The Dark Knight Rumoured - Batman has a new ride?

[Silver Souper]

philistine

you called me a philistine. with that you've redeemed yourself, good sir.

 

[Ronny Shade]

har

 

[Silver Souper]

Preach it.

Here's what a Batman movie would be like if John Woo directed it.

1.) The arms deal sequence at the beginning would culminate in a mexican standoff where everyone is holding two guns in each hand pointed at the people on either side of them.

2.) The big showdown between Batman and the Joker would involve a car chase where Joker, in a Jokermobile, would be driving at top speed directly toward the tumbler, and Batman, in the tumbler, would be driving at top speed toward the Jokermobile. They would both hit ramps at the same time, go into a perfect arc, just before the cars collided in midair, Batman and Joker would jump out, lock hands, and go into a flaming tussle.

In the middle of this flaming tussle, Joker would grab the batgrapple, fire it off to some unseen anchor point, and swing loose from Batman's grasp. Batman would extend his glide wings.

Joker would be shooting at Batman, Batman would be gliding, and they would be converging toward each other again.

At this point, Batman would pull out two batarangs, one in each hand, and throw them PAST the Joker; they would hit windows, the shattering glass would sever the grapple line (despite the fact that the grapple line must be made of something that would not cut so easily) and Joker would drop to his death.

I would kill everyone in the theater if I had to watch that garbage.

you know what's scary about your post, keyser? This literally WOULD be the ending Woo would make to a batman movie. creepy and disturbing- keep that man away from our franchise!

 

[Ronny Shade]

The Joker would probably be on a motorcycle, actually.

 

[Cinemaman]

Don't worry, I'll be friends with you.

Because I agree.

 

[Cinemaman]

Ive done that already and in one of the cases i think you are very mistaken but back to the batbike

In which exactly?

 

[Cinemaman]

The Killer,Hard Boiled,Bullet In the Head and a Better Tomorrow are nothing like that at all

Yeah, maybe you are right. But last Woo's movies (especially Hollywood films) were really very bad.

The past has gone.

 

[Cinemaman]

HOW IS THAT BAD??!!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[BatScot]

If the batbike were a good idea... this wouln't have turned into a John Woo thread.

 

[cryptic name]

So what you said before was incorrect? "They" didn't "bring" him to the US? "They" didn't make him make those bad movies? He chose to.

I hate "them." In one way or another "they" are responsible for everything. Whoever "they" are.

it's a little known fact that "THEY" are jahovas witnesses.

and this thread has reached absurdity. a motorcycle does not make a movie bad, nor does it make it good. it all depends on the story and the filmmaker. anyone who says "this movie will be like a john woo film with motorcycle in it" is stupid.

 

[Triligors]

The previous Batman's on a sleek black motorcycle- not a chance. Imagine the coolest, most "bad ass" black motorcycle possible- really would look cool. I'd manip it but, don't have photoshop right now.

But, seeing this Batman on a motorcycle. Now that's really going to look cool.

Somehow fits the look of the character without going "over the top"

 

[Katsuro]

Not at all. Opinion is opinion. Fact is fact.

Opinion: I didn't like Mission: Impossible 2.

Fact: Mission Impossible 2 was a very lousy movie.

Ergo: I have a low opinion of M:I2 due to the fact that it was crap.

You have that completely ass-backwards. "I didn't like Mission: Impossible 2" is a fact. I didn't like it, You cant tell me I liked it, because I know what i like and dont like. You can say that you liked it, but that doesn't go against the fact that I didn't like it. You can say you enjoy a movie, and I can say I despise a movie, and we can both be right, that makes what we're saying facts. They cant be disagreed with.

"Mission Impossible 2 was a lousy movie" on the otherhand, is opinion, because it can be disagreed on. How about if i said "Mission Impossible 2 is a great movie". Which of us is right? The statements are in direct contradiction, since we're talking about the movie itself and not how we feel about it. Saying M:I2 is lousy, where the subject of the sentence is "M:I2" makes it an opinion. Unless, of course, there was a specific set of guidelines and rules that determine what makes a movie good, and it was something all humans agreed on. Perhaps a point system of some sort. But what constitues a lousy movie to me doens't constitute a lousy movie to you, and the fact that we can both say those statments ("MI2 is good"/"MI2 is bad") without being able to be proven wrong, makes them opinions.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

HOW IS THAT BAD??!!?!?!?!?!?!

