How about IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! I'M GONNA GET THE POWER LANTERN TURN THAT SON BITCH SIDEWAYS AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ROOTY TOO CANDY ASS IFFF YOU CAN SMEEEEELLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAA WHAT THE ROCK IS.....COOKING!
Son of Batman
On July 20, 2013, as part of the San Diego Comic-Con, DC Comics announced on Twitter a new animated feature, Son of Batman.[54] The film will be based on Grant Morrison's "Batman and Son" storyline.
Batman: Assault on Arkham
On July 20, 2013, as part of the San Diego Comic-Con, DC Comics announced on Twitter a new animated feature, Batman: Assault on Arkham.[54] The film will take place in the same universe as Warner Bros' Batman: Arkham video game franchise.
So I'm assuming they are going to be putting Damian
The second Robin who died
into the animated movies? No offence to anyone who likes Damian but i think hes the worst Robin. He acts like an uptight and serious asshole to everyone. Especially Alfred. I don't know maybe if i read more comics with him in it but the ones I have read he usually is like this. Yes I know it was Talia who raised Damian which might explain why he is like that but still after fighting as Robin for so long. You would think he could stop calling Nightwing ''Grayson'' and Alfred ''Pennyworth''.
Just watched that Justice League War promo... Jason O'Mara is a good Batman. I'm also looking forward to Will Arnett as Batman in the Lego movie. But I can't picture Ben Affleck doing it. He'd be a pretty good Bruce Wayne but I was hoping not to see much Bruce Wayne in a crossover movie.
I really think Will Arnett should be the new official Batman across all media.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here. After all, was wrong about Heath Ledger as The Joker. And it's not like this'll be Affleck's first time as a superhero.
I know people aren't happy with this idea, but when it comes to the casting of Batman, I try to have a "wait and see" attitude. After all, look what happened when Michael Keaton was cast in the '89 film, people were outraged, then the trailer came out and after that nobody doubted his ability to pull off a believable performance. I'm not saying that this situation can be applied to every casting choice of the dark knight, but here I can see a potentially good outcome.
I don't see why we care. Even if who plays Batman in a Man of Steel sequel is something that matters that we should care about, Affleck has shown he has some serious acting chops in recent years. I seriously don't understand where peoples' opinions come from on things like this, because it sure as hell isn't logic but it's uniform enough that most people seem to have the same opinion on these things.
I plotted out the quality of DC movies on a scatter graph and it turned out to look like a jagged repeating M-like figure. By this logic, and if the trend continues we're due for an increase in relative quality right about now.
I plotted out the quality of DC movies on a scatter graph and it turned out to look like a jagged repeating M-like figure. By this logic, and if the trend continues we're due for an increase in relative quality right about now.
Science!
Honestly, I think the dip is going further before the climb. The over concentration of superhero movies of late is bound to produce more extremes in the graph. My theory is that we have 2 shit movies to go before the next good one(For superheroes in general). We'll see.
As long as Avengers 2 ends up at the peak of goodness, I will be happy. Though, I'll say, as far as Marvel has been going, the base return value for the jagged M has been steadily increasing over time.
I know people aren't happy with this idea, but when it comes to the casting of Batman, I try to have a "wait and see" attitude. After all, look what happened when Michael Keaton was cast in the '89 film, people were outraged, then the trailer came out and after that nobody doubted his ability to pull off a believable performance. I'm not saying that this situation can be applied to every casting choice of the dark knight, but here I can see a potentially good outcome.
My big offense to Affleck doing Batman is that he's honestly too good for it. He had an exciting and worthwhile career trajectory, had an unprecedented level of clout and agency, and he's going to waste it on a dumb popcorn flick.
Jeremy Jahns did a video about Ben Affleck playing Batman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGmFjKxXxl4
Yes he doesn't have the end all, be all of opinions but it's a good video
My big offense to Affleck doing Batman is that he's honestly too good for it. He had an exciting and worthwhile career trajectory, had an unprecedented level of clout and agency, and he's going to waste it on a dumb popcorn flick.
That's all ANY movie is when you get right down to it Dashing.
