I was really bugged out about all of the rumors that came with the release of this movie. Specifically the shooting in Colorado. This is my absolute fav movie of all time.
Edit: the shooting was not a rumor. By rumors I mean the conspiracy theories behind it that were circulating at the time.
TDKR was probably my most amazing theater experience and yes it is one of my personal favorites
shareFor me it was by far TDK. That ending was awesome in the theater. I was only 12 at the time but I remember feeling like I had just watched the best movie ever made. Now I see it is not, of course, but I understand why some make that claim.
shareTDK was an amazing theater experience but at that point I wasn’t super invested in the story and that was what made TDKR better, i didn’t sleep at all that night my mind was just blown away
shareAnything with Nolan's name on it blows you away. It explains your blind love for the awful dark knight rises film.
shareUm no. Lord of the Rings did everything better than the prequels of Star Wars did. I seriously can not believe I am arguing this. The acting better in the prequels? Seriously with Hayden Christensen's awful performance as Annakin? A performance so bad it ruined one of cinema's most iconic villains. Better writing?
Name me lines as bad as this.
I hate sand it is rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere.
Don't make me kill you!
You're so beautiful it is only because I am so in love no it is only because I am so in love with you.
Annakin chancellor Palpatine is evil. From my point of view the Jedi are evil.
Annakin and Padme's relationship went nowhere and was a giant plothole. The whole reason Annakin went to the dark side was to try and save Padme's life. Then he tries to kill her. In one foul swoop you betrayed your villain's motivations completely. So no on that front you are wrong again. Not to mention their chemistry was agonizing to sit through. With LOTR the romance was not the focus of the story where as Annakin and Padme were. Funny thing is the romance is better in LOTR and it is not even the soul focus of the film. Aragorn and Arwen have far more chemistry than Annakin and Padme.
Oh so you're one of those people. You disliked a movie I held in high regard therefore because you disliked it you must not understand it. Funny thing is I never assumed you did not understand Return of the King, I just realized your opinion was different. I understood Pulp Fiction perfectly. I just never thought it was what it was cracked up to be. You realize people can understand a highly regarded film and still dislike it right? Please tell me you are smart enough to realize this. I am starting to wonder about you.
Nice passive aggressive insult. So since I like Return of the King and you do not you assume I lack intelligence. Quite classy.
Lacking foresight does not make you a dumbass. It shows you have a flaw as a character which often grounds the character.
Have tact next time. You debate like a 14 year old kid. Oh and I love Gimili in Return of the King he is hilarious.
Anything out of Liv Tyler's mouth was infinitely worse than anything out of the prequels.
The only line you mentioned that is even remotely cringe worthy is the one about how she's so beautiful and again that is not nearly as bad as all of Liv Tyler's dialogue not to mention she is probably the worst actress I have ever seen. Her performance in Armageddon is further proof.
Here are some others:
- "Who are you to deny the return of the king" (roll credits)
- "I am no man"
- "That still only counts as one"
- "Certainty of death, small chance of success, what are we waiting for?"
- "Frodo has passed beyond my sight" literally 5 seconds later "10,000 orcs now lie in front of him" (I thought he passed beyond your sight?)
- "Sauron has yet to unleash his deadliest weapon, the Witch King of Angmar" literally 5 seconds later "You've met him before" (so then he has unleashed him?)
- "This day we fight"
- "Why should we ride to aid those who would not come to ours" (Because you didn't ask for help dumbass)
- "What does your heart tell you?" Not only is that a horrible line but it's directly ripping off The Phantom Menace and I thought that was a movie we were supposed to hate?
ROTK is filled with cringe worthy dialogue, it only appears every now and then in the Star Wars prequels but it is in the whole damn movie when it comes to ROTK.
I truly did feel for Anakin, George Lucas was able to take a character who slaughtered innocent children and still make you feel sorry for him, that cannot be an easy thing to do. Yes his performance in AOTC wasn't all that great but he knocked it out of the park in ROTS.
There never even needed to be a romance in LOTR, it was only thrown in there to appeal to a wider audience, romances put asses in the seats that's what it all came down to, their romance was barely even talked about in the book and again Arwen's stupid story is the most pointless subplot I have ever seen in a big budget film, yes it is far worse than anything out of the Star Wars Prequels. I will say this, LOTR is still miles ahead of the Disney films which to me are on the level of Battlefield Earth or Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
The romance between Anakin and Padme was not a plot hole, it was one of the main driving forces that turned Anakin to the Dark Side and it is utterly devastating that in his attempts to save her it was actually he who killed her. The self fullfilling prophecy was very well executed (nice Oedipus reference as well). Aragorn and Arwen has ZERO CHEMISTRY, I want to chop my ears off everytime I hear them speak to each other. They had cringe worthy acting and cringe worthy dialogue. The only reason Arwen was given a bigger role was because Daddy is the front man of Aerosmith.
I truly don't think you understand Pulp Fiction or TDKR, and I think if you did you would like them better.
Aragorn was a dumbass, he was clearly aware of the Pirate Ghosts as was Elrond and it was never even brought up in the council meeting. All he had to do was go to them at the very beginning and say "I need you to kill all the orcs in Middle Earth and take out Saruman, then kill all the orcs in Mordor, be sure to get rid of that pesky spider and then clear a path so that Frodo can drop a ring in the fire and if it looks like he's changing his mind by all means make him do it". The pirate ghosts were a cop out plain and simple and it made the characters look like complete idiots.
Again I am not completely ripping on LOTR, there are things it did very well but there are too many instances of plot holes, lazy writing and atrocious dialogue that I can't forgive. None of the Dark Knight movies seem to have that problem.
You really need to not watch anything deep or thought provoking, I am guessing most things go straight over your head.
Okay it needs to be said you are a closed minded person. You are condescending. So it is impossible to understand Pulp Fiction and TDKR and dislike them? I actually like both films but I find both to films to be overrated. Did I ever say you did not understand Return of the King? Nope because I realize some people have different opinions. However since you want to play that game I will also. I do not think you understand Return of the King and if you did you would like it more.
No the romance between Annakin and Padme was dreadful. It has been made fun of and mocked so many times it is not even funny. Aragorn and Arwen have amazing chemistry. Funny how it has not been mocked like Annakin and Padme.
No he took what he could get from them. Again lack of foresight which is something even the most intelligent men in history have made the mistake of doing.
The Dark Knight movies are not as well made as LOTR. Not in my book. Peter Jackson can direct action much better than Nolan can. The choreography in the LOTR movies was far better handled. The choreography in TDKR was not well staged or choreographed. Actually in taking mma Batman and Bane fight the exact way you are instructed not to in martial arts. I can feed you films with far greater choreography than that one. A film where the fighting in the background is dreadful and thugs fall without being touched. Also thugs for some reason run up to batman when they have a gun in their hands? Does that make any sense?
I felt not one thing for Annakin. I laughed when he got sliced in half. Lucas made Vader into a spoiled brat. Let me tell you Vader would say things like it's not fair!
You really need to not watch anything deep or thought provoking, I am guessing most things go straight over your head. Stick to Batman movies where action is dreadfully done. Problem is I have read comics that are far better Batman stories than TDKR.
Batman is smart for some reason not so much in TDKR. Why is Rachael Dawes in those films anyway? Does she exist in the comics? Nope she was added in for a forced lame romance. The comics are far better than Nolan's films. A romance thrown in just for the sake of it.
Again I am not ripping on TDK trilogy but the way it directs fight scenes and how much exposition there is I can not forgive. LOTR seems to not have that problem.
I wouldn't say that I'm condescending, I would say that I am very accurate, you clearly don't understand either film and it is apparent to me that you do better with a more simple, straight forward story that doesn't require much thought. Hey to each his own. There really isn't anything to get about ROTK, the only really theme the movie even tries to convey is the whole thing about afterlife and how death is only the first step to a new journey, blah, blah, blah and that theme could not be more in your face if it jumped out of the screen and slapped you. Trust me there's nothing to get.
LOL, Aragorn and Arwen had the chemistry of copper and hydrochloric acid and in case you don't know those two substances produce NO REACTION as copper is very low on the activity series. Their dialogue was painful to listen to and they were played by two very untalented actors and I have already proven why Liv Tyler is an objectively horrible actress. The romance played NO PART in the story, you could remove it and you wouldn't miss a thing they only expanded it so as to make the film more marketable which is a complete sell out. Anakin and Padme though was well defined and established and it was an integral part of Anakin's turn to the dark side, that was good storytelling.
As far as Rachel goes it again shows that you don't understand TDKR, her death only deepened his obsession with being Batman and that was a key theme to the Dark Knight Trilogy, will Bruce be able to let go of his parents death and stop being Batman? Rachel always symbolized Bruce's goal to be able to put Batman behind him and leave Gotham in the hands of the people. When she died he only slipped further into Batman mode and it made his actions at the end when he gives up being Batman and moves on to be with Selina all the more powerful.
I actually kind of feel sorry for you that you aren't able to appreciate Nolan's genius, oh well guess even Nolan can't please everyone.
You have not even heard my analysis on Pulp Fiction or TDKR. So no you do not understand you assumed. You would rather inflict an assumption on me because in your deluded brain no one can disagree with you without being ignorant. Answer this question is it possible to fully understand TDKR and Pulp Fiction and not think they are good? Answer that. You will probably side step it like you did the last time. You like to project I noticed.
Aragorn and Arwen have far better chemistry than Annakin and Padme. I did not cringe once watching them where as I did the whole time with Annakin and Padme. You proved objectively that she is horrible? Do you know the definition of objective? Here me let me help you.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Well you just showed me that you don't understand the point of Rachel and what she represents to Bruce and the audience so it's a perfectly logical assumption that you don't understand it. No she isn't part of the comic books yet it doesn't matter, her addition was a creative decision by Nolan and it worked very well. Notice I gave Jackson credit in one instance where he deviated from the novel by having Frodo and Sam split it, it added drama and emotion and it worked well. Nice try.
Liv Tyler is an objectively horrible actress, name me a movie where she gave even a somewhat competent performance. Their love story adds nothing to the overall plot and it was simply added in to make the film more marketable that's it. A lot of people like to call The Battle of the Five Armies "the bloating of the 5 pages" well Arwen's whole subplot should then be called "the bloating of the one sentence".
Peter Jackson didn't do anything all that special, he's not that great of a director and the only reason he won was because there was no one else to give it to. I didn't say he was horrible but he's no Nolan, Coppola or Spielberg.
If Liv Tyler is objectively horrible then you can prove it without me being able to dispute it. I can name several where she performed well Lord of the Rings being one of them. Anyhow the burden of proof is on you since you claimed it to be objective. So go ahead prove it.
I do understand what she brings to the plot. I never said she was bad I simply was showing you she is not part of the comics at all. Nolan deviated from the source material also.
In my book it did add to the plot. It showed that Aragorn was a noble man with dignity. He loved her and did not step out on her. She chose a mortal life because he was such a good man.
How many Oscars has Nolan won again?
That doesn't have anything to do with the plot, that is just a cheap romance. The fact that you think she gave a competent performance in LOTR just shows that you don't know what you're talking about so no the burden of proof isn't on me. Natalie Portman wasn't great in Star Wars but she still acted circles around Tyler, hell even Katie Holmes did.
I know you don't understand what Rachel brings to the plot, it's been well established that TDK is too complex for you to understand. I explained it to you but again someone of such a low intelligence level like yourself is never going to get it so what's the point.
The academy seems to have it out for Nolan and I can't explain it but I will say he did deserve the Oscar for the following:
- Memento
- Batman Begins
- The Prestige
- The Dark Knight
- Inception
- The Dark Knight Rises
- Interstellar
Lol wow you really are dense aren't you. I am not the one who claimed she was objectively good. You on the other hand claimed she was objectively bad. I never said it to be anymore than my opinion where as you did. Therefore the burden of proof is on you my friend. Since it is objective give me factual proof that I can not dispute that she is bad.
No Katie Holmes nor Natalie Portman performed better than Liv Tyler not in my book.
I am the one who lacks intelligence yet I know the difference between subjective and objective where as you clearly don't.
Either way he has had several chances. Jackson won far earlier into his career than Nolan did.
If that performance in LOTR is your claim to fame then you are objectively bad end of story. Holmes and Portman acted circles around Tyler and they have far more impressive resumes, the only reason LT got as far as she did was because of Daddy. The Oscars are completely subjective it’s all based on the Academy’s opinion which is why Shakespeare in Love somehow beat Saving Private Ryan which I am sure they are still kicking themselves in the ass over.
I really do feel sorry for you
Lmao! As I thought you can not prove your statement. If it was objective you would be able to provide concrete facts. If someone asks me how many points Michael Jordan has I can without hesitation provide them how many he has.
I can because it as an objective fact. You can not dispute it. Now you made two claims I am objectively bad because I disagree with you? Again you will have no problem proving that right? I disagree with you get over it. I never claimed you to be stupid for having a differing opinion.
In your opinion Liv Tyler is a bad actress it stops there. It is not objective. I never said the academy or any opinion I have had was objective.
So thanks this debate has been fun. Go back to school and learn what the word objective means.
And if you want I can send you my DVD of the force awakens and my VHS of Batman and robin, they both seem like films you would enjoy!
shareI do not like either of those films. You just admitted to owning those films, so looks like the joke is on you. I do not own them because I did not enjoy them. So again you made yourself look ignorant.
Why own something you dislike? You're simply salty that you got beat in a debate. Since you are salty now it is time to do your favorite thing project. This is embarrassing. Seriously are you okay man?
Own up to the fact that you made an empty statement. You misused the word objective because you are too dumb to know the difference between subjective and objective.
I got them both before watching them dumbass, Batman and Robin was a present for my 12th birthday, and I knocked you out a long time ago and I’ve been beating your face in ever since, the ref just didn’t call it because he enjoys exciting you suffer. I did not make an empty statement you admitted her best role was LOTR and since her acting was shit in that that means she is an objectively bad actress . Damn you suck
shareSo you did not see the Force Awakens in theaters? I highly doubt that.
Liv Tyler is good in a few films not just LOTR. I never said she was only good in LOTR. I said that was one of the films she was good in. Anyhow I am still waiting on proof of how she is objectively bad.
You do not even know the definition of objective. Since you do not know just quit while you're ahead man.
No I didn't, I never got around to it. I bought it at Target on DVD just for the hell of it and to see what they were up to and it was very painful to watch my childhood get raped before my eyes.
If LOTR is one of her better performances then she is objectively bad as her role as Arwen was one of the most bland and cringe inducing female performances I have ever seen. She never should have even been in the film, her entire subplot boils down to just a cheap romance. I guess they figured it was too much of a sausage fest and had to throw some vaginas in there.
I sincerely doubt you did not see it in theaters. However I will play along. You could have easily redboxed it or digitally rented it. Joke is on you for buying a movie without having seen it first. Good I am glad it did that to your childhood.
If she is objectively bad then prove it. I keep waiting and asking for the proof yet you will not provide any. Why is that? Oh that is right because you made an empty baseless claim. If something is objective you can prove it as an objective fact. Since you claimed she is objectively bad provide indisputable proof she is a bad actress. If you cannot then you have admitted defeat. I am giving you one more chance. Prove it or this round goes to me.
LOTR is in fact a trilogy. It was rated as separate entries. by the community and critics. Not to mention released separately in theaters. Even so what is the point of it is or not anyway? You are grasping at straws at this point.
I know why you are trying to denounce it as a trilogy. You are doing that because you know overall it bests TDK trilogy critically and by users. If you can eliminate LOTR it makes TDK trilogy look better. Here is the funny thing though LOTR is not the only trilogy that beats TDK trilogy critically.
The Before trilogy and the Toy Story trilogy actually beat TDK trilogy critically. Before Midnight, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Toy Story 3 are higher rated critically than TDKR is.
So I do not even have to use LOTR in order to prove that TDKR is not indisputable in terms of the third best entry ever in my book. Those other third entries are better in my opinion.
Ah it was like $12, that's chump change and I pretty much wipe my butt with it so who the hell cares.
I already did prove that she is objectively bad. If LOTR is one of her "better" performances then that is enough for me to consider her a failure as an actress and the point still stands that if Daddy wasn't Aerosmith guy her career wouldn't add up to sh!t.
LOTR is not a trilogy, it's just one film, a trilogy has a beginning, a middle and an end, LOTR doesn't have that it's just one big film. None of the entries have their own individual plots like TDK does so therefore it isn't a trilogy. Even JR Tolkein himself didn't consider LOTR to be a trilogy. So far in the Middle Earth film franchise there is a film called Lord of the Rings, a prequel called the Hobbit and if Peter Jackson were to make one more film then we would have a Middle Earth Trilogy.
Never saw Before Midnight so you can just drop it. Didn't like Bourne so again you can just drop it. I do like Toy Story but still it's not up to the level of TDK and that ending to Toy Story 3 was the cheesiest, corniest ending they could have possibly come up with. I know it's supposed to be sad but the way they play it out with Andy being the biggest dweeb ever I had to keep myself from laughing. TDKR had a satisfying ending, Toy Story botched its ending so no you aren't right.
Still it would 3 bucks tops to redbox it, so you are still a moron for spending that much on it. Plus I have a strong feeling you're lying about not seeing it in theaters.
No you did not prove that she is objectively bad. If you had I would have no way of disputing it. You have only said well if LOTR is one of her better performances that is enough for me. That is an opinion not a fact try again my friend.
LOTR is a trilogy. It was released in separate entries theatrically and was rated separately by critics and users. So I am suppose to believe all the critics on earth and every person on earth got it wrong and you have it right? Second it fits the very definition of trilogy. I could provide the textbook definition but I figured you should know that.
JR Tolkien was not alive during the production of the films therefore we are throwing that right out of the window. We will not know how he views the films because he is unfortunately no longer with us.