Have you ever read John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men"?

These two guys, George and Lenny, traveled together doing manual labor on ranches and such. Lenny was mentally handicapped, and George was a bit slick, so Lenny looked to George for guidance. Lenny was a giant of a man. Good guy, but ******ed. Like many mentally handicapped men he was freakishly strong. He didn't know his own strength. So Lenny, he loved soft things, animals, women's hair, whatever. And he kept getting them into trouble wherever they were working. George always told Lenny that someday they'd be able to buy themselves some land and raise animals of their own... and Lenny would ask could they have rabbits, because he loved how soft they were. Well finally at this one ranch, Lenny accidentally kills a girl by pulling on her hair too hard and snapping her neck. George takes Lenny out in the countryside and they talk a while, and Lenny asks George, "Tell me about the rabbits again," and so George does.

And while he describes this beautiful scene for Lenny, Lenny is looking off into the distance daydreaming about it, and George, with tears in his eyes, walks up behind Lenny with a revolver, puts the gun to the base of his skull, and blows his brains out.

Someday, Ronny, we will have some land. And on that land we will have some rabbits. Cheerful little rabbits.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

it's a little known fact that "THEY" are jahovas witnesses.

and this thread has reached absurdity. a motorcycle does not make a movie bad, nor does it make it good. it all depends on the story and the filmmaker. anyone who says "this movie will be like a john woo film with motorcycle in it" is stupid.

I don't think anybody actually said that. The journey from there to here was much more fluid than that. I don't remember how we got to talking about John Woo, but we did and we are.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

You have that completely ass-backwards. "I didn't like Mission: Impossible 2" is a fact. I didn't like it, You cant tell me I liked it, because I know what i like and dont like. You can say that you liked it, but that doesn't go against the fact that I didn't like it. You can say you enjoy a movie, and I can say I despise a movie, and we can both be right, that makes what we're saying facts. They cant be disagreed with.

What you're saying seems true, except that, on some level, it isn't. I mean, absolutely you can like a movie that I didn't like, and vice versa, and both of those reactions would be valid. The trouble is that "liking" is subjective. Just because you liked a movie, doesn't make it a GOOD movie. Just because you didn't like a movie, that doesn't make it a BAD movie. Like or dislike is entirely subjective. Which makes it useless as a qualitative assessment of a film's relative merits. Yes?

"Mission Impossible 2 was a lousy movie" on the otherhand, is opinion, because it can be disagreed on. How about if i said "Mission Impossible 2 is a great movie". Which of us is right?

In that instance, I would be right and you would be wrong.

Just because you *think* the movie is good, does not make it so. People buy Britney Spears CDs but she is still a talentless ****e and her "music" is representative of everything that is wrong with the music industry. Britney Spears is a genuinely BAD recording... "artist" is too generous a word, but, anyhoo. These are not subjective. Just because some people LIKE her music, that does not make it GOOD.

The statements are in direct contradiction, since we're talking about the movie itself and not how we feel about it.

The movie is a thing that exists outside of our imaginations. How we FEEL about the movie is subjective. The fact of the movie being good or bad is NOT subjective. Some movies CAN, in fact, be technically LOUSY on one or more levels. Anything that is a matter of craft can be done well, or done poorly, and that exists entirely beyond the realm of personal taste.

Saying M:I2 is lousy, where the subject of the sentence is "M:I2" makes it an opinion.

Bull****. "The sky is blue." The sky is the subject of the sentence. Does that mean the sentence I just typed is an opinion? Or is it a fact?

Unless, of course, there was a specific set of guidelines and rules that determine what makes a movie good, and it was something all humans agreed on.

Actually there is.

Perhaps a point system of some sort.