No, I think I'm right on the money. Movies are made as entertainment to attract an audience and make money. Any director who says he/she's trying to do otherwise is a bald-faced liar. When a movie actually has a thought-provoking message, such as Star Trek Into Darkness delving into the ideas behind irrational vengeance vs. the better nature of humanity, it gets lost on the movie-going audience. I'm not sure who you're overly crediting, the typical director or the typical audience.
No, I think I'm right on the money. Movies are made as entertainment to attract an audience and make money. Any director who says he/she's trying to do otherwise is a bald-faced liar. When a movie actually has a thought-provoking message, such as Star Trek Into Darkness delving into the ideas behind irrational vengeance vs. the better nature of humanity, it gets lost on the movie-going audience. I'm not sure who you're overly crediting, the typical director or the typical audience.
Yeah. Entertaining. I'll bet the audience of the 30s was highly entertained by this harsh critique of feminine sexualization on stage and screen.
Profitable. That's always the point. I'll bet money was first and foremost on Dorothy Arzner's mind when she directed this, or Vicki Baum's mind when she wrote the screenplay. Well, no, it probably did factor into Baum's mind because how much were writers paid then? Still, my point stands.
That movies do not try to send a message or make a point or statement is a false notion.
And you even dare to claim nobody pays attention? If that were true, fucking soccer moms and fundies wouldn't get uptight up their assholes and freak out at every little thing put forward on the big or small screen.
When a movie actually has a thought-provoking message, such as Star Trek Into Darkness delving into the ideas behind irrational vengeance vs. the better nature of humanity, it gets lost on the movie-going audience.
Star Trek into-- hahahahahaha STAR TREK? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA STAR TREK INTO FRICKIN' DARKNESS??!?!
Hoo... don't make me laugh. That's your example of "delving" into deeper ideas? Really?
Oh man, no wonder you were going on the popcorn rampage.
Seriously, that movie had less meat and potatoes than a vegetarian on the Atkins diet. If you want a movie that could be a popcorn flick but actually has a deeper message, try something like Tootsie. Now that's a movie with chops.
No, I think I'm right on the money. Movies are made as entertainment to attract an audience and make money. Any director who says he/she's trying to do otherwise is a bald-faced liar. When a movie actually has a thought-provoking message, such as Star Trek Into Darkness delving into the ideas behind irrational vengeance vs. the better nature of humanity, it gets lost on the movie-going audience. I'm not sure who you're overly crediting, the typical director or the typical audience.
As far as I can tell, your definition of "Movie" seems to be limited to "Studio financed multimillion dollar films which are given a wide release in mainstream American theater chains". The concept of a film needing to attract audiences to make extra money completely ignores student films, government-backed propaganda films, documentaries(especially ones financed by nonprofit organizations/governments/etc and released generally through museums or art installations), museum pieces, etc, AND greatly diminishes the risk-taking and intellectual value of lower-budget, self-financed films AND the freedom these things provide. A director CAN make something which only makes enough money to pay back the cost of the last movie, AND be happy with it, AND be ultimately successful in what they had set out to do. The idea that film's ONLY purpose is to entertain as many people as possible in order to get back as much cash as possible is a shallow and frankly insulting view of film as a medium.
And that's not even going into Star Trek: Into Darkness being your example of deeper themes. Seriously, THIS is your example? A $200 million, wide release, studio tentpole action flick given a wide release in major United States theater chains, in the SUMMER, in the TWENTY-TENS. Dear God the amount of shallow shit that gets worse than that is such a TINY FRACTION of the body of film history that my mind BOGGLES at how much is immediately left out when your example of higher art filmmaking is $200 million budget SEQUEL to a movie that banked on the reliable existing fanbase and general cultural clout of a decades-old franchise.
Apparently one of the reasons for going after Affleck is he's someone DC's been looking for to direct Justice League - which is good news, as far as I'm concerned...
(I don't have an opinion as I'm the person who saw Argo the day it opened and found out last month that Ben Affleck was the lead)
Comments
How about HELL THE FUCK NO.