The films and books are also not the same. Nice try though. Lets cut the BS. The reason you want to discredit it as a trilogy is because it beats TDK trilogy. If TDK trilogy beat it you would have no issue with people calling it a trilogy.
I do not give a crap if you like any of the third installments I listed. The point is I think they are better than TDKR. I have a right to consider Return of the King, The Bourne Ultimatum, Before Midnight and Toy Story 3 better than TDKR. You have the right to think TDKR is the best third installment ever. However when you crunch the numbers many other third entries beat it critically.
Should that change your mind? Nope but it is funny how you quickly cited TDKR spot on the top 250 of imdb and how much money it made. If you do not care that Bourne Ultimatum beats TDKR critically why should we care about TDKR spot on imdb and how much money it made? It shows you only cite data when it suits you, which makes you look lame.
It was a difference of about 9 dollars, that is a drop in the bucket for me, who gives a shit? Move on, next point.
I did prove that she's objectively bad, let's go through a little bit of logical reasoning, if her best performance is shit then it's within reason to assume that all of her other performances are worse shit. It's kind of like saying if the fastest runner in the world runs the 5K in 12:45 (give or take) then it's logical to say that everyone else in the world is slower than 12:45. Understand now?
LOTR is not a trilogy, as defined by Tolkein it was a collection of volumes that were too large to be contained into one novel. The only reason that LOTR was split into 3 films was because there were 3 entries in the novel so therefore that logic applies to the film as well. In conclusion it's not a trilogy. As of now between LOTR and TDK (2008) it's a draw, LOTR wins at the Oscars however TDK(2008) is higher on IMDB and on average made more money at the box office. TDKR absolutely crushes The Hobbit and then Batman Begins wins by default. So the score is 3-1 in favor of TDK trilogy.
Go ahead and like those entries better than TDKR, again you don't need my approval, you will never change my opinion.
According to you her best performance is bad. That is subjective in my opinion her best performance is really good. See that is all I have to do in order to dispute it. So nope still not objective try again.
LOTR movies are a trilogy. Tolkien was not alive during the film's creation so next point. The movies were rated individually by critics and fans also were released separately theatrically. Again do all of them have it wrong and you have it right? Second it fits the textbook definition. Do you need me to provide a dictionary link for the definition of trilogy?
I do not expect to change your opinion. I just found it stupid how you listed how much money it made as a testament to the film's quality. Also how you cited it's spot on the top 250 of imdb. Money is not an indicator of quality. Neither is a movie's spot on the top 250 of imdb.
It may be subjective in your opinion but when your best performance is Arwen the Elf your career is shit.
LOTR is NOT a trilogy, I have seen the definitions of a trilogy and LOTR doesn't fit. It doesn't have a beginning, middle and end, the 3 entries do not have their own individual subplots and even JR Tolkein himself didn't consider it a trilogy and the only reason there were 3 movie parts were because there were 3 book parts. Considering LOTR was made up of 6 books you could make an argument that there are 6 LOTR movies but that would be idiotic. It's just one movie and it has a prequel called The Hobbit.
It is your subjective opinion that if her best performance is Arwen that your career sucks. You claimed her to be objectively bad. I am still waiting on you to prove her to be objectively bad. So looks like unless you can prove it I won this round.
See thing is I never said I could prove her to be objectively good because I realize it is my opinion. You on the other hand think your opinion is fact and dug yourself a hole. The burden of proof is on you.
1.
a series or group of three plays, novels, operas, etc., that, although individually complete, are closely related in theme, sequence, or the like.
2.
(in ancient Greek drama) a series of three complete and usually related tragedies performed at the festival of Dionysus and forming a tetralogy with the satyr play.
3.
a group of three related things.
It in no way fits #3, all LOTR is is one thing chopped into 3 pieces. The book wasn't a trilogy and neither is the movie, it's just one story. If Peter Jackson makes another Middle Earth film then we will have a Middle Earth Trilogy (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and whatever the new one is)
I proved my point about her being objectively bad, it's not my fault you are too stupid to understand it. If her best performance is shit then its logical to assume all her other performances are shit or worse.
According to you her best performance is bad. Which showcases that it is a subjective opinion. In my opinion her best performance is good.
See that is all I have to do in order to combat that. So no you did not prove a damn thing pal. The difference is I realize it is subjective. If it were objective I would not be able to dispute it. You lost on this one bud I am sorry.
It does fit number three. It is a group of three related things. The films were rated individually by critics and fans. Therefore next point.
OK I've already explained at least 5 times why her performance is objectively bad and if you are too stupid to understand that isn't my fault.
It doesn't fit number 3, in a trilogy all 3 entries have their own individual subplots while still continuing an overall story line. Example: A New Hope is about Luke Skywalker discovering the force and delivering R2 to the Rebellion so they can destroy the death star. The Empire Strikes Back is about the rebels fleeing from the Empire after their base is destroyed, Luke Skywalker beginning his training and coming to the realization that Vader is actually his father. Return of the Jedi is about the Rebels having to destroy Death Star II while Luke confronts his father and attempts to bring him back from the dark side while not being seduced himself by the Emperor.
Lord of the Rings doesn't have that, it's just one continuous story. I could end Fellowship and Two Towers in different places and it wouldn't make any difference, How do I know this? Because the book ended them in different places also, yeah Shelob the Spider is supposed to be in The Two Towers, Boromir's death is also supposed to be in the Two Towers.
Game set and match for the Ultimate Hippo.
No you did not prove one thing. Objective means it can not be disputed. You said why you personally think Liv Tyler is a bad actress you did not prove it. This is a case of you not providing proof. It is your opinion her best performance is bad nothing more. In my opinion her best performance is good.
If it was a fact you wouldn't need to explain it you could prove it. Thing is you can't lol. I never said I could prove her acting to be good. Therefore burden of proof is on you. Since you can not provide proof thanks for the victory.
One they were rated individually by critics and users. They were released separately theatrically. So they all have it wrong and you have it right? Lastly the third definition says nothing about what you are describing. It says a group of three related things. Read the definition again and learn how to comprehend what you read.
Game set and match for me. Anything else or you done being humiliated?
Just listen to her "acting", are you seriously going to try to tell me that her performance was anything other than bland and uninspired? She sounded like she was reading her lines off a script, that is all the proof I need and she is an objectively horrible actress. And if case you even care she has been nominated for multiple Razzies, makes sense. I have more than satisfied my burden of proof, she is a horrible actress and Arwen the most useless character ever in a big budget film, she was thrown in there because they just had to have some romance, she served nothing in terms of the plot.
It doesn't matter if they were reviewed individually, so were Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 and I don't consider those to be 2 movies either. It was one story, it's not a trilogy. Tolkein himself didn't consider it to be a trilogy either and the films producers have stated that they made 3 parts to the film because there were 3 parts to the book so therefore that logic applies to the film as well.
Game, set and match again.
Hello, I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that this pussy blocked me because he's too cowardly to debate me.
shareLol and in the mean time explain to them the entire debate on the ways in which you failed to provide objective proof.
This guy claimed that Liv Tyler's performance as Arwen was objectively bad. I asked him to prove how it was objectively bad he failed to do so.
He claimed the ending to Toy Story 3 was objectively bad and failed to provide how it was objectively bad. He can not prove any of these things because he has no grasp on the difference between subjective and objective.
He does not consider the LOTR films a trilogy because they beat his beloved Nolan films in data. Keep in mind he will cite imdb ratings all day as long as they suit what he likes. He knows he has to discredit LOTR as a trilogy because that way it makes Nolan's Batman films look better to him.
When someone claimed that they disliked The Dark Knight Rises he claimed that it was in the top 250 right away and that it made over a billion dollars. So indicating that money means quality.
He then claimed that Forrest Gump was a trash film and I said well you know it is highly rated on imdb. He then says he does not care he still thinks it is trash. See how it works he is allowed to disagree with the ratings but you are not when it is a film he likes.
Anyone who dislikes The Dark Knight Rises simply does not understand the film. He will back this up by saying in all my years I have never heard a legit complaint about the film. So an indication that in order to have a legit opinion on the film you must get through him first. He will counter any point you make by saying nope or that is just a nit pick every movie has flaws.
He will straw man his way out of any argument he makes. I was going to block him but he is far too entertaining.
Anyone who disagrees with Trump is a die hard Hilary Clinton fan.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA so you didn't put me on ignore, you tried to have the last word and look how that turned out for you. You don't even have the balls to follow through on what you say.
Coward.
I am responding up here because the boxes are getting too small.
Um no you did not prove a damn thing. You gave your opinion on why Arwen is irrelevant to the plot and a bad character. You did not objectively prove anything. I can post my opinion on why she is a great character and acted well by Liv Tyler. Her razzie nominations are irrelevant to the debate. We are talking about Arwen not her previous performances. Try again. You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word objective.
I was not aware the last Stand was the only X-men film after Jean's death. Second yeah he was upset about it. Remember when you said no X-men film compares to any of the TDK films. Funny thing is Logan got a best adapted Screenplay nomination and has better data than Batman Begins. So I guess we can abandon that point right?
Godfather level writing? Yeah right do not compare trash like TDKR to a film like that. Again I am not mentioning imdb for ratings now am I? I asked you a question. Tell me a time when a film got high scores on Rottentomatoes and then years later completely dropped on RT or MC, I will wait. RT and MC count for way more in my book than that trash imdb site. A place where boosting of ratings can occur.
Revenge of the Sith according to the data is not better than the Last Jedi. The Last Jedi wins on RT, MC and in Oscar nominations so nope nice try.
No it's an objective fact that she is irrelevant to the plot, if you take her out of the story then nothing changes, Frodo still destroys the ring, evil is defeated and Middle Earth is saved, this isn't difficult buddy but of course if you actually understood it you would agree with me. Tell me this how does her presence change anything? Ball is in your court....
Her Razzie nominations are not irrelvant, I stated that she was a Razzie nominated actress and you cannot dispute that, that is an objective fact plain and simple.
The Last Stand is the sequel to the film where Jean died, if it really did damage him psychologically you'd think that it would show in the last stand right???? But no, instead he's cracking jokes with Halle Berry as if nothing happened. Aside from that however even if her death did alter the plot in some way it wouldn't matter because a superhero sacrificing themselves is very much cliched, Rachel was a damsal in distress and she died because Bruce/Gordon failed to rescue her. The cliched thing to do would be for Bruce to swoop in at the last second and save her (ie like in Batman Forever) but that didn't happen, Nolan tried something new and it worked very well because it was an original idea.
Yes the toll that her death and the events of the second film took on Bruce's psychology were Godfather level of writing, it was very deep and very well thought out but again I know that you just don't get it. Bruce was a broken man at the beginning of TDKR, he felt that all he had to live for was to martyr himself being Batman because he couldn't let go of the anger of his parents death. Rachel was his one motivation to stop being Batman but when she died he slipped further into his obsession and it isn't until he "rises" from the pit that he is now the Batman character that we are familiar with, the one that cares about his life and is not only fighting for the city but his own life because he also desires a life beyond Batman and that is what gives
Actually quite the contrary. The story changes quite drastically. Arwen was a faster rider than Aragorn therefore she was needed in order to get Frodo to safety. Frodo barely made it even with her riding with him. Wihout her Frodo dies. Therefore she is not useless. Also the chemistry between her and Aragorn was far better than anything Rachael and Bruce had. I think it is funny that the razzies do not support your view of Arwen.
Her razzie nominations are irrelevant because we are not discussing her previous performances we are discussing Arwen. The reason you want to bring those up is because you have nothing to back you on Arwen being acted badly. It is an objective fact that Liv Tyler was not nominated for a razzie and Katie Holmes was nominated for one for her performance as Rachael. You can not deny that.
A character like Rachael having that much weight is another reason as to show that Nolan did not respect the source material. Why should a character who was never in the comics be given so much weight? Second Rachael Dawes was acted poorly by Katie Holmes and the razzies agree with me you can not deny that.
If it was Godfather level of writing it would have gotten some sort of nomination. Do not feed the me the whole superhero films do not get any nominations bs. How many Oscars did The Dark Knight get nominated for again? Oh yeah quite a few how many did TDKR get nominated for? 0!
She was not at all necessary, Glorfindel or even Legolas could have met them and it sounds like the horse was all that matters and Frodo could have ridden himself. Hell all the horse had to do was find them and if Frodo was too weak then Aragorn could have ridden with him. She is completely useless, she wasn't needed in the book and therefore she wasn't needed in the film. LOL the chemistry of Aragorn and Arwen was as bad as ammonia and bleach, stale acting, cringe worthy dialogue and a force romance and had no bearing at all on the plot.
I said she had Razzie nominations, are you seriously going to dispute that? Because I can look it up and show you that she has multiple Razzie nominations? Do you really want me to????? Again I don't care about Rachel because I never said that Katie Holmes was one of the stronger elements of Batman Begins, in fact I actually made a list of my top 10 least favorite Dark Knight moments and Katie Holmes was on there, so quit bringing her up, it's irrelevant.
Nolan was not doing a direct adaptation of any particular comic, he was creating his own vision and creating his own world based on a comic book character. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Rachel Dawes was a well written character just didn't have good actresses portraying her. Arwen was a poorly written character with an atrocious actress portraying her. Rachel represented Bruce's desire to leave Batman behind and have a normal life and her death sent him further into his obsession and gave him another emotional barrier that he had to overcome. That is far more deep than anything out of LOTR and is on the same level as Michael Corleone.
She just happened to stumble across them. And Frodo was catatonic you idiot! How would he know where to go while in that state? You're honestly saying he would have been able to guide the horse in that condition? Wow man you do not pay attention do you?
Okay since Arwen was not in the book the same applies to Rachael. Since she was not in the comics she is useless in the Nolan Batman films. Nope the acting and chemistry between them was superb. I am sorry you do not understand the film. Go watch Quantum of Solace it is right up your alley.
Never denied the nominations but that was not the argument you made smart one. You said Katie Holmes acted better as Rachael then Liv Tlyer did as Arwen. Therefore it is Arwen vs Rachael Dawes. Katie Holmes received a razzie nomination for Rachael Dawes and Liv Tyler did not receive a razzie nomination for Arwen. So Arwen is acted better and the razzies agree with me. Own up to the fact that I won this point. You are trying to change the point and go to their outside work because I owned you here.
Liv Tlyer acted better as Arwen than Katie Holmes did as Rachael. Since you put stock in the razzies I will also. Also no it was not deeper than anything in LOTR. If it was Nolan would have gotten an Oscar nomination. Jackson did and won 3. Therefore Jackson has accomplished more than Nolan in his career.
him the skills needed to defend his city.
I'm not talking about the data fuckwit, no matter what you say this will always be how I look at the Star Wars films:
Above Average:
- Empire Strikes Back
- A New Hope
- Revenge of the Sith
- Return of the Jedi
Neutral (just OK):
- Attack of the Clones
- Phantom Menace
Below Average (awful):
- The Holiday Special
- The Last Jedi
- Rogue One
- The Force Awakens
Damn if Solo ends up sucking we are actually going to have more bad SW films than good ones, I never thought that would happen.
I do not care how you rank the Star Wars films I put more stock in the data than your dumb as. And more importantly I disagree with you and I put more stock in myself than anything. Do not share your rankings of films again your taste is trash.
shareYou see that just proves that I am a lot smarter than you are. I don't need RT, MC or the Academy to tell me what to think, I am intelligent enough to form my own opinion.
shareNope you just need imdb to tell you what to think. Otherwise you would not constantly cite it. Do not be a hypocrite now.
shareIf I cared about what IMDB thinks I would think that piece of sh!t Forest Gump is one of the greatest movies of all time now wouldn't I? I am smart enough not to base my life off of IMDB and I can figure things out for myself.
shareThen do not cite TDKR place on imdb ever again. If it means nothing for Forrest Gump it means nothing for TDKR. You do not get to have it both ways.
shareI would love TDKR even if it was on the Bottom 100, all I said was that IMDB backed up my opinion and that is a true statement.
shareIMDB backing up your opinion does not further your point. You dislike Forrest Gump and do not care about it's place on imdb. Therefore why should someone who dislikes TDKR care about it's place on imdb?
shareYou can make your own decision about IMDB, all I said was that according to IMDB TDKR is the 66th greatest film of all time and all 3 films in the trilogy are on the Top 250. Very few trilogies have achieved that.
shareLOTR did that. And again why should someone who dislikes it care? It is three movies by the way as shown by critics and fans so do not even go there. It fits the definition. Critics and fans rated it individually and it is a group of three related things. I debunked that when I found the very definition mentioning LOTR on google. Also go ahead and edit Pulp Fiction and release it on Blu Ray and in theaters. Until then do not mention that lame Pulp Fiction point it is hypothetical.
I find it funny how you get mad when I cite RT and MC yet you do it with imdb.
Lets flip it around. The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi have over a 90% on rottentomatoes with an average score of above 8/10 from critics. Both received over 80 on metacritic. Few films have achieved that.
Again dipsh!t LOTR is just one movie much like how JR Tolkein considered it to be just one story. It doesn't matter how critics and fans review it, I am going to believe Tolkein's word over everyone else's this is not a majority rules situation. I could go to Dayton, TN and everyone there would agree that God created Earth thousands of years ago but that wouldn't make it true. I already did re-edit Pulp Fiction, I just created by your logic a "trilogy" better than LOTR.
I have already proven to you why the critic reviews are high for TFA and TLJ, critics are afraid to go against Disney and in 2015 the public WANTED to like TFA, that doesn't make it any good. Rey is a Mary Sue, TFA was a complete remake of ANH and TLJ took a huge stinking sh!t all over Luke Skywalker.
Again Tolkien was dead before the films were released numb skull. Therefore you have nothing on how he views the films point debunked.