Not a point system at all. It's all a bit technical. If you're not a builder, for instance, you may be hard-pressed to look at the work of two different builders and determine which is a better builder, or which building is the better-built one on a technical level. But that doesn't mean that the one you prefer is necessarily the better building.

Or to put it another way, you may love Bob Ross's little landscape paintings with the happy trees, and you may want a few of them to hang in your house. But if you do, that does not make those paintings "art." He knew how to use all the tools and he was a really good guy, but his paintings will never land in a museum.

Pablo Picasso, on the other hand, painted these things that you might not like... strange abstractions of the human form, a style called Cubism, that you might not want to have hanging in your house. You might feel that this work is unpleasant to look at. But it is art. And it hangs in museums. And the reason is because of the creativity and the theory behind it, what he did, and why. It is good art.

Storytelling, whether in the filmic medium or in prose form, is another craft that can be done well or can be done poorly. A good judge of whether it is done properly or not is if people are laughing when they are not meant to. The hypothetical ending to a hypothetical John Woo Batman movie that I mentioned earlier in this thread, is based on the action scene I've seen in EVERY John Woo movie that I have seen. And it is INCREDIBLY bad. It's the kind of thing that a six year old child conceives of while playing with his toys. It's not just that it's physically impossible; storytelling is often about the impossible. It's that there is NO WAY that you can dress it up that will EVER make it even SLIGHTLY believable. No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to take it seriously. It garners unintentional laughs. It, in fact, was the scene that, while I already was not enjoying M:I2... the mid-air motorcycle collision scene was the one that made me want my money back.

But what constitues a lousy movie to me doens't constitute a lousy movie to you, and the fact that we can both say those statments ("MI2 is good"/"MI2 is bad") without being able to be proven wrong, makes them opinions.

But if you are defending M:I2, you CAN be proven wrong. Because you are wrong.

 

[num1batfan]

ehh, i like the idea of batman gettin sum new wheels. (the bat mobile waz pretty lame in part 5 wasnt it?) but that motorcycle sort of looks prety stupid if u ask me. once again, the focus is on REELISM here peeple.

that being sed, any1 else think bat man shud drive a taurus?

 

[Katsuro]

But we can assume that if you liked a movie, then you feel it is a GOOD movie. Sure, there are movies you like because you find them so bad it's funny, but that's not why I like Matrix: Reloaded. In my opinion, Matrix: Reloaded is a good movie, just like in your opinion, it's a bad one.

Just because you *think* the movie is good, does not make it so. People buy Britney Spears CDs but she is still a talentless ****e and her "music" is representative of everything that is wrong with the music industry. Britney Spears is a genuinely BAD recording... "artist" is too generous a word, but, anyhoo. These are not subjective. Just because some people LIKE her music, that does not make it GOOD.

I've put into bold every word that any english or grammar teacher throughout history would point out practically always define an opinion, not a fact.

]Bull****. "The sky is blue." The sky is the subject of the sentence. Does that mean the sentence I just typed is an opinion? Or is it a fact?

The sky reflects blue light, no one disagrees on that, and if they do they are either colorblind or just lying. It's a fact, it can be proven or disproven. Like i said, there's no clear definition of what makes a movie good or bad. There's no rule book or point system. We all have our own different opinions of what makes a movie good. We dont, on the otherhand, all have different opinions of what constitutes being blue. Reflecting a certain wavelenght of light is what makes something blue.

Actually there is.

Whoa. you just blew my mind. May i please read this set of guidelines? I'd like to know which of my favorite films are in fact actually crap, so i can immediatley stop enjoying them, as I only enjoy good movies. You should probably let the academy know this exists also, screw voting and nominations and all that crap, let's just base it all off a point system!

Storytelling, whether in the filmic medium or in prose form, is another craft that can be done well or can be done poorly. A good judge of whether it is done properly or not is if people are laughing when they are not meant to.

