You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 10

I remember when Oldman was cast as Gordon. I was like shouldn't he had been hired to play one of Batman's rogues. I like Oldman's performance in pretty every movie that I've seen him in especially when he's playing a villain he seem to relish playing those type of roles. However, I'm glad Nolan didn't typecast him and allowed him the opportunity to play Gordon.

Even though I don't care too much for the Oscars. I'm glad he's getting recognition that has been long overdue.

Agent Smith and The Joker made it, but I also wrote the first Terminator, Clarence J. Boddicker, Bill (from Kill Bill).

T-1000 made the list and the original T-800 didn't? Thanks, T2. :(

When it comes to movie villains Clarence Boddicker seems to always get overlooked. Smh! And I agree about T-800 from T1.
 
Man, thank god for Oldman's agent. Hard to imagine what TDKT would've been like without Oldman as Gordon. I feel like he's the secret weapon of those films.
 
Didn't some DCEU fans badmouth oldman when JJJ was cast as Gordon?
 
Oldman was perfect as Gordon. So much so that I didn't even mind he never smoked.
 
Jim Gordon looks better without the pipe anyway. Sure the character smoked for near a century, but wanting to see a pipe in his mouth on film makes me wonder if anyone would want to see Bruce Wayne or Bruce Banner hold a pipe to smoke on film for the sake of authenticity.
 
The pipe is apart of the iconography of Gordon as much as the glasses, mustache, and overcoat are. That's not the case with Bruce. With Gordon it always spoke to me of the duress he'd have to be under in his position and, for a man who is portrayed as fundamentally decent, his only apparent vice. It's also apart of the vernacular of detective noir fiction which he was clearly drawn from.
 
The pipe is apart of the iconography of Gordon as much as the glasses, mustache, and overcoat are. That's not the case with Bruce. With Gordon it always spoke to me of the duress he'd have to be under in his position and, for a man who is portrayed as fundamentally decent, his only apparent vice. It's also apart of the vernacular of detective noir fiction which he was clearly drawn from.


Exactly.
 
Infinity War is bound to be great when compared to Age of Ultron, even if it ends up as not great.

That tandem aside; TDKR does feel better when viewed without the other two with it.

Funny, I feel the opposite about it. I have a hard time getting through TDKR without the fond memories I had from the earlier installments to carry me through.
 
I thought it was Ras. Or did Nolan say "I offered him the villain" and we just assumed Ras Al Ghul?
 
I thought it was Ras. Or did Nolan say "I offered him the villain" and we just assumed Ras Al Ghul?

PHP:

According to Wikipedia, you're right. Nolan had oldman in mind for Ras, but when Chris cooper turned down the Gordon role, Nolan thought it would be refreshing to have Gary as a good guy.
 
I've come around to admit that Rises isn't as bad as I conjured up in my head, I just fundamentally disagree with the character going away for 8 years the way he did, come back for a few days in total and then leave Gotham for good.

Nolan's explanation was that for the end of TDK to be meaningful and have impact, enough time needed to pass to show the outcome of Gordon and Batman's decision to cover-up Dent's crimes. What do you make of his view?
 
Yeah for the lie to mean something and have weight, it needed to be successful. And so a significant amount of time needed to pass. It still makes a lot of sense to me. If you keep that quote from Nolan in mind, and then try to think about the opposite outcome (the ones that we had in our heads after TDK) it doesn't add up. Not when you take the lie into account and the consequences of those actions. It all feels like a fanboy dream, like we took the "cuz he can take it" line too literally in a physical sense, and completely dismissed the meaning of that ending. Which all comes down to the secret Gordon and Batman share. The bat signal is destroyed. Gordon tells the world what a hero Harvey is. Were we ignoring all of this? I think we were. Same goes for the Joker line about freaks lining up, and now he and Bats were meant to do this forever. We take those words and then see it as gospel, then turn around and bash Nolan for not following through. All without realizing that Joker said these things with the assumption that Harvey Dent would be caught, all his wrong doings out in the open, with more use for the heroic & incorruptible Batman. That's before Batman and Gordon shut that dream down, by making damn sure Two-Face is never found out. This would then create the opposite effect. A more peaceful time, gradually. Instead of the freak show fantasy that Joker thought up.

I think fans of this genre get caught up in the cool adventure factor of it all, and tend to look at the surface of a line of dialogue or a moment, without putting some brain power into what's beneath the surface. Bale even said, they always wanted to show the consequences of their actions. Even on a physical level.

Those little extra features on the blu ray/DVD where Nolan and his crew talk about Bruce Wayne...it really clicks with me when I watch that. That Bruce Wayne feature is like 5 minutes. To the point, and it really captures everything about why Rises works in my opinion.
 
Nolan's explanation was that for the end of TDK to be meaningful and have impact, enough time needed to pass to show the outcome of Gordon and Batman's decision to cover-up Dent's crimes. What do you make of his view?

I agree. Batman and Gordon lying to perserve Harvey's reputation needed to have an actual point in the story beyond just making Batman's job harder than it needs to be.
 
An actual point? The point was to clean up Gotham. I can't think of a better point.
 
AWest was agreeing with Nolan's explanation.
 
"Bloated" is not how I would describe it. If anything it's not long enough.

I still think it should've been a two-part film.

P.S. Happy (belated) New Year fellow Batman-lovers and Nolanites! Good to see you guys are still kicking about.
 
Gotham by Gaslight is quite disappointing, one moment in the middle of the movie makes it hard to swallow the climax reveal. The animation is not great.

The good news is that it is better than the Killing Joke.
 
The feedback from it so far that I've read has been very positive.
 
I still enjoyed it, it's a solid movie that had the promise to be one of the better animated DC movies, but was short from living to its true potential.
 
What I meant by “most films today” in regards to Rises, I was more of referring to most blockbusters that prove to be giant disappointments. Something like Rogue One comes to mind.

I may give Gotham by Gaslight a go, even if I'm not big on non-canon stories.
 
Yeah Batlobster! Guillermo will probably take it, and I think that's ridiculous. However, I would love to see a round table with Chris, Guillermo, Greta, Jordan and PTA. Great list of directors. I'm a little salty about Villeneuve (and Bladerunner) getting snubbed but I'm still content with that list.

Two biggest actor snubs this year IMO were Gyllenhaal (Stronger) and believe it or not Robert Pattinson (Good Time).

But overall, I'm glad Dunkirk is getting some spotlight. I watched it again last week and I loved it more this time. I have mixed feelings about Saving Private Ryan, and I know this may be controversial, but I rank Dunkirk higher as a war film. It is at the very least the greatest war film of this century.

That is probably true, but then again, how many good war films have been released this century? I'm drawing up blanks.
 
David Harbour (Stranger Things, Hellboy):

"I can like Michael Keaton's Batman and I can like Christian Bale's Batman," Harbour said. "I can like Jack Nicolson's Joker and I can like Heath Ledger's Joker. There's other Jokers I don't have to like, " the Suicide Squad actor quipped.

eqys5t.gif


Gee, I wonder who he's talking about? :woot:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"