Then release your cut of it in theaters and on Blu Ray. Oh wait you can't because you did no work on the film lmao! Once you release it in theaters, on blu ray and it is rated by fans and critics as three entries then you can say that. Until then Pulp Fiction is one film. You can create nothing more than a fan edit.
No sorry I do not buy into that conspiracy. TFA and Last Jedi have a score on RT and MC that not many films achieve. You can shut up with the conspiracies. Notice I did not make up a conspiracy as to why TDKR is rated high. I am secure enough in thinking it is a trash film on my own. I do not need to makeup conspiracy theories like you in order to make myself feel better.
Forrest Gump also is one of the greatest films ever. If the imdb rating proves how good TDKR is then it does the same for Forrest Gump. You do not get to have it both way. Either the imdb rating means something or it does not. If it gets brought up for proving TDKR is quality the same should be done for Forrest Gump.
Again it doesn't matter, the book wasn't a trilogy and the movie was only split into 3 pieces because the book was so therefore Tolkein's word applies to the movie. Tell me this what about the story structure makes the movie a triology but not the book?
I don't need to, according to you all you have to do is chop a story into 3 pieces and you have a trilogy. I guess if they split the last Harry Potter film into 3 pieces instead of 2 we'd have a "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Trilogy". I did create a Pulp Fiction trilogy according to your logic.
It's not a conspiracy it's an objective fact. Again the only proof you need is youtube and just watch the countless hate videos for TLJ. Audience ratings are down in the 50's which is right where those prequels that you hate so much are.
I understand why you like Forest Gump, it's a very simple story with an easy to understand message that was lifted straight from Back to the Future III. I do love Tom Hanks and Gary Sinise which is why I watch Apollo 13 instead which is far better than Forest Gump.
Lets go over the definition of trilogy again.
A group of three related novels, plays, films etc.
Nowhere in that does it state that it has to be individual. It simply says related. That is why LOTR fits this definition therefore since it fits it it is a trilogy. Even as I pointed out it comes up in the specific definition of trilogy. Point debunked.
Again you did not do any work on Pulp Fiction. How many times do I have to say this? Peter Jackson directed the LOTR films. What did you do on Pulp Fiction? It would be nothing more than a fan edit. Another point debunked.
It is not an objective fact it is a conspiracy. Youtube is not we what we are discussing we are discussing RT and MC. Both TFA and Last Jedi have over a 90% on RT with an average score of above 8. Both have a score of over 80 on MC. Few films have achieved that.
Me liking Forrest Gump is irrelevant. The fact is it is highly rated on imdb. A site you seem to think is gospel truth. So since you are going to cite imdb as a means to prove TDKR is a good film the same needs to be done for Forrest Gump.
I really don't think you have the first damn clue what you're talking about. Your definition says "3 RELATED", LOTR isn't 3 related things, it is one thing chopped up into 3 pieces which isn't the same. By your idiotic logic all a writer has to do is write one story, chop it up into 3 pieces and then we have a trilogy. Kind of like how if the last Harry Potter film was split into 3 pieces instead of 2 you seem to think we'd have a "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Trilogy" which is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.
It doesn't matter one bit if I worked on Pulp Fiction, all I gotta do is break it up into 3 pieces and that is a trilogy.
It is not a conspiracy, the critics are afraid to go against Disney and the fanboys drank the Kool Aid until The Last Jedi came out, that is why the audience score is in the 50s which is worse than those prequels we are apparently supposed to hate and there are countless hate videos on the Disney Films, that is an objective fact.
I get that it's highly rated on IMDB, that doesn't mean it isn't trash and I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt why it's not a good film.
Oh I do have a clue of what I am talking about. You simply can't fight the definition lol. When you google trilogy this pops up.
https://www.google.ae/search?biw=1600&bih=794&ei=TzABW9m9NMT5wALR_qOgAg&q=trilogy+definition&oq=trilogy+definition&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l2j0i22i30k1l7.949.2628.0.2846.11.6.0.5.5.0.193.883.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.10.898....0.GkRIkaNOOBA
Go ahead and edit your Pulp Fiction. Honestly even if you want to go that route LOTR in my book is a trilogy. And it shits all over your Dark Knight trilogy. Look at the data. So even with your logic of saying Pulp Fiction is a trilogy I still won this little debate. The real reason you want to discount LOTR is because it shits all over TDKR admit it.
It is a conspiracy. I am discussing RT and MC. The fact remains it is rated higher than the prequels. This is an objective fact and you need to accept it like a man and not make excuses. I am done discussing Disney Star Wars you lost.
Nope you gave your opinion on why it is not a good film. Bottom line the imdb rating proves it is good. If it gets mentioned for TDKR it should get mentioned for Forrest Gump. Also lets mention that Forrest Gump won 4 Oscars against stiff competition. How many Oscars did TDKR win again? So looks like Forrest Gump is a better film according to you. I mean after all imdb is what guides your opinion.
I did edit Pulp Fiction and by your logic I made the greatest trilogy of all time. Game, set and match for The Ultimate Hippo.
It may be a trilogy in your book because you want it to compete with TDK trilogy, that doesn't make it true. If I have to choose between the words of the guy who wrote the freaking story and some troll on moviechat.com I am siding with Tolkein every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
It's not a conspiracy at all, both TFA and TLJ have been dropping steadily on their ratings and that is proof that the Kool Aid has worn off. TLJ took a shit all over the character of Luke Skywalker and the answer to all of our burning questions are just "who the hell cares".
It is pretty much universally accepted that F.G. didn't deserve any of those Oscars, the academy gets it wrong all the time (1979, 1990, 1994, 1998, etc.) That is why the academy is not a reliable source because it's just the subjective opinion of a few people shortly after the films release and before we know if the film is going to pass the test of time. I'll remind you again the following films also received zero nominations: The Shining, Scarface, Reservoir Dogs, Dial M For Murder, From Russia With Love. It seems that you think Fifty Shades of Grey is better than all of those, makes sense to me.
And it is nothing more than a fan edit. Did you release it theatrically and on Blu Ray yet? Is it rated individually on RT, MC and Imdb? Oh no then you lost game set and match for me. Release it theatrically and on Blu Ray then get back to me. You might want to call up Tarantino.
I will trust the google definition of the word trilogy over some dumbass on moviechat. Tolkien was dead before the films were released. Again man too easy try harder.
Yawn nope Disney won game over. I am tired of owning you on the Star Wars debate. I am glad Disney ruined your childhood. Star Wars in my book has been trash from the beginning. So it is funny how idiots like you get triggered.
Does not matter Forrest Gump is rated higher than TDKR on imdb. It has been on the top 250 much longer and is not going anywhere. I am glad to know the academy and people realize Forrest Gump is better than TDKR. Forrest Gump stood the test of time and it's spot on the top 250 indicates that.
It doesn't have to be released theatrically, there are plenty of films that were never released in theaters. I distributed copies of it to my friends and they reviewed it by telling me that they much prefer my edit so yes it is a legit trilogy by your definition.
So therefore you trust google over the word of the man who wrote the damn thing??? Game, set and match for the Ultimate Hippo again. Final Score: Hippo: 2,530,539,114. Moviefanatic: 0
You didn't own me at all, I knocked you out 5 seconds into the first round and I've just been beating your face to a bloody pulp ever since, the ref never called the fight because he enjoys watching me own you. The Disney films are now universally hated and I look forward to the next 2 years when we get to see the entire franchise fall flat on its stupid face. .
Forest Gump could be considered the greatest movie ever by every person on Earth (aside from me) and that still wouldn't change my mind. I don't care how high it is on IMDB I still hate it with a passion and will never see it as anything higher than a cheap Back to the Future Part III knock off.
Once you release it and it is rated separately on imdb RT and MC then I will believe it. Until then you have no basis to stand on about your fan edit. How do I know you are not lying? Release it and have it fit those standards otherwise I do not believe you.
I trust the definition of the word over you bud. And again we are talking about the films not the books. Game set and match for me.
Not according to RT and MC. I looked at it again and I see terrific scores. Scores that are way better than the prequels. I do not believe your stupid conspiracy theories.
That is fine you do not care about Forrest Gump's ratings. Then do not expect people to care about TDKR ratings. I think that film is trash and it's rating on imdb will not change my mind. Therefore do not bring up imdb anymore as a means to argue your stupid film if you are going to throw it out the minute it does not suit you.
I did release it, it was reviewed and they all got great reviews. I just made the greatest trilogy of all time by your logic, I hope now you realize how stupid your argument comes across. Again I believe the words of Tolkein over google. Game, set and match for The Ultimate Hippo.
I have proven that the Kool Aid for the Disney Films is wearing off and its the reason why anyone ever considered TFA to be anything over mediocre. I have provided numerous objective flaws with all of the Disney films and I have proven that they are shit.
Of course I don't care about Forest Gumps rating, I go by my opinion not by data, you are the one who the data determines your opinion. Honestly I am just sick and tired of Forest Gump, it was never that clever, it totally ripped its message off from Back To The Future Part III and the southern accents are annoying at best. The only half way decent segment was the Vietnam Part and even then it was tainted with lame comic relief. It didn't deserve any of the Oscars and its proof that the academy f-cks it up every now and then. Honestly the last time I think they truly got it right was in 1997.
Prove that you released it and provide the link of where it is rated by imdb, RT and MC. I will wait.
Nope I do not believe your lame Star Wars Disney propaganda. You just can't take Disney kicking ass. By the way Infinity War is rated above TDKR on imdb and it made more money.
No you care about data as long as it furthers what you like. Again with TDKR you will cite imdb data asap. Films you do not like that have a high place on imdb you do not cite it why is that?Forrest Gump is better than TDKR. It beat it on imdb. Game set and match for me thanks. It won 4 Oscars and TDKR was not even nominated for any quite hilarious.
I don't seem to remember in your definition that it had to be rated and reviewed by imdb, RT and MC. I swear you are just making this shit up as you go.
Disney Star Wars isn't kicking ass, it got a slight boost with TFA because people just wanted to hate the prequels but it's pretty much worn out by now. Even Chris Stuckmann who the Force Awakens was his ultimate Wet Dream gave the Solo movie a C which is right down there with AOTC which he hates. No one likes the Disney Films anymore, the magic has worn off and I knew this would happen.
Again I don't care about IMDB, nothing you ever say will convince me that Forest Gump is anything better than a bad movie. It is a bad movie plain and simple and most people agree that Pulp Fiction or Shawshank or even Ed Wood deserved Best Picture over Forest Gump.
Here are my words verbatim.
Once you release it and it is rated separately on imdb RT and MC then I will believe it.
You know I read your definition of a "trilogy" and nowhere did it say that to be a trilogy it had to be rated separately on RT, MC and IMDB. I didn't realize that was a criteria.
You take data because you are incapable of thinking for yourself, you aren't a very smart person instead you are a very shallow and a very immature person.
First of all since you care so much about that data you should realize that the data doesn't say that TDKR is a bad movie, it says it's an exceptional movie and RT, MC and IMDB support this. That isn't the reason I like it though, I like it because it has a suspense, strong characters, an understandable yet badass villain and a twist that ties everything together. Most importantly the last 5 minutes (which are the greatest last 5 minutes to any film), closed all loose ends and gave our hero a satisfying end to his journey. It wasn't cliched, it wasn't cheesy, Bruce wanted to end up with Rachel and that didn't happen but he learned that he was able to move away from the pain of his parents death and his obsession of being Batman and was able to find happiness elsewhere (with Selina).
Nice try but LOTR was rated individually by imdb, RT, and MC. Your fan edit is not rated individually because you are lying. If it could fit that criteria you would gladly prove it. Why am I supposed to take your word at face value? Prove it. You can't lol.
Nope you were the one to reference data first not me. You cited imdb as a means to prove TDKR being a good film.
TDKR does have good data where did I ever deny that? Much like how you do not care what data Forrest Gump has I do not care what data TDKR has. I still think it is a trash film.
That ending I saw coming from a mile away. It was so painfully telegraphed that it ruined the film.
It doesn't matter if it was rated separately by MC and RT, your definition of a trilogy said nothing about RT or MC, you are just making this up as you go and I have proven that. Would you like me to mail you a copy of my Pulp Fiction Trilogy? Post your address and your name and I will.
All I said is that I wanted you to acknowledge that TDKR had amazing data, that's an objective fact. Whether you agree with it or not is between you and your conscience.
Again I know F.G. has good data, Shawshank, Pulp Fiction and Ed Wood also have good data and many including myself believe one of those films deserved Best Picture over that piece of overrated piece of shit Forest Gump.
I really don't think you did, I don't believe a word you say considering the majority of haters don't even believe that Bruce is still alive and that Alfred is hallucinating (yet he somehow hallucinated the scar that Bruce got during the Bane fight and Martha Wayne's Pearls on Selina).
It does matter if it was rated separately. I said this from the beginning. Apparently you simply do not listen. Provide the links to it being rated on imdb, RT, and MC. Otherwise I do not believe you. Last chance.
I never denied TDKR data. So what is your point?
If data does not matter for Forrest Gump do no cite it for TDKR period!
Oh I did it was rather obvious. Again I am not speaking on other people's words.
And again where in your definition does it say that it has to be rated by RT and MC???
I want you to acknowledge the following statement: TDKR made over a billion dollars, has great reviews and is considered by many to be one of the greatest 3rd entries of all time.
Data doesn't matter, it never did you fuckwit, TDKR could have a 0% on RT, MC and be the worst movie on IMDB and I still wouldn't care.
Don't believe you at all, I think the twist took you completely by surprise and deep down I still don't think you've accepted that he lived.
In order for me to believe you it has to fit that criteria. I already pointed that out earlier.
I acknowledged that already but there are other third entries which beat it in data. LOTR Return of the King, The Bourne Ultimatum, Toy Story 3 and Before Midnight. So honestly it is not even close to being the best third entry ever.
Then do not cite it when people are discussing how they dislike TDKR!
Do not care if you believe me. Point is I think the movie is trash.
You said my Pulp Fiction Trilogy wasn't a trilogy because they weren't all reviewed by MC and RT, where in your definition does it even mention RT and MC???
No don't deflect to other movies, don't change the subject, acknowledge my statement because you know its true.
I only cite the data when people say it's a known fact that TDKR is a bad movie, it's not a known fact and the data says it's a good movie.
Think it's trash all you want, the point is still that if you understood it you'd like it better.
I pointed out my criteria in order to believe you. Never said that was the definition nice try.
I acknowledge that other third films beat it lol! That is an objective fact.
Then whenever you say Forrest Gump is bad I will cite the data to you. The data says Forrest Gump is a good movie.
And if you understood X-men you would like it better.
Your definition says nothing about RT, MC and IMDB so drop it.
I really don't care, TDKR to me is BY FAR the greatest third entry ever made and the data agrees with me that its a great film.
That's fine you can think whatever you want about Forest Gump, it could have a 100% on RT, MC and IMDB and could have won every single Oscar of 1994 and be #1 on every "greatest films of all time" list and I would still think it was a piece of shit.
I have explained everything that you need to know about the X-Men, there is nothing deep about it, it's your standard, mindless fun superhero action flick, The Dark Knight isn't, The Dark Knight actually meant something.
Yeah it does I specifically stated that. If you can not prove you made a trilogy I am not going to believe you.
The data agrees that it is good but it does not support it being the best third entry ever. As I pointed out before there are other third entries with better data.
The Dark Knight Rises has no depth and is a terrible film. I have explained this many times.
No I meant the definition that you found on google, I don't care about what definition you pulled out of your anus.
I know the data says that its good and there is nothing you can do to change my opinion that its the greatest 3rd entry of all time. I will never think anything out of Middle Earth or Godfather III or ROTJ, etc. will ever be up to the level of TDKR. Deal with it.
TDKR has plenty of depth but the problem is you are too stupid to understand it. Again there are people on this board who think Bruce quit because of Rachel and I don't ever seem to remember you correcting them, therefore you agree with them.
Crickets???
shareWhat you posted about her acting is an opinion. I found her acting to be quite good as Arwen. If she is objectively horrible then where is your proof? I have asked this several times and you keep failing to provide it. All you provide is subjective stuff.
Lol wow so now we are going to razzies as a means to validate your point? Again that is still not objective. It is objective she has received a few razzie awards but that is still an opinion. If she was objectively bad you could prove it as a fact. You can not, and since you want to go there you opened up the door. First of all she did not received a razzie award for Arwen which is the role you are complaining about.
Hayden Christensen received razzie nominations for Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the sith. A role in which you praised him for in Revenge of the sith. So since you brought that as a means of measurement I guess he was awful as well.
JR Tolkien was not alive when the films were made therefore do not bring that point up again. We will not know how he sees the films because he is not alive. It fits the very definition of trilogy therefore game set and match for me.
I've explained this to you over 5 times by now, if you're too stupid to understand it after I've spoonfed it to you you're never going to get it.
Well you used the academy to validate your point so why can't I use the Razzies? She seems to be very well represented by the Razzies and that makes sense because she's a shit actress. I never said Hayden Christensen was good, I said he was better in ROTS than AOTC. In fact aside from Alec Guiness and maybe Ian McDiarmid I don't see any commendable acting out of any of the Star Wars films. I will say this though Hayden Christensen can act circles around John Boyega and Daisy Ridley.
It doesn't matter if he was alive or not, the movie was split into three parts because the book was split into 3 parts so therefore Tolkein's logic applies to the movie as well. I guess by your logic all I have to do is get my movie editor out, chop Pulp Fiction into its 3 different segments and I just created the greatest trilogy of all time. Of course I don't actually believe that but by your standard I could do that.
Have we met before? Your posting style seems very similar to others I have encountered, you don't say anything of any real intelligence and your debating skills are piss poor at best?
