience with it's supposed subtle messages, which realy gives no depth whatsoever...

Pray tell, mind listing these 'supposed subtle messages' and explaining how it 'realy gives no depth whatsoever'?

as we are given no credibility...

Credibility in terms of what? It's advisable to exercise extreme caution in the unrestrained use of complex vocabulary you don't comprehend yourself, junior. :up:

we are just given very obvious messages, not promoting an active or intelligent audience.

And here's the coup de grace - the very nature of the film and its two-fold narrative require the audience to pay attention to the film, keep the events at the back of their mind and link them with subsequent scenes to make sense of the plot, otherwise it's very easy for an uninvolved audience to lose track of it all. Your brainfarts about Memento not promoting an active or intelligent audience gives away the inherent bias (and stupidity) present in your 'comments'.
 
That isn't depth, that is thrown in your face obviously, no subtlety or decency of the craft of filmmaking at all. Not sure what critics you've been reading, but B89 is regarded in quite high esteem by most of them. The prestige was terrible acting BTW.

Your little rants will be worthy of consideration once you learn the seemingly complex process of forming a grammatically correct sentence. OK chump?

As for depth in B89, what about the effects of the media within society, how the the power over the media grants the Joker extra status and he who holds the media, can enforce his will, for instance the parade.

How is that 'depth' in any way? It was quite obvious the Joker was an attention ****e in the film, and the media was his ticket to glory. He wanted the spotlight on himself, and the fact that Batman keeps 'taking away his press' was the original point of conflict between the two characters. You are a fool if you think it was in any way part of the 'subtext' in the film when it was always present in the foreground of the movie's plot all along.

The idea of consumerism killing people thtough chemicals in make up etc is a remark about the social consumerist lifestyle, as is the media saturation.

Umm, usage of basic makeup and beautifying products a mark of a consumerist lifestyle? Consumerism is represented by excesses in society, whereas all it required for the Joker's toxin to work was a combination of any two chemicals. That would not only make the toxin untraceable through conventional methods, but the idea of targeting beauty and cosmetic products was perfectly in line with the Joker's 'transformation' - you know, 'white powder' skin and 'red lipstick' lips. It was the perfect outlet for him to engage in a massive 'self-promotion' campaign.

Like I said, seeing things that aren't there, little fella.

And the money being dropped is quite an obvious one, but the idea of someone who is notably 'bad' can be redeemed through money and suchlike.

Actually, I find it downright laughable that you weren't even able to comprehend the basic idea behind that telecast of the Joker. He was clearly playing the role of 'politician' by admitting his crimes, convincing the masses with charisma and deceitful sweet-talk ('one thing I am not, is a killer'). Joker actually 'redeemed' himself with his words and make people comfortable enough to trust him (otherwise, no one would have come to the parade regardless of the money, because of what he tried to do earlier with the beauty products), the money was simply used to lure the populace out.

'Pay attention', child, because one doesn't need to delve into the unnecessary cesspools of social commentary and symbolism to properly understand all that. The film tells it all to you ad nauseam.

Also the notion of beauty and art being similar...

Like that is something one needs to be very smart to 'figure out'. :whatever:

and how people and thus their identities to some extent, are self proclaimed and can be assigned by oneself, much like the notion suggested in Almodovar's work. There is a whole load more but I shall not bother telling you all of it, as I don't feel like writing out a 50 page document on the intricacies of the film.

If the kind of arguments you posted in this thread is any indication of your '50 page document on the intricacies of the film', then it's safe to say that it would be nothing but a bunch of poorly composed senseless drivel that ignores the apparent purposes and motivations behind the events in the story for the simple sake of unsubstantial self-indulgent rambling.

From a producers POV, yeah, it was a popcorn flick, however the director, Burton, decided to include a lot more there, for the more active and intelligent audience members to adress.

If the 'more active and intelligent audience members' in question in here are anything like you, then I fear true intellectuals have already faded away into extinction.

Chris Nolan isn't very talented, thank god his brother is a good writer though.

Actually, Chris Nolan is quite talented. Unfortunately, you lack the mental capacity to grasp the infinite levels of his awesomeness (fanboy quip, har har).
 
Bashing? Because he uses gimicks rather than what is needed? Cutting up the time frame for no actual reason, ie: The prestige.

What exactly do you mean 'cutting up the time frame for no actual reason'? If you mean the intertwining timelines, that is because almost 3/4th of the story is driven by the diary entries of Borden and Angier...and there is simply no way to express shock and impact of the 'twists' behind the journals of both characters through a linear structure. Secondly, the entire film is played as one big magic trick - the film begins fairly straightforward with hints towards something more (The Pledge - promise to amaze), then becomes a complex web of non-linear events and timelines (The Turn - the mind bending illusion) and ends with the resolution that ties up all the loose ends, but leaves you to alone to figure the secrets behind the tricks by yourself (The Prestige - the shocking climax).