How about IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! I'M GONNA GET THE POWER LANTERN TURN THAT SON BITCH SIDEWAYS AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ROOTY TOO CANDY ASS IFFF YOU CAN SMEEEEELLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAA WHAT THE ROCK IS.....COOKING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DkKOp45c9U
Son of Batman
On July 20, 2013, as part of the San Diego Comic-Con, DC Comics announced on Twitter a new animated feature, Son of Batman.[54] The film will be based on Grant Morrison's "Batman and Son" storyline.
Batman: Assault on Arkham
On July 20, 2013, as part of the San Diego Comic-Con, DC Comics announced on Twitter a new animated feature, Batman: Assault on Arkham.[54] The film will take place in the same universe as Warner Bros' Batman: Arkham video game franchise.
That's pretty much what every ones saying.
Was kinda hoping it'd be Arkham 3 or whatever, but this is fine too.
Ben Affleck has been cast as the Batman in Superman vs Batman/Batman vs Superman/World's Finest/DC Shark Jumping 101.
I thought you were joking, but apparently not
I can't picture it
Just watched that Justice League War promo... Jason O'Mara is a good Batman. I'm also looking forward to Will Arnett as Batman in the Lego movie. But I can't picture Ben Affleck doing it. He'd be a pretty good Bruce Wayne but I was hoping not to see much Bruce Wayne in a crossover movie.
I really think Will Arnett should be the new official Batman across all media.
Last time didn't go so well.
Says you, I liked Daredevil.
Science!
Honestly, I think the dip is going further before the climb. The over concentration of superhero movies of late is bound to produce more extremes in the graph. My theory is that we have 2 shit movies to go before the next good one(For superheroes in general). We'll see.
To say nothing of Ledger as Joker.
I actually had no idea people reacted badly to that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGmFjKxXxl4
Yes he doesn't have the end all, be all of opinions but it's a good video
That's all ANY movie is when you get right down to it Dashing.
(puts hand up)...me?
No, I think I'm right on the money. Movies are made as entertainment to attract an audience and make money. Any director who says he/she's trying to do otherwise is a bald-faced liar. When a movie actually has a thought-provoking message, such as Star Trek Into Darkness delving into the ideas behind irrational vengeance vs. the better nature of humanity, it gets lost on the movie-going audience. I'm not sure who you're overly crediting, the typical director or the typical audience.
...You two are strange, strange people.
I resemble that remark!
Yeah. Entertaining. I'll bet the audience of the 30s was highly entertained by this harsh critique of feminine sexualization on stage and screen.
Profitable. That's always the point. I'll bet money was first and foremost on Dorothy Arzner's mind when she directed this, or Vicki Baum's mind when she wrote the screenplay. Well, no, it probably did factor into Baum's mind because how much were writers paid then? Still, my point stands.
That movies do not try to send a message or make a point or statement is a false notion.
And you even dare to claim nobody pays attention? If that were true, fucking soccer moms and fundies wouldn't get uptight up their assholes and freak out at every little thing put forward on the big or small screen.
Star Trek into-- hahahahahaha STAR TREK? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA STAR TREK INTO FRICKIN' DARKNESS??!?!
Hoo... don't make me laugh. That's your example of "delving" into deeper ideas? Really?
Oh man, no wonder you were going on the popcorn rampage.
Seriously, that movie had less meat and potatoes than a vegetarian on the Atkins diet. If you want a movie that could be a popcorn flick but actually has a deeper message, try something like Tootsie. Now that's a movie with chops.
And that's not even going into Star Trek: Into Darkness being your example of deeper themes. Seriously, THIS is your example? A $200 million, wide release, studio tentpole action flick given a wide release in major United States theater chains, in the SUMMER, in the TWENTY-TENS. Dear God the amount of shallow shit that gets worse than that is such a TINY FRACTION of the body of film history that my mind BOGGLES at how much is immediately left out when your example of higher art filmmaking is $200 million budget SEQUEL to a movie that banked on the reliable existing fanbase and general cultural clout of a decades-old franchise.
Me.
And this guy:
http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=597251&postcount=3327
(I don't have an opinion as I'm the person who saw Argo the day it opened and found out last month that Ben Affleck was the lead)