You tried to explain your point of view. Thing is that is not what I asked for. I asked for proof as to how she was a bad actress. You provided no facts. Since you provided nothing objective you failed here. You try to explain by side stepping and not providing proof. No need for explanation if you have proof. Thing is you have none lol.
Hayden Christensen has a few razzie awards to his name where as Daisy Ridley and John Boyega have none. Therefore if we are using razzies as a measurement to validate bad acting then according you both Daisy and John are better than Hayden Christensen. Also Liv Tyler does not have a razzie award for her role as Arwen which is the role you were criticizing in the first place. I said she was good as Arwen. No razzie award to back you up here. Where as I do have two nominations to back me up for Hayden Christensen in Star Wars Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.
Natalie Portman also has a nomination. So you dug yourself a hole there man. So by your logic LOTR has better acting than the prequels. No razzie awards for LOTR. FYI I do not like any Star Wars movies. Thing is I just find it funny that by your logic the acting in the prequels is worse than the new Star Wars films because it has razzie award nominations.
The third definition says three related things and those three things are related. That Pulp Fiction analogy is poor. Did you do any work on Pulp Fiction? Nope therefore it would be nothing other than a fan edit. When Pulp Fiction has that done and is released in three separate parts theatrically get back to me. Until then it is one movie. You doing anything to it will not change a thing. Nice try though really that was cute.
I used to be post movie reviews on reddit a lot. Maybe you posted there perhaps? If not then I do not believe so. Honestly even though people lacked intelligence on reddit they had far more sense than you.
I'm just going by what you said, you said that her performance in LOTR is her best performance and if that is truly the best she can do then obviously she is a shit actress and the Razzie committee seems to agree with me. I will say this her LOTR performance wasn't nearly as bad as her Armageddon performance but that is in no way shape or form a high bar to clear. I have explained over and over again why she is an objectively bad actress and I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand.
Again I never said that Christensen was a good actor, I never said Natalie Portman gave a good performance either in Star Wars. Star Wars has never been well known for its acting, the story is usually strong, the special effects are usually top notch but other than Guiness and possibly McDiarmid there aren't really all that many performances that are above mediocrity. Give it time I believe both Ridley and Boyega will be recognized as ruining Star Wars much like what happened to Jake Lloyd and Ahmed Best. The only reason that people aren't attacking The Force Awakens the way they did The Phantom Menace is because they are still in denial. They didn't like the prequels as well as the original trilogy so therefore they want these new movies to be good and they are lying to themselves, although it seems that The Last Jedi has gotten more than its fair share of hatred and it appears that it is regarded as worse than the prequels in the eyes of many.
The Pulp Fiction analogy is spot on. All Peter Jackson did was take a story, chop it up into 3 pieces and then said he made a trilogy. It doesn't work that way, in a trilogy each individual part has to have something unique about it and I explained how that works with Star Wars. It doesn't work with LOTR and Tolkein's beliefs do apply to the film since the film was broken up merely because the book was. Pulp Fiction is also one film but if I did what Peter Jackson did then I would have created a trilogy even better.
Crickets???? Yeah I thought so. Anyways in a nutshell this is what we have established in case you want this for your records:
1) Liv Tyler is a horrible actress
2) Lord of the Rings is NOT a trilogy
3) Lord of the Rings is not as good as the Dark Knight
Have a great day!
Listen to what you just said. You explained you didn't prove. If she was objectively bad you could prove it. You didn't. Learn what objective means.
As it stands Boyega and Ridley have no razzle award nominations. Therefore they are better than Hayden Christensen.
Again nope. A trilogy can be three related things which LOTR is. Tolkien is gone and we are talking about the films not the books.
No you could not. You didn't work on Pulp Fiction so it would be nothing more than a fan edit. You can't release it in theaters. Jackson did work on LOTR. Go ahead and do that to Pulp Fiction and get the approval of Tarantino to release that in theaters. Once you do that I will accept it until then you failed on this point.
LOTR is better than TDK trilogy. Also since we are playing the razzie award game Batman Begins got a nomination for Katie Holmes. Another actress you said was better in her role than Liv Tyler as Arwen. LOTR has no razzie award nomination to speak of. So LOTR beats it in Oscars and in not receiving razzie nominations. Man thanks for making it so easy bud.
So what we have established.
LOTR is a trilogy as it fits the definition of a group of three related things.
You never proved Liv Tyler to be objectively bad.
LOTR has more Oscars and less razzie nominations than TDK trilogy.
LOTR beats it critically.
Have a nice day!
I did prove she was bad, you are just too stupid to understand or you just don't want to understand and that isn't my fault. I was going by your claim that LOTR was one of her better performances and if that's the truth then she is objectively bad because her performance in LOTR was awful.
Again people are drinking the Kool Aid on the Disney Star Wars films and just give it time, the public is going to turn against them and it seems to already be happening as TLJ is one of the most hated films in the history of cinema.
LOTR isn't three related things, it is one thing chopped up into 3 pieces as I can easily do with Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption, etc. Tolkein didn't consider it a trilogy and I agree with him. It's a collection of volumes and stories.
LOTR is NOT better than TDK, first of all you are comparing apples with oranges if you are comparing all 3 Dark Knight movies with LOTR, a more reasonable comparison is LOTR with The Dark Knight (2008) (The Dark Knight is the trilogies best entry critically while LOTR is the best Middle Earth film critically) and it seems to be a draw as The Dark Knight wins on the average box office and on IMDB however LOTR wins at the Academy although this is still not really a fair comparison as the academy has never recognized comic books films traditionally.
Nice try but you lose again.
No you did not prove she was bad. You said why you thought she was bad big difference. I said LOTR is one of her better performances. You then said no she was bad in there, okay and what do you have to back that other than your opinion? Funny thing is I never said I could prove she was objectively good because I realize it is my opinion. You are too stupid to grasp this basic point. Let me help you out. Here is the definition of objective.
of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
OK now you're just repeating yourself over and over again and you are sending this discussion in a circular motion. You are a broken record and you have nothing intelligent to contribute. I did prove she was bad, I have told you multiple times why and apparently you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend it.
It's not a hypothetical scenario, just go on youtube and search all of the hate videos on The Last Jedi, the tide is turning, people are waking up and realizing how shitty these Disney Films are. The public isn't drinking the Kool Aid anymore. The only reason TFA got as much praise as it did was because the public wanted to like it because they didn't like the prequels as well as the OT, they were so blinded by their rage towards the prequels that they didn't realize the Disney films are actually worse.
LOTR is not three related things, it is one thing just chopped up into 3 pieces, even Tolkein acknowledged that. It doesn't matter if I get Tarantino's approval or not, by your logic I could bust out my movie editor and make a Pulp Fiction Trilogy and that would be just as logical as calling LOTR a trilogy. You know I was in Wall Mart the other day and I saw the three LOTR segments being sold as one package, guess it's not a trilogy.
I never said Katie Holmes was a good actress, she wasn't, in fact none of the leading ladies in TDK trilogy were particularly good except for Hathaway, TDK is far better in other areas. Liv Tyler has quite a lot of Razzie nominations on her resume and that's enough for me to label her a horrible actress. Maybe if she pops out 8 or 9 roles on the level of Clarice Starling, Nurse Ratched or Connie Corleone I will give her some respect.
Comic Book movie just about never get recognized by the Academy, Fantasy however has quite a number of nominations. Also it's been established that 2003 was a shit year so you are mixing apples and oranges, you can't compare.
No you did not prove how she was objectively bad. You said why you thought she was bad. You do realize you thinking her to be a bad actress is subjective right? If you proved it I would not be able to dispute it. Thing is you did not. I am giving you one last chance to provide facts
It is hypothetical. As it stands The Force Awakens, Rogue One and Last Jedi are rated above the prequels on RT and MC. Even when factoring in imdb it favors the Disney Star Wars films. The Force Awakens beats all of them on imdb and Rogue One and the Last Jedi only gets bested by Revenge of the Sith. Not to mention the Disney Star Wars films have no razzie award nominations where as the prequels do. Man ouch your own criteria failed you on this one didn't it?
No it is three related things. You did not work on Pulp Fiction Peter Jackson did work on LOTR. Second so something being sold as a set makes your case? If that is the case then I guess TDK trilogy is not a trilogy anymore since I saw this online.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Knight-Trilogy-Special-Blu-ray/dp/B01FJ39CHY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525302896&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Dark+Knight+trilogy
You claimed Katie Holmes to be better in her role as Rachael than Liv Tyler was as Arwen. Which according to your criteria is not true since Holmes received a razzie award nomination for her role as Rachael and Tyler did not receive one for Arwen.
It has nominations but has it ever won? Also no in your opinion 2003 was a bad year. Another subjective claim. In my opinion it was a great year for films.
I did prove that she was objectively bad:
1) It was YOU who said LOTR was one of her best performances
2) She objectively gives a bland and emotionless performance therefore if that is her best then all of her other performances must be worse so her best is a bad performance --> She's a bad actress
3) She has numerous Razzie nominations
Again I have objective data that backs up my claim about the Last Jedi and Disney Star Wars in general, just look at all of the hate videos for TLJ on youtube, fan outrage is overwhelming and even Mark Hammil himself said he "fundamentally disagreed with everything they did to his character". There are also countless objective flaws with the storyline including plot holes, lazy writing and bad character development. TFA has also been consistently falling for the past year, it is now off of the IMDB Top 250 and based on my line of best fit it should be on the Bottom 100 by the year 2020 if we go by its rate of falling. The prequels are maintaining a steady solid (not great) but solid rating while the Disney films are sinking and drowning.
TFOTR, TTT and ROTK again are just ONE STORY. Explain to me this: What is individualistic about each entry, with every other trilogy I can think of each entry has its own individual plot and themes even if it continues an overarching story. The Dark Knight is a great example of this and great story telling, LOTR however is not.
I agree that Katie Holmes was one of the weaker aspects of Batman Begins, none of the leading ladies were anything stellar except for maybe Hathaway (I do believe she was better than Pfeiffer), however you will never convince me that she is worse than Liv Tyler, ever. Sure she made some bad decisions with Jack and Jill, I think its probably best for any actor/actress by this point to stay far away from Adam Sandler, but Rachel Dawes was a far better character and was better acted than Arwen.
1) Arwen is one of her best perfomances.
2) In your opinion she gives a bland and emotionless performance that is not an objective fact. This is where your entire argument falls apart because it is your opinion she is bland in LOTR nothing more. If it was an objective fact you would have provided facts, you didn't.
3) No razzie award nomination for LOTR though which is the performance we are discussing.
We are measuring data through rating websites. RT, MC and imdb favor the Disney Star Wars films. Only on imdb does Revenge of the Sith beat Last Jedi and Rogue One, Everywhere else the Disney Star Wars films win. Nice try but fail again.
It does not have to be standalone. Three related things definition does not say anything about them being individual just three related things. Point debunked.
According to your criteria Arwen is better acted than Rachael Dawes. Katie Holmes received a razzie nomination for Rachael where as Liv Tyler did not receive a razzie nomination for Arwen. So you lost on this one as well. The razzie committee agrees with me that Arwen is better than Rachael. Thanks for the victory yet again. Are you trying to make it this easy? Please step your game up.
Again if you think that Arwen is one of her best performances then that in itself proves that she's a horrible actress. Just listen to her scene with Aragorn when she's talking about how he is Isilidors heir and will face the same evil and will defeat it. That is objectively horrible acting and it doesn't get any better. Liv Tyler sucks as an actress and sucks as a human being.
I have provided an indisputable reason why the data is unusually high for these piece of sh!t Star Wars films. I have also graphed the IMDB scores over the past couple of months and my projection is that TFA will be on the Bottom 100 by 2020, all of my predictions so far have come true so its only a matter of time.
Yes in a trilogy each entry has to have the ability to be viewed individually, I don't know of a single well respected "Trilogy" that is just one on going plot broken up into 3 pieces. You could very easily end the first two movies in different places and it wouldn't matter, how do I know this? The books ended in different places and they were far better than the movie.
Again I never said that Katie Holmes was great as Rachel Dawes, I never had a problem with the Rachel Dawes character but Katie Holmes wasn't the best choice for the role mostly because she looks 12. I have however provided many objective reasons why she is better than Liv Tyler and again the Razzies seem to agree with me that Liv Tyler sucks as an actress. I'm not making this up, it's simple numbers.
It is your opinion that her acting in that scene is horrible. Honest question do you know the difference between subjective and objective? If so prove it, because I honestly do not think you know the difference. Also how do you know she sucks as a human being? Do you know her personally?
As of right now the Disney Star Wars films have better data. We agreed that hypothetical scenarios are off limits. We are dealing with what is at this moment not hypothetical scenarios.
Three related things. that never says it has to be standalone. It fits the definition therefore I can call it a trilogy. We are discussing the films not the books.
Nice try. You keep trying to veer off topic. You said Katie Holmes acted better as Rachael Dawes than Live Tyler did as Arwen. Thing is Katie Holmes received a razzie nomination for her performance as Rachael. Liv Tyler did not receive a razzie award for her performance as Arwen.
You are trying to veer off into their body of work when that was not the original argument you made. Going to by razzies Arwen is better acted than Katie Holmes's Rachael Dawes. Your criteria failed you here didn't it lol. The razzie agree with me that Liv Tyler is better as Arwen than Katie Holmes as Rachael Dawes. Thanks for the win.
Of course I do and I have demonstrated why Liv Tyler is an objectively horrible actress. The problem is that you are too stupid to understand or you simply just don't want to so you do your absolute best to make up problems with my argument of which there aren't any. Sure she sucks as a human being, if your claim to fame is Arwen from LOTR, a character who by all rights never should have even been in the movie then you have failed at life. Again I am not saying LOTR was all bad, it wasn't, there were plenty of good moments, but it also has plenty of bad moments and it took a huge shit on the source material so I can't rate it any higher than mediocre.
Again I have demonstrated convincingly why TFA, R1 and TLJ have surprisingly high data and I have proven that the tide is turning and people are waking up and not drinking the Kool Aid anymore, just youtube The Last Jedi review and you will see countless hate videos, even Mark Hammil himself who isn't exactly a high profile actor said he was insulted by TLJ. It's not a hypothetical scenario, I have analyzed the data, I have analyzed the Disney Star Wars films drop on IMDB and going at this rate they will soon be on the IMDB Bottom 100, so far all of my predictions have come true, we will know in about a year and a half.
Of course Katie Holmes was better than Liv Tyler, there is nothing you can do to change my opinion on that and I don't really care what the Razzie's say. Sure Holmes wasn't great, and doing business with Adam Sandler was a huge mistake but I will take her over Tyler any day and her performance in Armageddon was painful at best. Again I asked you what was great about Liv Tyler's performance and you dodged the question.
Lol no you didn't. You gave nothing more than your opinion. Which proves my point that you can not provide anything objective about Liv Tyler. I have given you several chances to provide objective facts that she is bad. All you do is give your opinion. Yeah her sucking as a human being has nothing to do with her career as an actress. You do not even know her personally. There are great actors that have done some disgusting things. I must say that was a bigoted statement.
As of now the Disney Star Wars films have better data. I do argue hypothetical scenarios. Until what you say is true I am not humoring you on this.
Lol see now you do not care what the razzies say. You were all about them before. The reason you do not care about them now is because it doesn't suit your argument. According to your criteria Live Tyler as Arwen is better than Katie Holmes as Rachael Dawes. The razzies agree with me on this. If you do not care what the razzies say then why did you bring them up in the first place?
Oh I can go into exact detail why I loved Liv Tyler as Arwen. The way she speaks is very soothing. It makes you feel at ease. The voice she has is unique because while soft it sounds strong and wise also. The look in her eyes during her scenes with Aragorn make you truly feel she loves him. She is feminine but strong at the same time. Playing a character who is vulnerable and soft, yet also wise and noble is a tough thing to do.
You will disagree but the thing is I never claim my opinion to be objective because I am not ignorant like you.
Yes I did, I gave you objective reasons why Liv Tyler's performance was horrible and the Razzies seem to agree with me. No the Razzies do not determine which performances are good and which are bad however my argument has more weight to it now that they are in agreement with me. I gave you plenty of objective facts as to why she was bad, the "If you want him, come and claim him" line is another standout. Liv Tyler does suck as a human being and if Daddy weren't Aerosmith guy she would be a complete nobody.
It's not a hypothetical statement, again my predictions about the IMDB ratings have come true, there are plenty of hate videos about TLJ and TFA and it seems that the Kool Aid has worn off.
Again I never said Katie Holmes was great, in fact I almost agree with the Razzie nomination but here's the difference: Rachel Dawes was a well written character they just chose the wrong actress, Holmes is really hot however I'm just not buying her as a no-nonsense all business District Attorney. Arwen however was a poorly written character, servced no purpose and again was played by a Razzie Nominated actress.
You are lying, the way she speaks is not smoothing, it's bland and uninspiring, it's not soft it's irritating. She doesn't have any kind of special look in her eyes, her face is a blank slate. She isn't strong, she very easily could have joined the battle for Middle Earth but instead she just sat there and moped the whole time. The only time she ever got any battle damage was when her face brushed against a twig and if that was to show that she's "tough" then that was an epic failure if I ever saw one. Frodo got some battle damage, Arwen got brushed by a twig. Her character was completely unnecessary, and her entire story arc made no sense at all and in fact it created more plot holes and story errors more than anything. She was barely in the book and the book was much better. And why did we need her? We already had Eowyn who was a strong female character.
No you did not. Here let me help you out. I will cite the definition of each one.
Objective: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings
Subjective: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts
I really don't think you understand the difference between objective and subjective and its really sad because I learned that in elementary school. Oh well some just aren't as advanced as others. I personally don't care if she came from a rich family but her complete lack of talent pretty much proves that the only reason she even made it as far as she did was because of her father and that makes her a whore. I don't care if she's a nice person, her acting offends my every sense.