What if some people are laughing and some are not. That's the beauty of opinion, people are not all the same. To those who are laughing when they arent meant to, the movie is bad. To those who are not laughing, and are entertained, the movie is good. Or what about when they are supposed to be laughing? Some people find different things funny, based on how they grew up, life experiences, and just the kind of person they are. If it's a comedy I find particularly annoying or unfunny, of course i'll say that the movie is bad. However, there will be others who can relate to this and find it funny, so to them it's good. We're both right, and yet neither of us is right. That's what makes it opinion.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

But we can assume that if you liked a movie, then you feel it is a GOOD movie. Sure, there are movies you like because you find them so bad it's funny, but that's not why I like Matrix: Reloaded. In my opinion, Matrix: Reloaded is a good movie, just like in your opinion, it's a bad one.

That's all true. But while it may be your opinion that Matrix: Reloaded is a good movie, that doesn't change the fact that it is not. You may have a good opinion of it, but the movie itself is bad.

I've put into bold every word that any english or grammar teacher throughout history would point out practically always define an opinion, not a fact.

LOL. Okay, how about this: The Matrix Reloaded is poorly-written, badly paced nonsense with dreadful dialogue and no internal logic.

Like i said, there's no clear definition of what makes a movie good or bad.

Of course there is, as previously explained.

There's no rule book or point system.

Of course there's no point system. There is absolutely a rule book.

We all have our own different opinions of what makes a movie good.

That's true, but it still doesn't change the facts.

Whoa. you just blew my mind. May i please read this set of guidelines?

Take a class. Anything that can be done, can be done badly.

I'll break it down for you. Storytelling is an art form, a story has to have structure and while the structure can take many forms, it has to adhere to its own logic and it has to consist of certain elements, including characters and conflicts. Now, all stories have those things, it's hard to bung up that aspect. It's the details that get people.

For example, while telling the story of the conflict between the characters, you also have to share a significant amount of information about the world in which the story takes place, and about the characters, and about the history or reasons for their conflict. This is where skill comes into the equation. One problem with Matrix Reloaded is that the information is sort of dumped into large pieces of expository dialogue that are not only very far removed from anything resembling human conversation, but are also extremely painful to try and listen to and sift.

An example of good expository dialogue is the exchange between Indiana Jones and his girlfriend in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when he first arrives at her bar looking for a specific artifact. The conversation tells us about the history between Indy and the girl, as well as her since-departed father, and while it does that, it is entertaining about it. She's angry at him, he doesn't particularly care, he's just there for the artifact... there is conflict in the scene, and because there is conflict, it is exciting. Beyond that the dialogue is also snappy, or crisp, so that it sounds good when the actors say it. Another example is John McClane's conversation with the limo driver, Argyle, in the original Die Hard.

Another, somewhat related issue, is pacing. The way you keep a story moving is very important. The audience must be engaged. As a storytelling you want the people to listen to you but them listening is not gauranteed; you have to keep their attention. This means that the story has to move in an arc, building to a climax. Not only that, but a scene can never be allowed to drag because if it does you've just lost your audience.

William Goldman has a golden rule about screenwriting, and I apply it not only to my screenwriting duties but to my novels, as well: "Enter late, leave early." What this means is, every time you come into a scene, the action (or dialogue) should already be in progress. And you should leave the scene before the action (and/or dialogue) is over. For my money "The Empire Strikes Back" is a great example of this rule. Actually so is "Batman Begins."

Basically, it boils down to what every English teacher you've ever had has told you about writing papers: "Be clear and concise." It's a problem that the Matrix Reloaded suffered heavily from... no trace of concision, or clarity, really. In all fairness the Star Wars prequels had their share of those problems, as well. I love the Star Wars prequels but they are pretty bad movies.

I'd like to know which of my favorite films are in fact actually crap, so i can immediatley stop enjoying them, as I only enjoy good movies. You should probably let the academy know this exists also, screw voting and nominations and all that crap, let's just base it all off a point system!

I don't pretend to tell you what to enjoy or not enjoy. As I just said, I love the Star Wars prequels but I admit that they are technically rather bad movies. The story's not bad but it's not executed very well. But I like them.

