Wow! The NEW (Hype!) TiVo Can Do So Much! - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for noticing Aziz. Essentially ML was implying I was just too stupid to get Harley Quinn, or at least too stupid to get how Harley isn't somehow a terrible, murdering, psycho that's taken part in multiple plots to kill mass amounts, plots to kill Batman and oh, yeah, was an active participant in kidnapping Tim Drake and violating him mentally and physically in the DCAU.

But no... She's got good intentions and acts out of love.
 
I dont get it. Care to give me some context? Why would Ben be smiling at Peter delivering pizzas?

Joker+s+got+a+point.+Well+it+s+not+like+that+everytime_301f5e_4607988.jpg
 
Thanks for noticing Aziz.
:toth
Essentially ML was implying I was just too stupid to get Harley Quinn, or at least too stupid to get how Harley isn't somehow a terrible, murdering, psycho that's taken part in multiple plots to kill mass amounts, plots to kill Batman and oh, yeah, was an active participant in kidnapping Tim Drake and violating him mentally and physically in the DCAU.

But no... She's got good intentions and acts out of love.
After all the explanation you, and others, gave, I'm surprised Mad Love still thinks that way.
:funny:
 
At least include the full convo.
Nicole Kidman in a DC movie?

It wouldn't be her first rodeo
Nicole-Batman-promo-shoot-nicole-kidman-9733754-627-769.jpg

*gasps!*

She touched the Bat-nipple.

Blasphemy! It is to be observed and praised, not touched.

You don't want to know where her other hand is than


Oof, look at that bounce.

Bat-twerk!

Oh schumacher.......

This is what they meant by the DCEU revolving around Batman
Expect Arnold to play Ares

It's a prophecy.

giphy.gif

I don't know... haven't seen shot of batfleck's buttocks yet.

Does his stuntman count?

ben-affleck-batman-batmobile-suicide-squad-movie-set-photo-butt__oPt.jpg
Goddamn.

Which pretty white gurl is this?

I think her name was George Clooney.

Batman... The prettiest white gurl of them all. :sly:

You guys are having a Batman & Robin convo without me?
 
...


It's not an obligation to watch one.
Anyway, most of them are the same cycle:
American soldiers, fight Nazis, win, celebrate.

Aziz willingly passes on great movies because he's the devil.

I could list a number of exceptions to that "cycle."

But instead I'll just mention that the same could be said for superhero films: Superheroes, fight villains, win, celebrate.

At any rate, dismissing a film out of hand because it takes place during WWII seems like a really peculiar reason to me. WWII is a historical setting, not a genre. Lots of different kinds of movies take place in that period.

No, I pass on movies I don't feel like watching, cause I don't feel like watching.

According to whom, exactly?
Some text books say it was France that did most of the work, some text books say Americans never left their shores, all they really did was collect payments, some books say it was an allied effort, etc....
None of the references I checked place America on a high pedestal.
That's why I skip it, that last line.
And in recent years, what I see from America in wars they involve themselves in off their shores is anything but cool people, heck, since conflicts in the 90s, I see and hear stories of plenty of American soldiers involved in such events regret their involvement, some of them commit suicide, ect...
So yeah, I'm pretty skeptical, and avoid that sort of war movies for such reasons.

I know, at least you know the source material for those is fictional, it's easier to sit through that without cringing looking at what changes are done.

This point is fair.
I can take some of the movies in that era, that do not center around soldiers story.

g72Xftl.gif


we're still talking about WWII, right?



America didn't just "involve themselves" in the war... they were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Prior to that they didn't want to be "involved."

I mean if you don't like historical war movies as a genre because of some hang-ups about the psychological toll of war on soldiers... then fine, I guess. But I'm not sure why America should be singled out here?

Don't give me that look, I didn't say it's my word.

Yes.


Different sources, different stories, and I'm skeptical.

i hope you realize you're entering absurd conspiracy-theory level territory here?

A number of movies focus too much on that one country.
You should know, you probably saw more of them than I did.

most movies are made in america though... and this applies to more than just war movies so... :huh:

I said I'm skeptical.

skeptical of massively well-documented historical facts?

We are talking about war movies at this point, and I don't care to watch them, that is the point I'm trying to send here.
Please don't recommend any kind of war stories for me to watch.

Normandy didn't happen!

any kind of historical war? what if they take place in the medieval ages? or ancient sparta? or ancient china?

most historical war epics don't glorify war, they present its horrors alongside the bravery of its soldiers

So 16 million Americans faked their deaths? :huh:

different sources, different stories, and i'm skeptical :o

There might be a few exceptions, but mostly I will avoid these films.

I didn't say they glorify war, I said they glorify a certain nation, maybe more than what they deserve.

I didn't say anyone faked their deaths, I'm skeptical of what I see in different sources, and I have my reasons to not want to watch war movies.

well, you just insulted the sacrifice of millions of American soldiers to defeat an evil dictatorship. well done, aziz.

I know you're not trying to be insulting, but that's nonetheless the result of questioning the validity of their sacrifice.

As an analogy, imagine someone said they were "skeptical" of the claim that black people are human beings. It doesn't matter that they voiced skepticism rather than outright denial. It would still be racist simply on the basis of the fact that they are questioning the humanity of blacks.

I'm not going to press you further on this, as I haven't got the time, but maybe you want to clarify what you are skeptical about, because at the moment it seems like you're undermining the sacrifice of American soldiers to secure freedom and overthrow a violent, inhumane dictator.

I have told this story before but...