It doesn't matter if she wasn't nominated for a Razzie for LOTR, it doesn't mean she gave a good performance dumbass, the point is it isn't just me that thinks she's a bad actress and yes I know the Razzies nominated Holmes also and I don't care. I never claimed that Holmes was one of the better parts of Batman Begins so your argument pretty much falls flat on its stupid face.
It's not hypothetical at all, I have been monitoring the data for the Disney Star Wars films and so far all of my hypotheses have been proven correct and based on my data and projections both TLJ and TFA will be on the IMDB Bottom 100 by the end of 2020, just wait....
OK fine her performance still wasn't "soothing", it was irritating, it was bland it was emotionless she read her lines off a script and it was painfully executed. Her chemistry with Aragorn was ammonia and bleach, they did not have any good banter and her entire character arc made no sense at all. Her fate is tied to the ring? Ummm what? When was that a plot point? Shouldn't Aragorn have bigger things to worry about instead of his stupid girlfriend? If she isn't going to leave Middle Earth why doesn't she go out and fight? If she truly is a strong character and does nothing then that makes her a coward. Aragorn wasn't noble at all, he totally botched the plan with the Pirate Ghosts, he was a complete dumbass and Elrond and Gandalf as well while I'm at it.
Clearly you do not. When I asked you to provide objective data you failed to do so. Which means either you deliberately keep on evading or you're just too ignorant to know the definition. I just provided you the definition for each so clearly I do understand. It is you who does not understand.
That does not make Liv Tyler a whore. Wow you do not even know the definition of whore. Man you're are even more stupid than I thought. So if someone is a bad actor that gives you a reason to dislike them personally? I do not like Hayden Christensen as an actor, thing is I do not comment on his person because I do not know the man.
You claimed Katie Holmes performed better as Rachael Dawes than Liv Tyler did as Arwen. The razzies do not agree with that notion. Since you listed them as if they were gospel truth I decided to give you a taste of your own logic. We are not measuring outside work we are examining your original point. Your original point was Katie Holmes as Rachael Dawes was better. The razzies are on my side. Do not like losing make a better point next time.
It is hypothetical. As it stands right now Disney Star Wars has better data. Check RT, MC and imdb. Once they reach the bottom 100 get back to me until then you lost. No more about this point you're done, you failed.
All subjective. I thought she was breathtaking as Arwen.
Again I did provide objective data the problem is you are either too stupid or stubborn to realize it and I feel sorry for you.
It does, she hitched her wagon to her fathers success and that somehow got her a film career despite a complete lack of talent or ability to convey emotion. It's really sad because I love LOTR and I think it could have been a really good adaptation if they had removed her completely.
I did claim Katie Holmes was better than Liv Tyler and you will never change my opinion, I couldn't care less what the Razzie's say as there is nothing you can say that will make me think differently. However you cannot deny that Liv Tyler has multiple Razzie Nominations, that is a fact and don't try to side step around it.
It's not hypothetical, I predicted that TLJ would fall below ROTS in a matter of months and it did, I predicted TFA would be off the IMDB Top 250 and it did. I have made a graph projecting their course over the next 2-3 years and at this present rate of dropping they will be on the Bottom 100. Again all of my predictions have come true and I have no reason to not believe this.
Again you can think what you want but you have to admit the facts:
1) Her character was next to nothing in the book
2) Her entire subplot was a massive expansion of one sentence and it was done purely to have a cheap romance in the film because apparently there weren't enough vaginas
3) Liv Tyler has multiple Razzie nominations.
Nope you provided nothing other than opinion.
Her acting career has nothing to do with how she is as a person. As I pointed out earlier there are great actors who have done disgusting things.
I never did deny Liv Tyler has multiple razzie nominations but that was not the point of your argument. It was Arwen vs Rachael Dawes. According to the razzies Arwen is better and Rachael is worse. If razzies do not sway your view then good do not bring them up again. I won this round. Do not cite data only when it suits you it makes you look stupid. Arwen is better than Rachael and there is nothing you can do to change my mind. You also can not deny that the razzies agree with me on Arwen being better than Rachael Dawes.
Nope hypothetical. The Disney Star Wars films are critically superior to the prequels. There is nothing you can do to change that. I am sorry bud accept the truth.
1) We discussing the films not the books.
2) Nope she was there for terrifici chemistry and development for Aragorn.
3) And so does Katie Holmes your point?
No the three points I just made are all objective facts and I want you to acknowledge it. Have you even read the book? If not then no wonder you like the movie, you don't realize how good LOTR turly can be.
I don't respect her because she used her fathers career to advance hers, that is being a whore and I don't appreciate it. Her father turned Aerosmith into a girly band and because of that she got an acting career which is sick and disgusting on all levels. Both actresses are bad, both have Razzie nominations, however here is the difference: Rachel Dawes was a well written character who had a bad actress playing her (although Nolan did as good of a job with her as any director could), Arwen was a poorly written character who had a bad actress playing her. You will never change my opinion on Arwen vs. Rachel Dawes. There is nothing you can say that will make me stop cringing every time I hear "if you want him come and claim him".
It is not hypothetical at all, I predicted that TLJ would fall below ROTS and I was right, I predicted TFA would be off the Top 250 and I was right, now both of them are on a trajectory towards the Bottom 100 and I don't see this changing anytime soon.
I have read the book. I find the movies to represent them very well. Keep in mind you know it used to be said that a LOTR film could not be done back in the day. The level of risk and ambition it took to make that a reality is astounding.
1) It does not matter if she was next to nothing in the book. We are measuring it as a film first. Rachael Dawes does not even exist in the comic book lore of Batman. So if we are going to go that route Rachael deserves flak as well. Thing is I do not even dislike Rachael but going by your standards she should be seen as trash.
2) Not true. It was added to help see how noble Aragorn was and it worked like a charm.
3? This has nothing to do with your argument against Arwen. We discussed her role as Arwen. She did not receive a nomination for Arwen Katie Holmes did for Rachael. You lost on this point.
Critically the Disney Star Wars films are superior. Check RT and MC. TFA, and Last Jedi have spectacular scores on both RT and MC. The battle of critical reception has been decided. The imdb rating has no merit to me. The reason being is because as I pointed out earlier it is dictated by users boosting a film's rating. Rottentomatoes and Metacritic have actual critics on them. The Disney films completely destroy the prequels on both of those.
I don't think we were reading the same book, in the book Arwen was in like 2 scenes, Merry wasn't the one who threw the rocks into the lake, the Pirate Ghosts couldn't kill, Saruman took over the shire, Frodo waited 17 years for Gandalf to come back, etc. Either you are a very poor reader or you are lying through your teeth, I'd say either is possible.
1) Yes it does because it proves that she was added to be a cheap romatic foil. Rachel however served a purpose she represented Bruce's desire to be able to leave Batman behind him and when she dies he further slips into Batman mode and shuts off the world around him and that provides a psychological barrier he has to overcome in the third film. I guess that just flew right over your head. Arwen however only had to look pretty and put out for Aragorn at the end.
2) How did it show how noble he was? Please elaborate.....
3) It doesn't matter, I want you to acknowledge that she has multiple Razzie nominations under her belt without deflecting to Katie Holmes. Stop being a coward.
Sure the Disney films have decent scores on RT but let's be honest the critics are afraid to go against Disney and plus the Disney films got ass raped on youtube at the hate videos about them far outnumber the prequels so they lost on that front. Again they are sinking and sinking fast and by 2020 they will be on the Bottom 100 alongside Manos the Hands of Fate and Superbabies 2.
Where did I say the books and the movies were verbatim the same? I said I thought it represented the story well. Just like how you think Rachael fits in well into Nolan's Batman universe. I disagree I find Rachael to be weak.
Rachael served a lame purpose. I found her chemistry with Bruce to be cliched and poor. There are other couples in comic book films which were far better than those two. Oh I understood the third just fine. Her playing that pivotal of a role in Bruce's psyche is part of the reason I think TDKR is a trash film.
It showed how noble he was because he did not step out on her. Also it showed that she chose him over an eternal life because Aragorn was well worth it.
I already acknowledged the razzies. That is a moot point though because we are discussing her role as Arwen not her outside work. You realize that you have nothing on Arwen therefore you retreated to her other work.
Nah I do not believe it. It is critically superior deal with it and can it with those silly conspiracies. I do not care how far it sinks on imdb. Imdb has no credibility for me. There are trash films on the top 250 and people boost ratings on that site.
But it didn't represent the story well, I have proven that countless changes that Jackson made didn't make any sense and hurt the overall story. I have also explained why Rachel was important to TDK story, she is the reason for his psychological struggles in the third film which clearly went straight over your head.
How is she cliched? I don't know too many stories where the main love interest is killed off halfway through, that is not cliched at all, Nolan took the Rachel character in different directions than other leading ladies in Superhero films. Bruce and Rachel didn't end up together, that is the complete opposite of cliched. Sure TASM 2 did kind of the same thing but TDK came first.
Well who in their right mind would step out on pussy? That doesn't prove anything about his character. You could remove Arwen and her stupid story from LOTR and you wouldn't miss anything, everything else would play out exactly the same way. You can't do the same thing with Rachel so therefore you lose and you are wrong.
Fine don't believe IMDB, just youtube it, the hate videos for the new SW films go on and on and on and on..... The public is turning against them and pretty soon they will be regarded as just another Battlefield Earth.
Rachael being important to the story made it far worse. A character that has no place at all in the Batman mythos carries that much weight with her?
Alfred and Fox being pivotal makes sense since you know they are actually in the comics.
Um almost every rich person on earth has stepped out on pussy.
Jean was killed in X-men 2 and was the main love interest for Wolverine. Sorry but X-men 2 predates TDK.
I have seen plenty of youtube videos that love the Last Jedi. I think your hatred for the new Star Wars is blinding you. I do not like Pulp Fiction but I recognize that it is loved by many. I noticed whatever you dislike you can not accept other people liking.
Either way the data match was won by the Disney films. So do not bring up data again because it clearly is against the prequels. The data regards them as trash. And do not bring up imdb. I do not trust a site where boosting of ratings can occur.
No it didn't make it far worse, Rachel served a purpose and her death furthered the plot and sent Bruce's psychological state in a direction the audience didn't expect, that is good writing and good character development and it's a damn shame you're too stupid to understand.
Jean was psyclops's love interest, nice try. Plus while I am not much of a comic book reader I am pretty sure her arc to become the Phoenix was pretty much straight out of the comics and even then the movie completely botched it. Not only was there no reason why she had to "die" but they even killed off a major character off screen, lazy writing at its worst. Sorry but X-men are nowhere near the league of The Dark Knight. All of the Dark Knight Films are better than all of the X-men films.
So what are you trying to say? Not stepping out on pussy makes you noble?
I have analyzed youtube and per my data the hate videos vastly outweigh the love videos, they aren't even in the same ballpark so you are wrong and yes Pulp Fiction is far better than both Disney Star Wars and LOTR.
You cannot compare prequel data to Disney data, again I have explained and proven beyond a reasonable doubt why the data for the Disney films was so high and I have also proven that it is dropping at a very alarming rate, if I were an executive at Disney I would be shitting my pants right now.
Oh I understood it just fine. It does not make it any better TDKR was a terrible film. Giving Rachael that much weight was awful writing.
Jean Was Logan's love interest as well. X-men 2 was before TDK and killed off Jean. No there are X-men films that are better than some of the Dark Knight films. Logan for instance has better data than Batman Begins on RT and MC. Also it got nominated for best adapted screenplay.
I do not believe your word about youtube. I do not believe it because it is clear you are biased.
Pulp Fiction is not far better than LOTR. The data says otherwise nice try.
Only data where the Disney films is dropping is imdb which I have told you holds no weight for me. On RT and MC the data for the Disney Star Wars films are amazing. So no amount of boosting on your precious imdb will help you with that.
I really don't think you understood the movie at all, all of your complaints are stemming from ignorance and I really don't think you are that smart. Explain to me why the Rachel character is objectively awful writing, I'm waiting....
OK again Jean Grey's character arc was directly lifted from the comics so I don't know what you expect here and secondly comparing Jean to Rachel isn't the same thing. First of all Jean was an active member of the team so her being the love interest was her secondary priority. Secondly she sacrificed herself and that is very much cliched. However the hero failing to save the damsal in distress and her death severely altering his psychology was something that had never been done before and it took the franchise in new and unexpected directions and it was great writing at it's best.
You can believe me or not believe me about youtube all you want, I'm guessing if I told you the Earth was round you'd take issue as well.
Look at the audience score for TLJ it's at 50% which is pathetic. It's falling on IMDB and that holds a lot of weight because it shows how the audiences perception of the film changes over time while the Oscars are awarded shortly after the film is released and there is no changing it. You cannot go back and give Al Pacino the Oscar for 1974 even though nowadays most people believe he deserved it.
Why would I do that when you could not objectively prove Liv Tyler's performance as Arwen to be objectively bad? You failed to do that therefore I am not going to humor you.
Jean's death psychologically tormented both Logan and Scott. So nope still not original bud.
Again Imdb holds no weight for me. It is not surprising when you have people who like to boost scores. On RT, and MC the Disney Star Wars have amazing scores, that are far better than the prequels. Case closed.
I have proven time and again that she is an objectively horrible actress, you are either too stupid to understand or you don't want to.
Really???? Because at the beginning of The Last Stand Logan seemed perfectly fine to me, obviously her "death" did bother him that badly. And again the cliche is that the hero always saves the Damsal in Distress which is what The Dark Knight moved away from with the Rachel character, Jean wasn't a Damsal in Distress so you lose on that front as well.
For the time being that is what the data says but again I have projected both TFA and TLJ's standings by the year 2020 and they are going to be down there with Superbabies and Manos: The Hands of Fate, all of my predictions have come true so there's that.
When I asked you to prove how her performance as Arwen was objectively bad you retreated to her other roles. Funny thing is she has no razzie nomination for Arwen and that was what you were placing so much stock in.
So no you never once proved her performance as Arwen is objectively bad. All you did was post your thoughts on why she was bad as Arwen. That is subjective not objective. Her performance in other roles is not what we were discussing, you simply did that because you were losing the debate. Without discussing her other roles prove how she is objectively bad as Arwen. Not her other performances her role as Arwen. I will not hold my breath.
We must have watched a different film. The death of Jean bothered Logan through many films. It is why he was so happy to fix everything in Days of Future Past.
Name me a time when a film has dropped significantly in ratings on RT and MC I will wait.
I already proved more times than I need to that Arwen is objectively bad, I have pointed out that her existence is irrelevant to the plot and that she was simply a cheap romance. She is played by a Razzie nominated actress and she has proven that she is utterly incapable of conveying an emotion. Again you are just automatically saying the exact opposite of what I am which is very juvenile and asinine.
No it didn't, just watch the beginning of The Last Stand, he didn't seem at all upset about it, unlike Bruce who was properly fleshed out and even had to confine himself inside his mansion and couldn't let go of Batman, that is really dark and very deep for a superhero film, that is Godfather level writing.
When TLJ first came out it had a 9.0 on IMDB, now look at where it is, its below ROTS which I thought was a film we were supposed to hate??? (By the way ROTS was far better than TLJ)
Of course if they actually respected the source material this wouldn't be a problem but the way things panned out it is a serious plot hole. She was an unnecessary character she didn't need to be in the movie, we already had a strong female character so her entire story was pointless and stupid.
I said it before and I'll say it again maybe one day someone can reboot LOTR and do an adaptation that actually respects Tolkein's work. It still won't be a trilogy but I'm fine with that.
And eventually someone will make a Batman film that is worth something unlike that complete trash film that is TDKR.
I have read Batman comic books far better than that trash. Nolan clearly thought he was better than the source material. Well good thing the academy saw through that trash. I think it is hilarious how TDKR did not receive a single nomination, not even a technical one lol. Good that film sucked.
TDKR made over a billion dollars, it has a strong rating on IMDB and is quite possibly the greatest conclusion to any trilogy. The only trilogy that even comes close to giving TDK competition is The Godfather and while Part III is still a good movie it isn't great and the original Star Wars and again ROTJ was a letdown compared to the other two. I believe you are also talking about the same academy who snubbed Martin Scocese for 3 decades, chose Kramer vs. Kramer over Apocalypse Now, SIL over Saving Private Ryan and Forrest Gump over BOTH Pulp Fiction and Shawshank. Yeah you can always trust those guys at the Academy and the Film Actors Guild.
The thing is is that even though I don't think the Jackson film was a strong adaptation I was still able to find things I liked about it, even though you have your head shoved so far up the popular "let's hate everything Nolan" bandwagon that you apparently can't do the same for TDKR. I feel sorry for you.
The Last Jedi made more money than TDKR. Anytime you bring up TDKR making a billion dollars again I am simply going to point to Last Jedi. For the record I think all of Star Wars is trash but since you keep on bringing up money as a means to prove quality I figured I would as well. So since TDKR made a billion that means The Last Jedi should be respected for earning even more money than TDKR correct?
Nope sorry the Lord of the Rings trilogy is superior in every way. I am not letting you off that hook. It is a trilogy as it fits the definition. I am sorry you do not understand the definition but as it stands it is the superior trilogy.
The reason you want to discredit it as one is because you know it beats TDK trilogy in every way. Own up to it.
Yep I love that academy and am glad TDKR did not receive one nomination. It is one of the worst films I have ever seen.
All you have to do is slap Star Wars on a movie and it's automatically going to bring in the big bucks (the prequels made an assload of cash also), Nolan however had the repair the damage from Batman Forever and Batman & Robin and he did what no other director could have done. Disney however has taken a once respected franchise and taken a huge stinking shit all over it. Just listen to what Mark Hammil had to say about TLJ, even he hates it and he was the freaking star of the film.