35 isn't exactly young either. His cinematic style relies upon nothing, he uses a few gimicks but nothing even noteworthy, any director could come up with what he produces.

Keeping in mind the above example, I believe in your personal dictionary, the word 'gimmick' is used to describe filmmaking choices that you fail to comprehend or understand the purpose of? Riiiiiight....
 
So Cyrusbales, do us (and even moreso, to yourself) a big, big favor by nailing your mouth shut. It will keep the smarter people on this site and everywhere else from exposing the sad fact that behind the confident, educated disguise lies a weak and seemingly incompetent (wannabe) 'critic' who, despite the relentless flaunting of his film school certificates, fails at grasping the most basic plot points in the movies he attempts to criticize.
 
So Cyrusbales, do us (and even moreso, to yourself) a big, big favor by nailing your mouth shut. It will keep the smarter people on this site and everywhere else from exposing the sad fact that behind the confident, educated disguise lies a weak and seemingly incompetent (wannabe) 'critic' who, despite the relentless flaunting of his film school certificates, fails at grasping the most basic plot points in the movies he attempts to criticize.
Hahaha, I love you. :(
 
So Cyrusbales, do us (and even moreso, to yourself) a big, big favor by nailing your mouth shut. It will keep the smarter people on this site and everywhere else from exposing the sad fact that behind the confident, educated disguise lies a weak and seemingly incompetent (wannabe) 'critic' who, despite the relentless flaunting of his film school certificates, fails at grasping the most basic plot points in the movies he attempts to criticize.

Dance, dance with me, good sir.
 
Your little rants will be worthy of consideration once you learn the seemingly complex process of forming a grammatically correct sentence. OK chump?

:huh:

Corect me if I'm wrong but you're making a full act of consideration of every one of his rants.
 
:huh:

Corect me if I'm wrong but you're making a full act of consideration of every one of his rants.

'Consider' as in admitting the possibility of his arguments having any kind of merit. Besides, I already made explicitly clear in the beginning of my very first post in the thread that I replied to a couple of his points for the specific purpose of exposing the fallacy and absurdity of his 'critiques', not that I hope to engage in an active discourse with him simply because he has failed to effectively do so in our past encounters.
 
I did write a long reply, but I got timed out, anyhow, attacking the person argueing is the sign of failure, as is resorting to language breakdown, even though Ayer was a genius, it does somewhat damage arguements of this level.

You seem to not be understanding my arguments, and commenting about 'artsy stuff no-one cares about' only shows ignorance.
 
I did write a long reply, but I got timed out, anyhow, attacking the person argueing is the sign of failure...

I do believe getting sick of repeatedly seeing your incessant and senseless whining on this board, not to mention that smug cinema elitist attitude that accompanies your posts very much justifies giving you such condescending treatment.

as is resorting to language breakdown, even though Ayer was a genius, it does somewhat damage arguements of this level.

Umm, if you haven't realized it yet skippy, language proficiency is a vital requirement in film critique and opinion expression. The fact that you can't even convey your own thoughts with precision and clarity shows your own 'inadequacy' and 'ignorance'.

You seem to not be understanding my arguments...

Actually I understand your arguments way better than you do. Which is exactly why you always seem to fail at explaining them when called to the task.

...and commenting about 'artsy stuff no-one cares about' only shows ignorance.

It was a sarcastic jab at you, junior. Surely you could've seen that from a mile away if you didn't flunk basic reading comprehension.
 
Phaser owned Cyrusbales again. :up:
 
OK, i summised my points in this thread simply, so they could be understood easily, as a lot of people in their early teens are on this site. If I need to explain how the editing was second rate at best to you, that is quite shocking.

As for my reading and comprehension skills, they are just fine, I flew through school with A's etc, yet decided that a forum website did not require my devout attention, considering I actually write to a degree for my profession, I doubt that this is a worthwhile avenue to pursue.

How I make my posts condescending without verbal tone can only be contributed to my word usage. Which, becuase I may analyse things differently to you and phrase it as such, does not necessarily mean I'm being arrogant. A lot of people on here think BB is a great movie, then again these people(as I have often found is the case), have a low exposure to cinema as a whole. So by referring to other films etc, and using a comparative analysis(which is generally considered the easiest and most comprehensible way) to convey these thoughts would seem logical rather than anything else.

If you could turn your attention to my actual points, rather than myself, we could possibly have a discussion?
 
Summised isn't a word, fyi.
 
OK, i summised my points in this thread simply, so they could be understood easily, as a lot of people in their early teens are on this site.

Uh, so? What does that have to do with your incompetence and shallow criticism?

If I need to explain how the editing was second rate at best to you, that is quite shocking.

Actually, you can't and don't know how to properly explain what was wrong with the editing in The Prestige. As you have proven time and again in our previous encounters, you can't reason your way out of a paper bag, let alone substantially elaborate on the problems with a particular film's editing. The day you learn to properly express your thoughts with precision and clarity will be the day your comments achieve any kind of merit or legitimacy.

