Quake3World

Sorry but the Bale/Nolan Batman movies are garbage.

WELL FUCK YOUR SHIT

Eraser wrote:What a crock of shit. I bet playing a convincing Batman is as hard as playing a tree in a kid's musical. It involves zero emotion, can't even see the face. Just make sure your mouth is a perfectly horizontal slit at all times and look like you mean it when throwing those batarangs.

Dont get me wrong, I love the Nolan Batman movies, but I don't think Bale's presence or acting talent was a huge factor in that.

Sorry, I think I wrote that a bit ambiguously.

I mean in the sense that in the Nolan Batman universe, Bale is Batman and only works as Batman. You couldn't have a Nolan Batman film without him. However, this film isn't about Jason Bourne, it's about the Bourne universe. Hence the film will work. Batman wouldn't work, simply because the entire thing is about Batman, but the Bourne universe is much deeper.

Fuck, I still don't feel like I'm making any sense. I know what I mean.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Sorry but the Bale/Nolan Batman movies are garbage.

Credibility: 0

I didn't like the Avengers either.

The bit where Hulk punched the machine in the face was good, though.

And where he smashed Loki like a rag doll. That was about it for me.

from reading these comments i'm glad i didn't watch this movie.

0psys wrote:Sorry, I think I wrote that a bit ambiguously.

I mean in the sense that in the Nolan Batman universe, Bale is Batman and only works as Batman. You couldn't have a Nolan Batman film without him. However, this film isn't about Jason Bourne, it's about the Bourne universe. Hence the film will work. Batman wouldn't work, simply because the entire thing is about Batman, but the Bourne universe is much deeper.

Fuck, I still don't feel like I'm making any sense. I know what I mean.

Yeah I get what you're saying. A Batman movie without Batman in it wouldn't work, because the movie is about Batman first and foremost. In the Bourne movies, Bourne is just an instance of an idea and this idea is bigger than just Jason Bourne. So a movie in this universe without actually having Jason Bourne in it could work.

The only thing I wonder is though, because the name Bourne is such a big part of the title of the movie, people will probably expect another movie about Jason Bourne and be confused about the fact that a movie named after Bourne doesn't have Bourne in it.

hence the legacy bit, perhaps?

MKJ wrote:hence the legacy bit, perhaps?

We've already come to that conclusion Mause, please do keep up.
I'm just saying that most people probably not get that, especially not since all Bourne movies have been named "The Bourne [something]".

well clearly they're treading a fine line between referencing the Bourne brand (or 'Bourne Identity' yuk yuk yuk) sufficiently to pique people's interest, while simultaneously letting the target audience know that Bourne himself isn't actually in the movie

anyway, clever marketing and/or commercial decisions aside, either this movie will be good, or it'll suck, or it'll be somewhere in between. better to just take it or leave it on its own merits. given that this jeremy renner character is another treadstone agent, it should provide plenty of ass-kicking ninja antics just like the original trilogy

i mean, it's not like someone thought "hey, let's make a Buffy spin-off all about Xander!"

now that would be pointless

Eraser wrote:Yeah I get what you're saying. A Batman movie without Batman in it wouldn't work, because the movie is about Batman first and foremost. In the Bourne movies, Bourne is just an instance of an idea and this idea is bigger than just Jason Bourne. So a movie in this universe without actually having Jason Bourne in it could work.

That completely contradicts the story in Batman Begins and how he's taught to become an idea instead of just a man. Not to mention in the Bourne movies, you rarely go 30 seconds without seeing Matt Damon on the screen or a secondary character mentioning his name or thinking about him.

If you'd actually read the Bourne books or even checked Wikipedia, you'd see that the actual Bourne Legacy novel is all about Jason Bourne. Bourne (Matt Damon) was supposed to be in the film but the previous director pulled out and so did Damon. Hollywood being Hollywood decided to go ahead with the project anyways even though the premise would get retarded.

This is no different than making a Batman Legacy movie except instead of Batman, you see the story of some guy named Jeff who decides to put on a cape and scare bad guys with a raspy voice.

Captain Mazda wrote:

Eraser wrote:Yeah I get what you're saying. A Batman movie without Batman in it wouldn't work, because the movie is about Batman first and foremost. In the Bourne movies, Bourne is just an instance of an idea and this idea is bigger than just Jason Bourne. So a movie in this universe without actually having Jason Bourne in it could work.

That completely contradicts the story in Batman Begins and how he's taught to become an idea instead of just a man.

Uh, I'm talking about a form of story-telling rather than what fictive characters tell each other.

Ok, tell me how Jason Bourne is "just an instance of an idea" in the three Bourne movies starring Jason Bourne.

And next time try to read more than just a line from the post you're quoting.

What are you, dumb or something?

Eraser wrote:

MKJ wrote:hence the legacy bit, perhaps?

We've already come to that conclusion Mause, please do keep up.
I'm just saying that most people probably not get that, especially not since all Bourne movies have been named "The Bourne [something]".

I know, I was underlining seremtan's point.
keep up plz

Captain Mazda wrote:This is no different than making a Batman Legacy movie except instead of Batman, you see the story of some guy named Jeff who decides to put on a cape and scare bad guys with a raspy voice.

at some point, this will actually get made

Or some guy named Dick Grayson who decides to use Nightwing as his moniker.

Mazda has a point though.

Eraser wrote:What a crock of shit. I bet playing a convincing Batman is as hard as playing a tree in a kid's musical. It involves zero emotion, can't even see the face. Just make sure your mouth is a perfectly horizontal slit at all times and look like you mean it when throwing those batarangs.

Dont get me wrong, I love the Nolan Batman movies, but I don't think Bale's presence or acting talent was a huge factor in that.

lol you're a fucking idiot.

LawL wrote:

Eraser wrote:What a crock of shit. I bet playing a convincing Batman is as hard as playing a tree in a kid's musical. It involves zero emotion, can't even see the face. Just make sure your mouth is a perfectly horizontal slit at all times and look like you mean it when throwing those batarangs.

Dont get me wrong, I love the Nolan Batman movies, but I don't think Bale's presence or acting talent was a huge factor in that.

lol you're a fucking idiot.

How refreshing to see you come up with arguments to lay out and explain an opinion of yours for once. Oh wait...

I can hardly ever be bothered.

Eraser wrote:

LawL wrote:lol you're a fucking idiot.

How refreshing to see you come up with arguments to lay out and explain an opinion of yours for once. Oh wait...

Eraser wrote:What are you, dumb or something?

lol, heed your own advice faggot.

MKJ wrote:hence the legacy bit, perhaps?

I near on that come back