LOTR is not a trilogy, it doesn't fit the definition and JR Tolkein agreed with me. It is just as logical calling Pulp Fiction a trilogy as it is calling LOTR a trilogy. Answer my question: What are the individual plots of each entry? Do they stand on their own?
Again I have pointed out many instances where the public viciously disagreed with the academy (1979, 1994, 1998), I'm not losing sleep over it.
The only prequel to crack the billion dollar mark was Phantom menace. All of the Disney Star Wars films have cracked the billion dollar mark.
LOTR is a trilogy. It is three related things end of point. You do not get to ignore the textbook definition.
Does not matter if the public disagreed it does not further your point. Bottom line TDKR got not a single nomination and it is because it was a trash film. The Academy agrees with me.
The Academy may agree with you but pretty much every other person on planet Earth disagrees, what's your point? The academy has fucked it many times and I have proven it.
Again I ask you what is individualistic about the 3 parts to LOTR? Each entry in a trilogy has to have its own separate subplot just like Back to the Future, The Godfather, The Dark Knight, and Star Wars do...
If TDKR was so fantastic it would have scored at least one nomination. It did not because it was trash.
Lets go over the definition of trilogy again ready?
a group of three related novels, plays, films, etc.
"J.R.R. Tolkien's epic fantasy trilogy, The Lord of the Rings"
Hey so sorry I had to work late all week but I didn't forget about you. Um yeah that is complete bullshit, here are some well respected films who also didn't get any nominations: The Shining, Reservoir Dogs, Heat, Dial M For Murder, From Russia With Love, Scarface.
The academy has gotten it wrong multiple times and the public agrees with me (1979, 1990, 1994, 1998).
So google is what determines what is right and wrong? Is that what we're going by? Again I asked you what about the 3 parts of LOTR make them individual segments and you never answered me.
The public agreeing with you does not further your point. Second of all Shawshank Redemption has high critical acclaim just like Pulp Fiction does.
The definition is what determines what is right and wrong. I do not have to answer anything about LOTR being individual segments. The fact is that it fit the definition. Your problem is you think it has to be individual, it doesn't.
Your lame Pulp fiction argument has no bearing. You can edit it all you want you did not do any work on it therefore that is a fan edit nothing more. LOTR was released in three entries and was rated by critics and fans separately therefore it is a trilogy. I know it is painful because it obliterates your precious Dark Knight trilogy when crunching the numbers but it is time to grow up and face the truth.
Yet they were both beaten by that piece of shit Forest Gump and pretty much everyone nowadays disagrees with the academy on their decision, the Oscars are not a reliable source, the decision is based on their opinion at the time and they have no idea what a films legacy is going to turn into.
In a trilogy there has to be a beginning, a middle and an end, those three parts do not exist in LOTR, it's just one thing. Even Tolkein agrees with me and I think his word carries far more weight than yours does, you must agree with me unless you are a pretentious dick.
My Pulp Fiction argument makes complete sense, LOTR takes one story and breaks it into 3 pieces, I could do the same thing with Pulp Fiction and it would be just as much a trilogy. Again this is how TDK vs. LOTR stacks up
TDK (2008) vs. LOTR - it's pretty much a draw, TDK wins on IMDB, LOTR wins at the Oscars
TDKR vs. The Hobbit - TDKR ass rapes the Hobbit
Batman Begins wins by default.
Final score:
- The Dark Knight: 3
- Middle Earth: 1
The Dark Knight WINS!!!
I happen to agree and think Forrest Gump is a terrific film. So speak for yourself.
Nope as I stated earlier I typed in trilogy to google and the definition specifically mentions LOTR. Tolkien is irrelevant he was not alive during the films release. We are discussing the films so nope irrelevant.
You did not work on Pulp Fiction. You could edit it all you want you have no right to release it on blu ray or put it in theaters. Tarantino could but not you. So when Tarantino does that get back to me.
No LOTR wins. LOTR beats the entire trilogy everywhere when accumulating it all out. LOTR beats it on RT, MC, and Oscars.
The Hobbit is not part of this conversation. You lost sorry.
What's great about it? The obnoxious Southern Accents? The fact that people still think it's funny to yell "Run Forest Run" at people who are running, the ham fisted destiny message that they completely ripped off from Back to the Future Part III???? Come on please let me know?
OK so we have the words of JR Tolkein and I also have the words of some fuckstick on an internet chatroom, hmmmm I am going to believe JR Tolkein thank you very much, LOTR is not a trilogy.
It doesn't matter, according to you you can just take one story, chop it into 3 parts and you have a trilogy, so I am going to do the same thing with Pulp Fiction and I will make a Pulp Fiction trilogy, the thing is Pulp Fiction actually does have 3 individualistic components.
You don't compare LOTR to the entire Dark Knight trilogy dumbass. If we are comparing franchises then The Dark Knight (2008) should compete against LOTR and there it is pretty much a draw, TDK (2008) wins in some areas and LOTR wins in other areas. Then you have The Hobbit vs. TDKR and it's no contest that TDKR is better and of course Batman Begins wins by default because we do not have a Middle Earth Trilogy yet. Maybe if Peter Jackson makes a version of The Similarion we can talk.
To me it is a magical film. People still quote many lines from it. Run Forrest run and life is like a box of chocolates.
Tolkien was not alive during the films release as I said. And yeah it is a trilogy it fits the definition dumbass. If it fits the definition then you are free to call it that. Who am I to believe the definition of trilogy or some moron online who clearly does not know how to read? I gave you the very definition of trilogy and it popped up right when I googled trilogy definition. You got beat accept it.
Okay edit it and release it in theaters and on blu ray I will wait for it.
Oh yes I will. You do not get to call the shots here.
No LOTR wins everywhere bud. It wins on RT, MC and in Oscar nominations and wins. Therefore LOTR>>>TDK trilogy. The Hobbit is a separate trilogy nice try.
The reason you want to disqualify it is because you know it beats TDK trilogy if you do not.
Thing is I do not even need to use Return of the King as a better third entry. The Bourne Ultimatum, Toy Story 3, and Before Midnight have better data and more Oscar nominations than TDKR. Therefore All three of those are better than TDKR.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, go on thinking it's a "magical" film, whatever floats your boat but understand that the theme was directly ripped off from Back to the Future 3, I am now starting to think that you are just trolling me, I think you're just automatically saying the complete opposite of what I am just to be obnoxious, that's fine I can play.
OK let's go at this from a different angle: Why was the the film broken into 3 parts? Answer me.....
LOTR ties with The Dark Knight (2008), however the Dark Knight Trilogy ass rapes Middle Earth on all fronts.
I really couldn't care what the data says, you will never convince me those films are better than TDKR, and LOL you liked Toy Story 3, I bet you teared up at that painfully cringeworthy scene where Andy gave the toys away like a dweeb.
Nah I do not think it ripped off anything from back to the future 3.
Not until you answer why it was rated individually by critics and fans. Why were all three LOTR films rated by critics and fans individually? You never answered this and I asked this a long time ago. Answer this and I will tell you.
LOTR beats TDK trilogy on RT, MC, and in Oscar wins. Sorry no it beat it there is no tie.
If you did not care what the data says you wouldn't beg people like a little child to downvote the Disney Star Wars films. A person who is secure in their opinion does not need to do that.
Do you see me telling people to downvote TDKR? Nope cause I think it is trash and I do not need ratings to validate my thoughts. You do though.
You quickly brought up how TDKR made a billion dollars and it's place on imdb. Therefore I figured I would give you a taste of your own medicine.
Money does not equate to quality. Also it does not matter if it is loved by many a film can still be trash that is loved by many.
Back To The Future Part III: Your future isn't written, no ones is
Forest Gump: You destiny is "floating" out there in the wind much like a feather.
Yeah you're right completely different messages, although it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't truly understand either Forest Gump or Back to the Future Part III.
Again comparing LOTR to all 3 Dark Knight films is a fallacy because LOTR is just one film. You have to compare it to The Dark Knight (2008).
When did I ever beg people to downvote Disney Star Wars??? The franchise seems to be sabotaging itself without my help.
You did a piss poor job of "giving me a taste of my medicine", no matter how much data you throw at me I will never agree with you so stop pissing in the wind. It is an indisputable fact that Nolan's Batman Trilogy is one of the most beloved franchises of all time, has very solid ratings on IMDB (seriously when all 3 entries are in the Top 250 you have created a masterpiece) and they were beyond successful at the box office.
LOL, I bet your one of those haters who insists that Alfred would never leave Bruce in the comics, oh wait he did.
I seriously don't think you understand TDKR.
No need to do it with all the accolades Jackson got for adapting a wonderful trilogy.
It didn't respect the source material, why can't they make an adaptation that respects the source material?
shareThe same reason they can't make a Batman film that respects the source material. Although in my book I think Jackson was far more faithful than Nolan.
shareHere's the difference, TDKR was never supposed to be a direct adaptation of any particular work, what all Batman films do is take the character and create their own story out of it, much like what the current James Bond films are doing aside from Casino Royale which was an adaptation of a novel (which stuck surprisingly close I might add)
LOTR however were a direct adaptation of a novel and it was not an honest adaptation and was an insult to anyone who likes the book.
It is an adaption of a character which Nolan did not create. Usually they take heavy inspiration from the comic book lore. Thing is we have yet to see a Batman film on screen that embraces every element of Batman's lore.
comic books, books and movies are not the same thing. With any adaption of something there is going to be some sort of liberty taken. Nolan took plenty of liberties that I thought were lame personally. I loved every liberation Jackson took.
Where are you getting that from? The ratings for LOTR on imdb, RT, MC, academy awards won are all solid. If it was hated by people who loved the books it would show up somewhere. LOTR is one of the best selling books ever. Show this data or else you are full of it.
It was his own story that was based on the comics. He never claimed it was meant to be a direct adaptation the way LOTR is so therefore you can't compare. Taking inspiration from another work and adapting another work are two completely different things.
The liberties that Jackson took didn't make any sense and I've noticed that you haven't even tried to defend all of the objective flaws that I have pointed out. I guess that proves that you can't.
Again I have pointed out multiple times where Jackson took a giant shit all over Tolkein's work. Most of the changes he made didn't make any sense at all. The only one that did was Frodo and Sam separating in Mordor. Again I don't think you read the book or you weren't paying attention and you need to read something on a lower reading level.
Oh I have defended them you just are married to your ideas and will not be reasoned with.
shareNo you didn't, you didn't present one compelling argument. All in all the whole Pirate Ghost subplot boils down to Elrond and Aragorn being complete dumbasses and sending Frodo and Sam through all of that trouble for nothing.
shareI explained how Aragorn is noble. Thing is someone who is too dense to understand the textbook definition of trilogy shows they are ignorant.
Aragorn made a deal he simply lacked foresight. A hero making a mistake has happened before you know.
Aragorn isn't noble and it goes far beyond simply lacking foresight. When you have an invincible army that can solve all of your problems and that is not option #1 then you are a dumbass. Of course if the film actually respected the source material this wouldn't be a problem but that's another discussion.
shareYeah he is noble. Overcoming his sinful nature and not taking the ring from Frodo showed that.
Lacking foresight does not make you a dumbass. If that was the case it would make tons of heroes dumbasses. If Nolan respected the source material his Batman would be able to fight worth a crap.
I find it funny how Batman fights exactly the way you are instructed not to in martial arts/mma.
What sinful nature? He was pretty much a Marty Stu from the moment we met him. He was perfect when we met him, he was perfect when he rejected the ring from Frodo and he was perfect at the end.
Yes it does make him a dumbass because he knew full well that there was an invincible army that he could command if he wasn't such a goddamn pussy, too bad I'm sure Frodo would have really appreciated not being stabbed by a giant ass spider.
You do realize that Bruce didn't train at some Karate school right? He trained with a highly elite League of Shadows group who were world wide mercenaries. Of course he's not going to fight like some 7 year old who is so excited to get his black belt. Stupid moviefanatic, LOL
The temptation from the ring? You know the main driving force behind Fellowship of the Ring? You know the thing that made Bilbo, Boromir, and others tempted by the ring?
No lacking foresight does not make you stupid. What I found funny is how Batman gets duped by women so much in TDKR. First he gets duped by Selina Kyle, then he gets duped by Talia what a dumbass.
You realize that I included all forms of fighting right? In martial arts/mma they directly teach you not to fight the way Batman does in TDKR. It does not need to be flashy but the way he fights is not realistic. If you fought like that in real life there is no way you would last.
Take some MMA/martial arts classes and you will understand this. Seeing Batman get beat down was actually quite hilarious to be honest. I laughed out loud it was so funny.
Aragorn was tempted by the ring for all of about 5 seconds, that isn't much of a character arc doofus. He was perfect when we met him and he was perfect when we left him, very poorly written character. Now Foley had a compelling character arc.
Yes it does make him stupid, he was well aware of the invincible army that could have easily solved all of their problems and the fact that this wasn't Plan #1 was inexcusable. It wasn't even brought up at the council meeting in Rivendell. As far as Bruce goes, not the same thing, he had no reason to believe that Talia/Selina would betray him. Elrond and Aragorn however had full knowledge of the Pirate Ghosts. They were dumbasses and thousands died because of their idiocy.
And you also realize that he was trained by a fictitious and overly exaggerated league of mercenaries right? He is supposed to be better than your average fighter, he is supposed to have skills that the ordinary person in today's world doesn't have. More evidence that you don't even understand the film.
Oh it is a character arc. An arc that that trash Batman film wishes it could have. In that 5 seconds there is more drama and reverence than the entire TDK trilogy.
Nope it was a simple lapse in judgement. Happens to the best heroes. The Batman in the comics I know is smarter than that dumbass. Honestly I was rooting for him to fail such an awful Batman.
So being trained by fictitious mercenaries excuses bad fighting? If he is suppose to have abilities that are far beyond normal people why does he do things that realistically would get you killed in a fight?
In The Bourne Ultimatum Bourne fights the way you are instructed to fight by martial arts/mma. He fights like this because he was trained by the fictitious agency that is hunting him. Therefore he possesses skills beyond normal people and it showcases this. TDKR failed to showcase that.
If you're noble in the beginning and noble in the end that is not a character arc, that is a Marty Stu (male equivalent of Mary Sue such as Rey). Yeah nice try, The Dark Knight actually took a deep look at Bruce's mental state and not only is it a great comic book movie but it's also a very compelling character study as it looks at a mans deep obsession and anger and his struggle to let it go and have a life for himself.
I think you know this but it was far more than a simple lapse in judgement, it was a serious character flaw, if Aragorn hadn't had that stupid "lapse in judgement" then he could have saved millions of lives. Call me crazy but I don't like it when my heros are complete idiots and only make things worse.
You know you've never really made this clear but how is Batman's fighting objectively bad fighting. Again he was trained by a highly exaggerated, fictitious league of mercenaries so it would be completely logical that he would utilize some moves that are considered unconventional.
I watch a film for more than just fight scenes, I actually care about the drama around the characters. I think you'd like the James Bond movie Quantum of Solace, seems about at your intelligence level. Not much going on internally but the fighting is much like the Bourne movies.
By the way constantly repeating and rephrasing what I say doesn't make you come across as intelligent. Your debating tactic is pretty much the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"
shareIf Dog Day Afternoon had been released in 2003 it would have swept the Oscars but instead it was released in 1975 where it had to go up against some real competition from Jaws, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon.
shareHypothetical scenario yet again. Mystic River and Lost in Translation were great films. You just dislike Return of the King therefore you are going to do whatever you can to discredit it. Honestly I would have respect for your opinion if you gave credit where credit is due but you do not. If TDK trilogy had won those Oscars I guarantee you would be flaunting those in everyone's face.
shareBy all rights she never should have even been in the movie. Arwen was barely even talked about in the book and the way they bloated her character out made no sense and was so poorly executed. Reboots seem to be a very popular thing in Hollywood these days, maybe someone can reboot LOTR and do an adaptation that is actually faithful to the source material because Peter Jackson took a huge stinking shit all over Tolkein's work.
Also your point about me bragging about TDK's Oscar wins had that happened is a hypothetical and I don't deal with hypotheticals so point debunked.
In your opinion she was poorly executed in my book Arwen was awesome. One of my favorite things about LOTR.
Fair enough. Since I do not let you argue hypothetical scenarios it is only fair that I can not either. I am willing to accept that. Thing that I love is it eliminates a lot of your points lol. No more Pulp Fiction fan edit point and you lost on the Disney Star Wars points.
OK let's go at this from a different angle, what did you find "great" about Liv Tyler's performance?
shareHmmmm, I still think I've encountered you before as you display the same lack of ability to debate as others who have crossed my path but whatever, for arguments sake I'll just roll with it.
shareAgain you have not proven a damn thing. You have pointed out why you personally think she is useless to the plot. That is subjective my friend not objective. Second her being razzie nominated does not further anything you are trying to prove. The discussion is about Arwen not her outside work. Since we go by your logic Katie Holmes's Rachael Dawes is a worse character than Arwen because she was razzie nominated and Arwen was not. Since you put stock in that and are standing by it I will also. You specifically said Rachael Dawes was better acted by Katie Holmes than Liv Tyler as Arwen. Well the razzies agree with me that Arwen is better thanks for that.
I have seen the last stand and yep he was bothered. Also remember when you said no X-men film could stand close to any of Nolan's Batman films? Well Logan beats Batman Begins on RT, and MC. Guess that is not true. Godfather level of writing? Which is why it got nominated for an Oscar right? Oh yeah TDKR did not receive a single nomination. I guess not too bad. Godfather crushes that turd of a film in every sense of the word. RT, MC, and Oscars. Do not say crap like that again.
The Last Jedi has better scores than Revenge of the sith on RT, MC, has more oscar nominations and made more money. Therefore no the Last Jedi is the better film. You never answered my question when was a time a film dropped in ratings on RT and MC?
