Quake3World

the killing joke was a good one.

MKJ wrote:the killing joke was a good one.

"I'm not exactly sure what happened. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... If I'm going to have a past, it might as well be multiple choice!"

all batman films before "Batman Begins" are irrelevant (and bad)

dont you ever slag off any work of Tim Burton :icon33:

R00k wrote:I loved Batman 1. I saw it when I was younger, and I must have watched it a hundred times. :icon32:

I still love you honey, but that's exactly what I was talking about: The marketing for that movie was stellar; the movie itself was (to me) crap. But it worked, so I guess I should just shut up.

But I won't!

Tim Burton is a fucking hack. Casting Depp in a lead role is the only thing that guy has ever done right; everything else in his bag of tricks is all surface, no substance.

MKJ wrote:dont you ever slag off any work of Tim Burton :icon33:

I just did and what're you gonna do???`?

:@
now i wont come to your europarty. HA

rgoer wrote:Tim Burton is a fucking hack. Casting Depp in a lead role is the only thing that guy has ever done right; everything else in his bag of tricks is all surface, no substance.

Ever see The Nightmare Before Christmas?

MKJ wrote::@
now i wont come to your europarty. HA

shit...

btw I did happen to enjoy (thoroughly) "Big Fish", "Edward Scissorhands", "Beetle Juice", and "Pee-wee's Big Adventure", and I suppose Burton deserves some of the credit for them being fine films. I still say he's a pathetic hack, though, and his Batman films were beyond awful.

NS: "Nightmare" is another fine example of surface vs. substance. It's a technical marvel, and is adorable. The film, however, is dreadful.

i personally think that the burton/elfman combination results in marvelous filmmaking. i agree that the stories arent always -all that- though. ofcourse a director doesnt write the stories, he only translates them

3 words: Army Of Penguins

Anyone read them Frank Miller books? Is it worth reading?

the Miller books (especially "The Dark Knight Returns") are excellent, "worth reading" doesn't begin to describe it

As with every franchise, Frank Miller revamped the whole fucking thing with ease, grace and style. And gave Batman a deserved popularity boost.

rgoer wrote:the Miller books (especially "The Dark Knight Returns") are excellent, "worth reading" doesn't begin to describe it

by worth reading I meant worth buying + reading.

ill definitely check it out.

diego wrote:

R00k wrote:I loved Batman 1. I saw it when I was younger, and I must have watched it a hundred times. :icon32:

I still love you honey, but that's exactly what I was talking about: The marketing for that movie was stellar; the movie itself was (to me) crap. But it worked, so I guess I should just shut up.

But I won't!

Well I wasn't in a state to critique the finer elements of it at 13 years old, but it will always be a great movie to me as one of those films I loved when I was a kid.

I'm sure if I'd never seen it before and watched it now I'd be able to find a lot more flaws in it, but it's preserved to me as a great movie, and I'll always love it.

And while Keaton may not have been the best physical fit for Batman, you have to admit he played a great Bruce Wayne.

And "Big Fish", "Edward Scissorhands", "Beetle Juice", "Pee-wee's Big Adventure", "Nightmare Before Christmas", "Batman", "Gilbert Grape", "Sleepy Hollow" and "Mars Attacks" all had a very distinct, slightly dark atmosphere and feel to them, which is completely due to Tim Burton's influence, and that's what I love the most about his work.

Therac-26 wrote:

Dr.FrasierCrane wrote:Im no comic book buff, but Jack Napier is the Joker right?
All I can remember of him in the original film is him getting smacked into the acid, thus creating the grin & the Joker persona. Also he was a lot younger when he killed the Waynes so in theory, there cant be a Joker in a Batman Begins sequel

The Joker's origin doesn't actually have a canonical form. Even in The Killing Joke -- in which the Joker is an ex-chemical engineer-turned-comedian who breaks into the chemical plant in order to support his pregnant wife -- his origin is only told from the point of view of his own memories.

The only real constant in it is "falling in a vat of chemicals that dies his skin and hair that colour permanently".

The Napier character was created for the first movie, but has since been refernced in the comic continuity as being one of his pseudonyms.

At the end of Batman Begins, you get the impression time had passed between Wayne Towers and Batman's meeting with Lt. Gordon, so Batman had plenty of time to get in a row with Jack Napier. There's no reason the a second film can't go back and filll in that missing timeline. One of the main themes of the major Batman villians is that Batman creates them through his actions. He created the Scarecrow, so I suspect they will make him create the Joker too.

Don't care much for the previous Batman movies, but the 10 minute preview of this made me look forward to it

Dr.FrasierCrane wrote:Im no comic book buff, but Jack Napier is the Joker right?
All I can remember of him in the original film is him getting smacked into the acid, thus creating the grin & the Joker persona. Also he was a lot younger when he killed the Waynes so in theory, there cant be a Joker in a Batman Begins sequel

You're thinking of Two-Face in Batman Forever.

Freakaloin wrote: r u gay?

Narrow minded housewife.... piss off already.

He didn't really say whether it was an Arkham escapee or not. He said that there were still a lot of escapees to be apprehended, and then he went on to his 'escalation' talk, about how criminals keep getting better equipment and tools to outdo the cops.

Then he basically said "there's this one guy, he's been leaving his calling card."

So not much explanation at all really.

And yea, the idea that the Joker was Jack Napier, and the same guy who killed his parents, was a creation of Burton in the first movie, which obviously isn't going to be followed by this series.