In 1941 my grandmother's brother Michael was 16 years old. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor he lied about his age (and even as a 16 year old at 6 foot 3 he was a big dude) and entered what was then The Army Air Corps. He was assigned as a gunner to a B-17 bomber and flew multiple missions over occupied France. On one occasion he and his crew weren't so lucky and were shot down in enemy held territory. My grandmother still remembers when they sent the telegram to her house and her mother's screams as she knew it meant her son was now dead.

As it happened, he was NOT. He managed to survive the crash, and was able to avoid capture due to the help that he received from the local French and that as a Hispanic American, he spoke fluen Spanish and could pass himself off as a Spaniard. Eventually after 2 and a half months he was able to make his way to the American lines. He could have went back home but decided to stay and continue flying missions. My grandmother remembers getting the news that her brother was safe with the American forces. It was as if he had come back to life.

These stories are in MANY American families, often without the happy ending of my great uncle who was able to come home in 1946 after surviving many missions. There is no skepticism that is warranted. Americans, British, Canadian, Australian... And quite a few other nations sent men, and women, to fight and die from battlefields ranging from North Africa to the South Pacific. To deny that is silly and obtuse. Sorry, it just is.

Now, there is a debate to be had as to what affect the Allied West had in terms of the War's outcome. In recent years the seems to have been a bit of a correctin (and there is some debat as to it being quite the OVER-correction) as to the way the War has been presented in the popular imagination. The instruments way that Soviet Russia played in defeating Hitler's forces is very important to note and was likely downplayed to a degree given the Cold War standoff between the West and Russia. Without a doubt Germany was fighting a two front battle and Stalin's Soviet Union sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than just about any other nation. The way that the Russians were able to sap the German's resources and manpower on the Eastern front was a very big part in the eventual downfall of the Third Reich. Still, that shouldn't diminish the importance of the Western powers men and women who fought and died to defeat Hitler and drive Nazi forces from all the territory they had accumulated.

This is historical FACT that is not up for debate. I respect your right to have all manner of opinions, and indeed it's understandable that Aziz might hold a viewpoint that might not be popular among most Americans, as he has seen American involvement in the Middle East as a first hand observer. So, I get that, really... But you have a right to opinion, but not to your own facts which are counter to easily verifiable historical truths.

Saying you don't know if it's true that America and England and Canada sent massive amounts of men to fight in WWII around the world is obtuse. It is to imbibe a conspiracy theory that has no basis and is easily proven to be false. What's worse to me is that I know that Aziz is a very smart, educated person. It should be a simple matter for him to cleave such obvious truth from such obvious falsehoods. Maybe it's that Aziz comes from an area of the world where there is so much direct control of the media by governments that he just assumes that such is how it is in the States. Any cursory view of the history of the U.S. for the last fifty years should disabuse anyone of that notion.

In short, talk of the U.S. or Canada or the U.K. NOT having sent troops, airmen and sailors to shed blood all over the world during WWII is a lie. Plain and simple. There is nothing to be skeptical about. To even entertain that notion is to entertain a lie, one easily refuted by the family history of many Americans as millions of her sons and daughters were sent to fight and many died on the soil of countries not their own.
 
Thank you, but it's not the same. :waa:

I need him at least crouching full booty up just to see if it is indeed comic accurate. :o
 
Krypton a post above is very well written. At the end I immediately thought of the cemetery in France that is full of American graves. I can't remember the name though. Also, I had a ton of relatives fight in WWI and WWII. Have copies of the draft cards to prove it and a photo of an great-uncle getting a medal from Patton himself.
 
Mjölnir;32377465 said:
I wouldn't mind Avengers Assemble being cancelled. I still can't fathom how a really good show got cancelled and replaced with something so terrible.

It's obvious that Disney wanted the animated Avengers to seem more like the movies with a cohesive main group rather than a changing roster. [. . .] Unfortunately, that meant that the greatest super hero animated adaptation in history became a victim of the most successful live-action adaption in history.

Avengers killed Batman: The Animated Series?!?! :wow:


:applaud

I've given DC/WB a lot of hell in this thread...but the idea that Marvel ever made a cartoon better than BTAS is straight laughable.

You know, I don't think I've ever seen the series all the way through. I've seen every episode of S:TAS, JL, and JLU, but I've never felt compelled to sit down and finish B:TAS.

I thought I was the only one.

Outside of a handful, you're not missing much.

*runs*

lJmlUmy.gif
 
I expect DA_Champion to say some s*** like that but Snow Queen? :csad:
 
STOP IT Snow Queen, can't you see what you are doing to Kane!?!?1? :argh:

*runs away weeping*
 
"Bland" compared to what other version?
I don't feel it needs to be compared to any other version to be bland. Sometimes the scripts try something interesting but Conroy's performances are flat, which kills the character for me. While I do like the Arkham games more than BTAS by a mile, Conroy's still a dull Batman to me there too. And now I'm going to go hide in a bomb shelter to avoid the angry mob. :o

STOP IT Snow Queen, can't you see what you are doing to Kane!?!?1? :argh:

*runs away weeping*
:waa: I'm sorry. :o

I think that'll be the last post I make on this in this thread though, to avoid taking this further off topic. :yay:
 
Goddammit, Snow Queen. :o
 
Sorry. :funny: It just doesn't work for me. There are some great episodes in there and most of the voice actors are good but there's a lot of filler for those great episodes and I think the Batman on that show is really bland.





Kane's world just came crashing down. :o



Anyhow, I'm a casual Batman fan & I find the BTAS series to be a very awesome cartoon.
 
I can totally see Snow Queen's point.
 
Then you can be burned at the stake right alongside her. :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"