It's not that I personally think she is useless it's that she is objectively useless, if you remove her from the script nothing happens, everything else pans out exactly as it does. She was thrown in there because Peter Jackson decided that he needed some vaginas in his movie. Same thing with Tauriel (sp???) in The Hobbit, they needed to have a romance so they had Killi fall in love with an Elf. I see no difference between those two romances. Rachel Dawes was essential to the plot, that is the thing about Nolan he doesn't throw anything into his films unless they play a role in the story and that is why he is quite possibly the greatest director ever. The only other director that even comes close to competing against Nolan is Francis Ford Coppola but the thing is when Coppola is great he is great (Godfather II, Apocalypse Now) but when he is bad he is really bad. Nolan is consistently good and even when he's at his worst (Insomnia, Dunkirk) he's still very competent.
Again comic book movies rarely ever get serious Oscar nominations and the writing is on the same level as the Godfather but you don't have the mental capacity to appreciate either film. Again the Oscars are not a reliable source of film quality because they are based on the subjective opinion of a small group of people very shortly after the film was released, they don't have the luxury of seeing how the films withstands the test of time. Kind of like how Apocalypse Now, Pulp Fiction and Saving Private Ryan were robbed of Best Picture
Again I don't care about TLJ scores, critics hate going against Disney and right now its the "cool thing" to love the Disney films, wait until the Kool Aid wears off and I would make an argument that it is already, just look at the hate videos on youtube and both of them are sinking fast on IMDB and at their current drop rate they are projected to be alongside Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas by 2020. Again all of my predictions have come true.
If Nolan was so great then where is his Oscar win at? He has had several chances and yet has not won a single one. Yet you are ready to label him the greatest director ever? Foolish to say that. Even he himself would acknowledge he is nowhere close to being that. Get back to me when he has won at least 1 Oscar. Jackson, Spielberg and Cameron have won 3. They are far better than him.
Comic book movies can receive Oscar nominations though. The Dark Knight, Superman the Movie, X-men Days Of Future Past, Spider-man, Spider-man 2, Iron Man all got at least some technical nominations. TDKR received nothing which destroys your point. If Those other films can get technical Oscars then TDKR should be able to at least score a nomination it failed to do so because it was trash.
I have waited for this so called Kool-Aid to wear off. The Force Awakens is still rated high on RT and MC. I do not care where it sinks to on imdb. Imdb is a trash rating site. As I have pointed out you can boost ratings.
The data match is over. The Disney Star Wars films have won. You lost get over it and admit the truth. You never answered my question because you are too chicken. Tell me a time a film has dropped dramatically on RT and MC. I am waiting.
Again the Oscars are not a reliable measurement of a films quality, they are based on the subjective opinion of the members shortly after the film was released. The Shining got no Oscar nominations but did get Razzie nominations, there's your proof. He is one of the greatest directors ever, he has never directed a bad movie and the audience opinion and IMDB back me up on this. No other director has been able to craft a story with the depth and meaning that Nolan's films have. The reason you don't like him is because you simply aren't smart enough to appreciate his genius.
Technical nominations say little to nothing about a film's quality, again Fifty Shades of Grey has an Oscar nomination for Best Song, are you seriously trying to say that Fifty Shades is better than Dial M For Murder? Other than Heath Ledger, no comic book film has ever won an award that wasn't technical so fuck off.
Of course you think IMDB is trash, it isn't supporting your opinion. I don't need to look at RT or MC, the Disney Films are pretty much universally hated by this point and it sounds to me like Solo is looking to be trash as well. Even reviewers who loved TFA are now saying that Solo is garbage. The Kool Aid is wearing off and give it 3 years and the sequel trilogy/anthology films will be hated far more than the prequels.
Funny how you say the Oscars are not a measurement of a film's quality yet you turn right back around and cite imdb as a means to further your point. The audience's opinion on imdb is not a measurement of a film's quality either then. I take the Oscars over imdb. Where did I say I hated all of Nolan's films? There are some I like actually I just think TDKR sucks personally.
Never said technical nominations were the end all be all. However as I pointed out all those comic book films I listed got technical nominations. So that debunks your point about how comic book movies do not get nominations. All those comic book movies got technical nominations where TDKR did not because plain and simple it was trash.
You think the Oscars are trash because it doesn't support your opinion. Difference between you and I is imdb doesn't make up my mind for me. Bottom line as of now TFA is rated higher even on imdb than Phantom menace or attack of the clones therefore according to you that makes it a better film. Do not argue about what is going to happen in the future that is hypothetical. As of now TFA has better data all around than the first two prequels. Suck on that.
He showed weakness when almost being tempted by the ring from Frodo. That proves he was not perfect by any means.
Batman fights the exact way you are instructed not to fight by martial arts/mma. That showcases that fighting like he does would get you killed. Moves that are unconventional and down right stupid are two totally different things. He fights the exact way you are not suppose to fight therefore it makes him look unskilled.
Where did I say I only watched a film just for fight scenes? See you are projecting because you do not like anyone to have a different opinion than you. Oh he is criticizing the fight scenes therefore that is the only thing he cares about he must be shallow. The fight scenes are a part of the movie therefore they are not exempt from criticism. You may not care but we are not going to give the movie a free pass in this area just because you are sorry.
Quantum of Solace was trash. Anyhow a movie can be deep and compelling while having great fight scenes. The Bourne Ultimatum is a movie with a great story and amazing fight scenes to back it up.
He gave up the ring 3 seconds later, that is not a character arc, that is not a character trait. You are reading way too far into this (definitely further than Jackson ever did). Aragorn was essentially perfect from beginning to end. He is the "Marty Stu" equivalent of Rey.
Would you care to elaborate further on how he "fights the way you aren't supposed to"??? Because again we are talking about a ficticious fighting academy which trains ninjas with overly exaggerated abilities and skills. You cannot compare him to your average brawler. Right now you have failed to produce an intelligent argument.
Fight scenes seem to be all you care about. Obviously you do only care about fight scenes because you have spent days bitching and moaning about the fight scenes while completely ignoring the brilliant story that Nolan has crafted. You are shallow, you are incapable of liking a film that doesn't have flashy, cartoony action sequences. I agree QOS is trash that is why I recommended it for you. It's right on your intelligence level.
Aragorn faces plenty of struggles throughout LOTR. One of them being resisting temptations such as the ring and not stepping out on Arwen.
Just because it is fictitious does not make it exempt from criticism. I did not compare him to your average brawler you dense idiot. Notice how I mentioned Jason Bourne right? Jason Bourne is not an average brawler. He is trained by a fictitious agency and guess what he appears trained where as Batman does not. Obviously you are too dense to understand what I am saying. Have you taken any mma/martial arts classes? Oh wait do not answer that the answer is a loud and clear hell no!
Fight scenes are not all I care about your ass is just sore I do not look past them in your lame movie. If it is in the movie it is not exempt from criticism. TDKR had a trash story.
Sure he faces struggles and he resolves them almost as soon as they begin. That is not an interesting character, that is a Marty Stu, Legolas wasn't any better he takes down a f-cking Elephant like creature without evening breaking a sweat. Very poorly written characters. How is not walking away from something you like showing nobility? Plus I'm not sure if you were paying attention but I'm pretty sure it was her who was about to walk out on him.... But who's splitting hairs???
It does make it exempt from criticism because again Bruce is intended to be an overly exaggerated fighter who has skills that normal people in today's society don't have. I again am wondering what exactly fighting moves he deployed that are so incredibly terrible. I noticed you don't often back up your claims.
I really do think that fight scenes are all you care about, either that or your just too stupid to understand TDKR. I am leaning towards a combination of both.
In your opinion it is not an interesting character. In my opinion and many others that is an interesting character.
No it does not make it exempt. You could use that argument for almost every fictional movie ever made. Man this choreography looks like crap well remember it is set in a fictitious world. WTF is that logic?
He telegraphs moves and swings wide. You know how easy it is to tear someone apart who does those very things in a real life fight?
I think you can't take someone disliking TDKR. I think it is lame that anyone who dislikes it you immdiately claim they do not understand it. Do some people not understand it sure but there are those who do and still think it is not a good film. It is possible to understand a film and still dislike it.
How is someone who can already do everything perfectly an interesting character? Please explain? Luke Skywalker was far from perfect when we first met him and it made the story interesting as we watched him progress, same thing with Bruce and every other hero. Aragorn is an objectively poor character, he wasn't in the book he is in the movie.
Actually it does make him exempt because no one knows much about the LOS training. Again it is fictitious and it is intended to be overly exaggerated. Since no one has ever had LOS training and since we were never told the fine details of it you have no argument. Also you cannot criticize his fighting in TDKR because it was clearly established that he was out of shape and outmatched by Bane so of course he is going to make mistakes, kind of like how during the sewer fight he doesn't even have the strength to maintain his Batvoice.
I am fine with people disliking TDKR as long as their opinion isn't rooted in ignorance, I have yet to hear a legit complaint or one that doesn't stem from a lack of understanding of the plot.
By that logic every character has to be written the same. Does every villain need an origin story in order to be interesting? Aragorn did go through struggles just not the ones you are accustomed to seeing. Simply because of that does not make it bad. Also no that is an opinion therefore subjective. Learn the difference between subjective and objective please.
No it does not make him exempt. You simply want to make it exempt because you like the film. We see him get trained by Ras Al Ghul smart one. Ras specifically mentions jiu jitsu when fighting Bruce. He is supposed to be a ninja therefore he should look trained when he fights. He does not. Bourne looks trained Bruce does not. Explain that why does Bourne look so much better. He is trained by a fictitious group also. In fact it is only ever alluded to yet he appears to fight better than Batman why is that?
Last thing is we can dislike it and understand it without going through you. You act as if well in order to dislike this film you have to get through me first. Um yeah no that is not how it works bitch boy.
No not every character needs to be written the same but they do need to be given some kind of fucking challenge to overcome, a Mary/Marty Stu is boring, why get invested they already do everything perfectly, it's an objective fact that Mary/Marty Sue characters are bad characters. Aragorn went through no struggles, he killed over 1000 Orcs with barely even breaking a sweat. His only character flaw is not using that invincible army that would have solved all of their problems in the first place. He is an objectively horrible character.
It does make him exempt, it was firmly established that the LOS was using unorthodox moves and skills and that they were intentionally overly exaggerated in their skills and abilities, therefore you can't just compare him to some karate kid from the school around the corner. Bourne "looking so much better" is a subjective statement so I am not going to entertain that idiocy. Finally as stated previously you cannot critique his fighting skills in TDKR because it was firmly established that he was: A) out of shape and B) against an opponent who outmatched him in every way. He even breaks character and drops his Bat voice, that proves my point.
I really don't think you do understand it, I welcome any critiques but they have to be grounded in a firm understanding of the film and I have yet to hear a single complaint that wasn't rooted in ignorance.
He was given a challenge to overcome as I have pointed out numerous times. Also no it is not an objective fact that Mary sues are bad characters it is a subjective opinion. Again learn the difference between subjective and objective for the love of Pete. Without breaking a sweat apparently you missed the part in Two Towers where he fell off a cliff and almost died. If he was objectively horrible you would be able to prove it.
It does not make him exempt. You just think it does. I did not compare to a karate kid from the school around the corner. I compared it by my knowledge of MMA and martial arts. Bourne fights how you are instructed to by mma and martial arts. Which is why I have no issue with the fighting. Bourne you can tell is skilled and a lot of work went into that choreography. Nolan could have learned a thing or two.
There are opponents who outmatch heroes where the fighting still looks good from the heroes end. Even with being out of shape hr dhould appear somewhat trained, he does not. The choreography in the film is not just lazy from Batman's end it is lazy in general. Thugs fall down without being touched. That does not happen in the Bourne films.
No you would not accept any criticism of TDKR. Your head is to far up that movies ass to be reasonable. Thing is I honestly do not even care that you enjoy it that much. I just think it is lame how when it comes to that film you will cite the imdb data all day long. However when it comes to films that you dislike which are high on imdb ratings you do not mention the imdb rating once. It is hypocrisy at its finest.
Last question why does someone have to get through you in order to have an opinion on TDKR? That is crap. No one has to get through you in order to have an opinion on the movie numb skull.
He overcame the "challenge" in 5 seconds, if that's the best the film can do in creating tension then it failed on all counts. It is an objective fact because what makes a strong character is a character that has flaws and challenges that they have to overcome. They have to undergo a character arc so we can see how they progress internally as the story progresses. Rey and Aragorn don't have that which makes them Mary Sues. The falling off the cliff subplot was resolved almost immediately and Aragorn seemed perfectly fine during the Battle of Helms Deep so obviously it wasn't that big of a deal. Plus it's just another one of Peter Jackson's fake deaths which is another objectively horrible film technique that he deployed.
It does make him exempt. It was firmly established that he was out of shape and outmatched so even if he did make mistakes it would be perfectly logical that he would. As for the thug dropping down before being touched how do we know that is an error in the choreography? For all we know the stuntman was directed to fall down without being touched because he was intimidated by Batman and was pretending to be hurt so he didn't get beaten to a pulp. It's also been established that Batman has that effect on people.
As for criticisms of TDKR just read this thread: https://moviechat.org/tt1345836/The-Dark-Knight-Rises/5affcd3d9e0926001479e270/This-film-is-the-most-crap-overrated-film-in-batman-history
It objectively proves that complaints about TDKR are rooted in ignorance/inability to understand the film.
So then by this logic this makes Joker a Mary Sue correct? We never see any trials Joker goes through. Everything comes easy. Taking over the mob, breaking out of jail, getting bombs in the hospital etc. A villain like Magneto we see in a concentration camp and see how he was treated as a child. He is a Holocaust survivor and we saw how he was discriminated against. Therefore is he objectively better than the Joker according to your logic?
Fake death is an objectively horrible technique? First of all that is subjective but I will humor you. Then I guess that means Gordon's fake death in The Dark Knight is also objectively horrible correct?
Not it does not make him exempt. So I am supposed to believe a thug fell down from intimidation from Batman? Then I guess that explains why the word heist is misspelled on the computer also. Nolan literally made a bad film on purpose lol.
That list proves nothing. TDKR is a trash film. I have many other reasons as to why it is.
We aren't supposed to pull for the Joker so no he isn't. The Joker is the antagonist, it would make sense that the antagonist would be able to get the upper hand on the hero so that the hero has challenges to overcome. I think you have your wires crossed there. Plus I'm pretty sure the Joker was apprehended at the end so that pretty much debunks your pathetic excuse of an argument.
It is an objectively horrible technique and you will never here me justify Gordon's fake death. If the fake death has a purpose then it's fine (as in Bruce's) but when it doesn't have a purpose and is just used as a cheap parlor trick designed to illicit an emotional response from the audience (as in Frodo the 1st time, Frodo the 2nd time, Frodo the 3rd time, Merry and Pippin, Aragorn, Gandalf, etc.) it is an objectively horrible technique.
It does make him exempt and I have proven why it makes him exempt. It is well within reason that the thug would fall without being touched, it's just like how that thug in Batman '89 dropped his sword and ran away when Batman looked at him, Batman strikes fear into the hearts of criminals and that is why.
In the best case scenario for you the "Heist" error is just a minor technical goof that all films have however it is entirely possible that that was an artistic decision on Nolan's part as a form of foreshadowing to tell the audience that Selina isn't all that she appears to be.
No my link proves that all of the complaints about TDKR stem from an inability to understand the plot. Did you even read it? The poster thinks that Bruce quit because of Rachel. I bet you think that Alfred would never leave Bruce and I bet you cried all night because there weren't enough Batsuit scenes. Pathetic.
Magneto is the antagonist of X-men yet we get to know him. Couldn't someone say not developing an origin for Joker is lazy writing and that he is a Mary Sue villain? The villain being apprehended at the end happens in any superhero movie genius. Rey did struggle to turn Kylo Ren back to her side. Therefore there you go she did not accomplish everything with ease since you want to use that logic.
Um serious question do you know the difference between objective and subjective? I do not think you do. In fact I know you don't. You simply do not like the technique it is not objectively horrible. I am glad you admit to Gordon's death not being exempt. Even though I personally do not mind the technique. Gandalf's death plays a part in him being reborn as Gandalf the white so no that death served a purpose.
Nope it does not make him exempt. If you follow that logic then that makes every character in fiction exempt from criticism. So by that logic you have no right to criticize Rey's use of the force. After all it is fiction...
The fact is it is misspelled. How does Heist being spelled wrong equate to Selina Kyle not being what she appears to be? Stupid logic. The fact that she used someone else's fingerprints did that already. Nolan made a terrible film on purpose and you fell for it.
We are not talking about other people's complaints against the film, that discussion is irrelevant. I can not control other people I can only control myself. You simply want to lump me with them because you can not debate intelligently. Therefore you result to cheap parlor tricks. Address my points without referring to other people's complaints. I am not addressing complaints I never made. That is my last time discussing or commenting on that. If you bring up other people's words again I will not comment on it. This part of the debate will fall on deaf ears from here on out.
Yeah I'm just not buying the whole holocaust survivor thing and that in no way makes him a good villain. Nolan intentionally left the Jokers history out so as to create a sense of mystery around the character which even further added to the tension. The audience was just left to guess WTF happened to this guy to make him such a deranged psychopath and that worked because he was the villain and we were actively rooting against him. Also Heath Ledger won a f-cking Oscar for the role and as far as I know (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that is the only Oscar ever given to a comic book movie that wasn't technical. Magneto never received an honor that high and Ledger's Joker is considered to be the most iconic villain performance of all time.
I absolutely know the difference between objective and subjective, I think it is you who is confused about the two terms.
It has been firmly established that Batman strikes fear into the hearts of criminals and that has been true for just about every interpretation of the character, even going as far back as the Burton days, it is beyond logical that the thug would fall to the ground and pretend to be injured so that he didn't get beaten to a bloody pulp by Batman.