As for my reading and comprehension skills, they are just fine, I flew through school with A's etc, yet decided that a forum website did not require my devout attention, considering I actually write to a degree for my profession, I doubt that this is a worthwhile avenue to pursue.

Please. I can't imagine anyone who has honestly graduated out of schools with high honors to be so careless and dumb in expressing himself, even if on a message board. That's one of the qualities of such people. All the countless hours of education get ingrained in the person's mind and character. Their proper language proficiency is not just an acquired skill, it becomes a habit. That is why in my very personal opinion, you 'flying through school with A's etc' is either bulls**t or you didn't attend schools with good enough standards.

How I make my posts condescending without verbal tone can only be contributed to my word usage.

D'uh. It took you this long to figure it out?

Hey, I'm using condescending words...maybe that is why my posts sound condescending! *Zing!*


:rolleyes:

Which, becuase I may analyse things differently to you and phrase it as such, does not necessarily mean I'm being arrogant.

Actually, difference of opinion has nothing to do with it. In fact, I'd have actually welcomed it if it weren't for the fact that you don't know how to make any sense.

A lot of people on here think BB is a great movie, then again these people(as I have often found is the case), have a low exposure to cinema as a whole. So by referring to other films etc, and using a comparative analysis(which is generally considered the easiest and most comprehensible way) to convey these thoughts would seem logical rather than anything else.

Comparative analysis is only valid when there is a relevant and rational basis for comparison between the constituents. Judging BB for not being the next groundbreaking achievement in filmmaking is not only illogical, but also ridiculously idiotic when the purpose of the movie is to provide some good summer escapist entertainment.

Secondly, my main beef with your posts was not the criticism of Batman Begins (quite the contrary, I myself admit to a good handful of the problems with the film that have been pointed out repeatedly before), but rather your pretentious 'examination' of the 'depth' and 'complexity' of B89 as well as your resoundingly hollow and worthless critique of other Nolan films like The Prestige and Memento.

If you could turn your attention to my actual points, rather than myself, we could possibly have a discussion?

Why do peanut-brains can't grasp the painfully simple notion that attacking an opinion and attacking the opinion holder are not two mutually exclusive concepts? Your views and opinions reflect upon you and if your opinions are as mired in the gutter of self-importance, what does that tell me about you? Seriously, give it a thought.

Secondly, if you've been reading my posts, I have given tremendous attention to your points. And the conclusions I drew thereof were exactly what I subsequently used to expose your own ineptness and failures. So please, don't play the blame game with me when the only one who is reluctant to address the points raised thus far in this 'discussion' is you.

And that too because you and I both know you're not up to the task. Otherwise, instead of conjuring up pitiful excuses and vain attempts at self-defense since the last two posts, you would have actually written something of substance and value to the principle argument at hand.
 
OK, i summised my points in this thread simply, so they could be understood easily, as a lot of people in their early teens are on this site. If I need to explain how the editing was second rate at best to you, that is quite shocking.

As for my reading and comprehension skills, they are just fine, I flew through school with A's etc, yet decided that a forum website did not require my devout attention, considering I actually write to a degree for my profession, I doubt that this is a worthwhile avenue to pursue.

How I make my posts condescending without verbal tone can only be contributed to my word usage. Which, becuase I may analyse things differently to you and phrase it as such, does not necessarily mean I'm being arrogant. A lot of people on here think BB is a great movie, then again these people(as I have often found is the case), have a low exposure to cinema as a whole. So by referring to other films etc, and using a comparative analysis(which is generally considered the easiest and most comprehensible way) to convey these thoughts would seem logical rather than anything else.

If you could turn your attention to my actual points, rather than myself, we could possibly have a discussion?

So what? They still enjoyed it, you don't have to suck the joy out of it for the.
I would consider myself to have a ood knowledge of cinema, and watch as wide a variety of film as possible (recently having watched Happy Feet, Hero, Brotherhood of the Wolf, Pan's Labyrinth, Casino Royale and The Departed), and I LOVED Batman Begins, as well as enjoying SR, Spidey 1 and 2 and X-Men 1 and 2. It's quite unfair to paint BBs fans as being ignorant of film as a whole.
 
So what? They still enjoyed it, you don't have to suck the joy out of it for the.
I would consider myself to have a ood knowledge of cinema, and watch as wide a variety of film as possible (recently having watched Happy Feet, Hero, Brotherhood of the Wolf, Pan's Labyrinth, Casino Royale and The Departed), and I LOVED Batman Begins, as well as enjoying SR, Spidey 1 and 2 and X-Men 1 and 2. It's quite unfair to paint BBs fans as being ignorant of film as a whole.
You see, according to Cyrus, to have a wide variety of film interests, you have to be watching obscure French and Japanese films on a near daily basis.
 
You see, according to Cyrus, to have a wide variety of film interests, you have to be watching obscure French and Japanese films on a near daily basis.

Or Tim Burton's amazingly deep Batman films. :whatever: :woot:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"