What you don't seem to grasp is that storytelling is a craft, and it can be done poorly or it can be done well, and that is completely independent of our personal tastes.

What if some people are laughing and some are not.

Like I said. If people are laughing when they are not meant to be, something is amiss.

That's the beauty of opinion, people are not all the same. To those who are laughing when they arent meant to, the movie is bad. To those who are not laughing, and are entertained, the movie is good.

But it's more than just entertainment. Bad movies can entertain people. It doesn't mean that those movies are well-crafted (note that avoided saying "good" and was more specific -- "good" in this context = "well-crafted.").

Or what about when they are supposed to be laughing? Some people find different things funny, based on how they grew up, life experiences, and just the kind of person they are. If it's a comedy I find particularly annoying or unfunny, of course i'll say that the movie is bad. However, there will be others who can relate to this and find it funny, so to them it's good.

Yes, humor is fairly subjective. But not entirely. I think nearly everybody laughs at "I Love Lucy" reruns, but not everybody has the proper attitude to enjoy "South Park," because its brand of humor is offensive if you can't laugh at the things you consider sacred (I generally can, and have never had a problem with South Park). I think that comedy, like drama, is at its best when it has something worthwhile to say about the world we live in.

We're both right, and yet neither of us is right. That's what makes it opinion.

Actually, you're still wrong. And I'm still right.

 

[Katsuro]

Keyser, you seem to be completely mistaken on the defination of the word opinion. Were you perhaps out sick when they taught that in elementary school? That's pretty much the only thing i can conclude. The meaning of the words fact and opinion are clearly written out and defined (unlike what makes a movie good), and you're completely contradicting them.

I'm not gonna continue this argument, simply because I've said everything I think I can say. You seem to think you have this ultimate power of deciding what films are good and bad, and anyone who disagrees is just flat out wrong, and that's probably the most arrogant thing i've ever heard.

Also, i've always hated the taste on onions. i've tried them of course, but I just dont like 'em, they taste bad to me. Could you please tell me, in your ultimate wisdom of what is good and bad, whether onions in fact do taste good. Maybe I was wrong about onions tasting bad, and can now stop ordering burgers with no onions. It would save a lot of time.

 

[pointman]

I dont want to see batman on a bike. He needs to be tearing up the mean streets of Gotham in his bat "tank".

 

[Blaster Master]

Cryptic Name please try not to bash my religion...we are bashed enough already and are still here.If you think we are bad look at the others..

 

[Blaster Master]

Cryptic Name please try not to bash my religion...we are bashed enough already and are still here.If you think we are bad look at the others..

 

[Ronny Shade]

Have you ever read John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men"?

These two guys, George and Lenny, traveled together doing manual labor on ranches and such. Lenny was mentally handicapped, and George was a bit slick, so Lenny looked to George for guidance. Lenny was a giant of a man. Good guy, but ******ed. Like many mentally handicapped men he was freakishly strong. He didn't know his own strength. So Lenny, he loved soft things, animals, women's hair, whatever. And he kept getting them into trouble wherever they were working. George always told Lenny that someday they'd be able to buy themselves some land and raise animals of their own... and Lenny would ask could they have rabbits, because he loved how soft they were. Well finally at this one ranch, Lenny accidentally kills a girl by pulling on her hair too hard and snapping her neck. George takes Lenny out in the countryside and they talk a while, and Lenny asks George, "Tell me about the rabbits again," and so George does.

And while he describes this beautiful scene for Lenny, Lenny is looking off into the distance daydreaming about it, and George, with tears in his eyes, walks up behind Lenny with a revolver, puts the gun to the base of his skull, and blows his brains out.

Someday, Ronny, we will have some land. And on that land we will have some rabbits. Cheerful little rabbits.

I always hated that book.

 

[DV8]

HAHAHAHAHA . . . I started a gottam John Woo Flame war!!

BTW, I said that I smelled a directorial CAMEO by Woo . . . . not the whole dam movie . . . that would be awful IMO . . . (sorry Ronny.)

 

[Lando81]

the bat bike is a great idea!!!