By misspelling the word Nolan foreshadowed that what we think we know about Selina isn't the case (the word on the computer screen wasn't really how the word was spelled and what we think we know about Selina isn't really how Selina is). We were initially lead to believe that Selina was just out for herself and would side with the villains if it benefited her or would side with the heroes if it benefited her (much like Del Toro's character in TLJ just Selina's character was written so much better). However in the end she came back to help Gotham because she wasn't just a selfish individual, she would stand up for what is right even after she had the Clean Slate Program. That is really good writing and it's a far better character arc than Aragorn or Boromir
You do not have to buy it it is objectively in the film smart one.
Now Oscars mean something yet again because it suits your argument. LOTR won best a best picture Oscar. TDK trilogy did no such thing therefore LOTR is better thanks for that. In fact it got nominated for best picture three times and won the the third time. TDK trilogy never did that lol. Therefore Jackson>>>Nolan. 3 Oscars beats 0.
The most iconic? Iconic yes but not the most sorry. There are other villains in cinema which won Oscars as well that are iconic also.
I do not buy that logic about the thug falling down out of fear. You can drink the Kool-Aid I will not.
Yeah no the word was simply misspelled. Funny thing is you think TDKR is deep it is a trash film.
Sure it's in the film that doesn't make it good, I felt it was a weak plot point as Magneto is just your stereotypical bad guy who is evil just for the sake of being evil, he reminds me a lot of Hugo Drax in Moonraker, why does he want to destroy the world? The answer: Shut up and don't worry about it.
TDKR didn't even compete against LOTR so it's not a legit comparison. Again Seabiscuit got nominated in 03, Seabiscuit!!! It's also been established that the academy typically snubs comic book films, no comic book film aside from TDK (2008) has ever won an award beyond a technical award (such as Best Sound Effects Editing).
Yes Ledger's Joker was the most iconic, can you think of anyone else?
You don't have to buy it but it is beyond reasonable that he would fall down out of fear, that is perfectly consistent with the Batman character that was already established.
You don't understand TDKR so therefore that symbolism flew right over your head, be sure to never watch anything by Coppola, you will be completely lost and probably just bored because there aren't enough explosions and silly one liners.
You said you did not buy him being a holocaust survivor. Whether you like how it was portrayed on film or not it is an objective fact that is shown in the film. Evil for the sake of being evil? Quite the contrary. Magneto faced being abused, tortured and being discriminated against.
He is basically a Malcolm X archetype. When you feel your kind is being killed, and wrongfully treated it makes you wish to fight back. When you try to treat people with kindness and you get betrayed it makes you bitter. So um no it is not evil for the sake of being evil. According to you Joker is a Mary Sue. We have no idea how he became the way he was and why he can take down the mob with ease. Rey is a mystery also since you want to play that game. The mystery behind Rey makes her a stellar character.
The academy never awards fantasy films with best picture. LOTR was the first to achieve this honor. Star Wars, and many others failed to do this. Your point about Seabiscuit is what? I thought it was a good film. Second Mystic River and Lost in Translation also came out that year and were terrific films. LOTR won that fair and square accept it like a man and do not make excuses.
The most iconic um that list goes on for a quite a while. There is
Javier Bardem as Anton No Country For Old Men
Chrsitoph Waltz as Hans Landa Inglourious Basterds
Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito Goodfellas
Daniel Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview There Will Be Blood
Among many more.
Sorry I am not buying that argument.
I have already seen the Godfather films numb skull. They are way better than TDKR.
Well of course he's a holocaust survivor, I'm not buying it as a convincing plot point, I feel that doesn't add any depth to the character and at the end of the day he's a weak villain. All of the villains in The Dark Knight Trilogy had understandable motives (aside from the Scarecrow) and it's a sign of good writing.
Did you not pay attention to the Dark Knight? I'm pretty sure the Joker got sent to Arkham at the end, that completely debunks your case. Plus he's the antagonist so you can't compare the Joker with Rey.
Plenty of Fantasy Films have been nominated such as Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Beauty and the Beast, etc. No comic book movie has even been nominated not even those X-Men movies that you're so fond of. Another point debunked.
The point about Seabiscuit is clearly 2003 was a shit year, Seabiscuit is one of the stupidest films I have ever seen and the fact that it was nominated proves my point. 1975 and 1994 were very competitive years, LOTR wouldn't have stood a chance.
None of those villains are up to the level of Ledger's Joker or Tom Hardy's Bane. Joe Pesci is on the level of the Scarecrow while the rest might be up to the level of Jim Carry's Riddler.
I don't think you understand the Godfather and I think you are just saying what you have to to discredit TDKR, I think deep down you know that it's a great film but you are just trying to be cool because its the cool thing these days to nitpick TDKR to death at a level of scrutiny you would never apply to any other film.
Magneto's motives were very understandable. Which is a sign of good writing. I pointed out his motives what is not believable about them? Do tell.
Yeah because he is the villain. Also did you not watch the Last Jedi? Rey could not overcome Snoke it took Kylo Ren to do it. Proof she is not a Mary Sue.
Um Logan got nominated for best adapted screenplay smart one. That is not a technical nomination. So um epic fail!
Way to completely step over Mystic River and Lost in Translation. Seabiscuit was good. You simply are doing your best to discredit LOTR not on my watch.
Um none of them are up to Tom Hardy's Bane? You realize Tom Hardy was not even nominated for an Oscar for his performance right? With Ledger's Joker you at least have somewhat of a case but not Tom Hardy's Bane. It is a respected villain but not like the ones I listed. Joe Pesci won an Oscar and is in a more respected film both critically and by users. Check your precious imdb.
You completely lost credibility comparing those villains I listed to Jim Carry's Riddler. Every film villain I listed won an oscar and was in a more respected film. Seriously Batman Forever my hell wow.
Oh yeah it is all one big conspiracy because heaven forbid someone dislike a movie you like. Grow up.
They weren't understandable at all, he was just evil for the sake of being evil and the movie needed a villain, that is pretty much the extent of his character development.
That doesn't prove anything, so what Kylo turned on the lightsaber to kill Snoke, Rey then had to save Kylo from the Praetorian Guards so again she shows her Mary Sue powers. She didn't have to work for any of the moments she got, she didn't earn them. Luke had to actually put forth some damn effort and he failed several times before he succeeded and even then it took Vader to kill the Emperor. It has been objectively proven that she is a Mary Sue, move on.
I thought we were talking about Best Picture? Still doesn't matter, you start jizzing your pants over ROTK winning Best Picture and being the only fantasy film to ever do so so why are you bringing up nominations? I also didn't see Logan, I lost interest in the franchise after The Last Stand. The first one was OK, the second one was a chore to sit through and The Last Stand was just plain silly.
Neither of those films were good and again the academy nominated a shit movie so that proves that their judgement is questionable.
Tom Hardy's Bane was an iconic villain, he had depth and understandable motivations. Tommy wasn't a bad villain but in all honesty his character development just depended on shock value and him just doing crazy shit. Yes Pesci gave a great performance but that doesn't mean his character had depth to it.
The rest of those villains were on the level of Jim Carrey's Riddler or Elliot Carver from Tomorrow Never Dies, not much depth to them.
I have never seen a movie more viciously nitpicked than TDKR, it's really sad that you and the rest of the haters can't get over the amount of Batsuit Time Bruce gets.
How were they not understandable? Lol funny you are openly admitting you do not understand the film. Something you constantly try to imply about people who dislike TDKR. Anyway answer the question how are Magneto's motives not clear? I bet you will side step the question.
Rey did not kill Snoke Kylo Ren did. Rey failed to overpower Snoke as openly seen. She struggled end of story.
Does not matter if you saw Logan the fact remains it got nominated for best adapted screenplay something TDKR failed to do. Adapted Screenplay is not a technical nomination. Good to know the academy realizes Logan is a better film.
No both of those films were terrific. You just want to discredit LOTR.
Tom Hardy's Bane was iconic but not as much as the ones I listed. Joe Pesci won an Oscar and is in a more respected film. Also doing crazy stuff? Sounds like Joker to me. Bottom line Goodfellas is considered a better film at every turn.
And no if you knew film you would never say that crap. You seriously are telling me Jim Carry's Riddler is on the same level as Daniel Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview? You are telling me that with a straight face?
Carry's Riddler was not nominated for an Oscar or even in consideration for such an award. Daniel Day Lewis won the Oscar and is in a well respected film both by users and critics.
Batman Forever is considered a joke and is not critically liked or liked by fans. Nothing more to add here you lost this debate.
Putting Batman Forever on the same level as There Will Be Blood is asinine.
Oh I understand it just fine, he's a holocaust survivor and thinks that he will never be accepted by human society because he knows that they often persecute that of which they don't understand and that has lead to his extreme methods. I get it perfectly, I don't recognize it though as a compelling character trait, it's cliched and by the numbers.
It doesn't matter if Kylo killed Snoke or not. Rey made it up to a level that far exceeds Luke, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Anakin, etc. with no training or any goddamn effort. It makes her a very poorly written and bland character and if the audience is actively rooting against your hero then that means you have failed as a writer.
Logan and TDKR didn't compete against each other, you can't compare the two. Much like how Dog Day Afternoon could have easily won in 2003 yet didn't stand a chance in 1975.
I didn't like either of those movies, get the hell over it, 2003 was a shit year and the nomination of Seabiscuit proves it (which was a complete insult to my intelligence).
Goodfellas and TDKR are both very respected films. I actually think Goodfellas deserved Best Picture and Scorcese deserved best director but were snubbed in favor of Dances with Wolves, starring and directed by the joke of Hollywood: Kevin Costner. Joe Pesci did give a good performance, that doesn't mean he was well written, let me make this clear I am faulting the writers not the actor, Pesci did deserve the Oscar.
Yes they are on the same level as Jim Carry's Riddler.
I didn't exactly like Batman Forever either but it is on the same level as There Will Be Blood.
You realize you just contradicted yourself right? You said his motives were not understandable at all then just went on to explain them. Failing to recognize it as a compelling character trait is different from not understanding it. If you had said it was poorly executed you would have been fine. You however said it was not understandable at all. Classic showcase of you being a moron.
You do realize your deity Nolan took inspiration from X-men correct?
http://www.unleashthefanboy.com/movies/christopher-nolan-x-me/70919
It does matter that Kylo killed Snoke it showed Rey struggle. Rey failed to overpower him which showcases she is not a Mary Sue.
Still the fact remains Logan disproves your analogy about a comic book movie only being nominated for a technical award. And for good measure you realize Dick Tracy and Road to Perdition got nominated for Oscars that were not technical correct? Both are comic book films and predate The Dark Knight.
I do not give a damn if you liked either of them they were well respected. Therefore that disproves you saying that LOTR had no competition.
Goodfellas is more respected than TDKR. TDKR is respected but not as much as Goodfellas. Goodfellas beat it at every turn.
Batman Forever gets beat by There Will Be Blood on imdb, RT, MC and in Oscar nominations and wins. Literally at every turn it beats it.
Daniel Day Lewis performance is considered iconic, no performance in Batman Forever is considered iconic.
In short you are flat out wrong!
No I didn't and I don't think I made myself clear to you, I understand perfectly that he's a holocaust survivor, I don't buy it as compelling character development, I felt the character was shallow and just your run of the mill bad guy kind of like Hugo Drax or Swartzenegger's Mr. Freeze.
Nolan took inspiration from a lot of things including James Bond and The Godfather (all 3 films include at least one reference to both James Bond and the Godfather), that in no way shape or form diminishes his work or his genius.
Still doesn't matter, she mastered the force and became a more powerful Jedi than Luke with zero training, she defeated Kylo Ren the first time she picked up a lightsaber that is enough to classify her as a Mary Sue. Fuck she even knows more about the damn Falcon than Han Solo.
You are again misinterpreting what I said, comic book movies typically don't get nominations other than technicals. I knew from the beginning that Ledger won a Best Supporting Actor. You also cannot compare TDKR to Logan because they were released in different years. When I was in high school I would have won the 3200 at the East Regional however I was in the Mid-East Regional and I made 4th. Same concept.
Actually LOTR had no competition, those movies were shit.
Goodfellas is very respected and I love it despite loving TDKR much more. You are now however attempting to change the debate, you were saying that Tommy was a good villain yet the character received an Oscar for the acting not how he was written. Pesci portrayed the character very well, however as far as his character development he's just a crazy asshole.
Again I compared The Riddler to those villains, not the films. Apparently you can't keep your discussions straight and you can't keep up with me.
Game, set and match for The Ultimate Hippo!!!
Then why would you say his motives were not understandable at all? You not buying it does not make it not understandable. Again you contradicted yourself bud.
Did I say that it took away from Nolan did? Nope but it showcases that obviously X-men deserves more credit than you are giving it. Nolan admitted it was a great step forward for comic book movies.
She struggled to overpower Snoke therefore not a Mary Sue.
Dick Tracy and Road to Perdition are proof that comic book movies have gotten other nominations other than technical awards in the past. Therefore no excuse for TDKR not to achieve a nomination at the Oscars. Second that is fine but the point remains that Logan achieved something Batman Begins nor TDKR could do.
Actually LOTR had great competition those films were amazing.
No I am not that would be you. What makes Joker different from Tommy? Both are characters that have little to no back story that are terrifying forces of nature. Bane had a backstory Joker did not.
And as I stated Daniel Day Lewis's performance is iconic Carry's Riddler is not. Was Carry up for an Oscar nomination? No he was not. Will his character go down as one of the best in film history? No it will not.
Game set and match for me keep digging yourself a deeper hole.
The movie did a horrible job of selling this tragic figure who was a victim of the Holocaust. I don't buy it at all as a strong plot point. Magneto is evil because they needed a bad guy, move on....
No not really, plenty of well respected movies took inspiration from other works, some of which were more successful than what they took inspiration from. Again Nolan references a lot of movies in his films. Interstellar which is incredible borrowed from 2001, I get it.
That's 3 movies, and that seems to be all you got, now how many comic book movies are you? We are talking about a fraction of a percent of them that have actually gotten a nomination other than a technical one. I win this round.
LOTR got the Oscar because there was no one else to give it to. Again Seabiscuit
We understand what is going on in The Jokers head, we know why he has decided to start testing the morality of the people of Gotham and deep down we know that he isn't completely wrong. We didn't get to know Tommy at all, he was just a crazy asshole. That doesn't mean his performance wasn't good, not at all but you are arguing two different things here and I don't think you quite understand. Nice Guy Eddie in Reservoir Dogs was another solid performance but his character is pretty much a blank slate.
Again you need to lay off the Oscars, all of these films were released in different years so they didn't have to compete against each other so it's not even a legit comparison. Plus the Oscars are based off of the subjective opinion of a few people shortly after the film was released. You know damn well that if they were finally deciding the Oscars for 1980 today The Shining would have received countless nominations. But instead in 1980 it received zero.
So was it not understandable or poorly executed? Which one is it? It can not be both.
Bottom line X-men is what helped Nolan birth his franchise so no I would say you need to give it more credit.
And how many fantasy films won best picture again? Oh yeah none.
LOTR won the Oscars against amazing films. Seabiscuit was absolutely fantastic.
You say we understand what is going on in his head? Tell me exactly why he wants to test the people of Gotham and why he is not wrong? The performance and the writing are two separate things. You are trying to link the two together. Which is why it is funny that you said Daniel Day Lewis's character was on the same level as Carry's Riddler. There Will Be Blood also got a best writing nomination.
Avengers got a technical Oscar nomination and was released the same year as TDKR that count?
I never was impressed by the Shining so what is your point?
Both, it was poorly executed and it wasn't understandable. The movie attempted to make Magneto sympathetic and they failed and it wasn't understandable because there were plenty of Holocaust survivors and not one of them became a diabolical supervillain. it was a weak plot point and didn't make his motivations in any way understandable.
I think you're giving X-Men way too much credit, again Nolan took inspiration from many different sources and at the end of the day it was Nolan who made the Dark Knight Trilogy a masterpiece, not the X-Men.
Plenty of Fantasy films have been nominated, no comic book film has ever been nominated for Best Picture to the extent of my knowledge. LOTR won because it was released in a shit year and had to actually beat Seabiscuit.
I didn't say the Joker wasn't wrong, I said he wasn't completely wrong, the Joker wanted to show the true nature of a persons moral compass because "when the chips are down people will eat each other" and we saw that when he threatened to blow up a hospital and there were riots of people wanting to kill Coleman Reese. We saw it again on the Ferry's when that guy tried to rationalize blowing up the other boat by saying "those people chose to murder and steal doesn't make any sense that we should die also." Granted he did come around but it was clearly established that he was considering killing hundreds of people in cold blood. The Joker was somewhat right that people who appear to be "civilized" and respectable would become just as dirty as he was in a time of crisis.
No no no, it is you who doesn't understand the difference between the characters performance and how they were written. I really don't have a problem with Daisy Ridley's performance, she seems like she is at least a competent actress, I despise the way she was written with her Mary Sue powers.
No because technical nominations say little to nothing about a films overall quality. Again Fifty Shades got more nominations than Dial M For Murd
Dial M For Murder, the Oscars are completely subjective and filmmakers campaign for nominations all the time.
The Shining wasn't well received when it first came out, now everyone considers it to be a Horror Masterpiece, that's my point. It didn't get any nominations however because the Oscars are based off the subjective opinion of the academy shortly after the release which is why the Academy is not an accurate source.
You never explained why it was not understandable. It showed what he went through as a Holocaust survivor. Second were all of them mutants? To me his motives were as plain as day. Although a weak mind is easily fooled so I will forgive you.
Does not matter if other fantasy films were nominated none of them won it. Also nope Seabiscuit was not the only movies released that year numb skull. Mystic River and Lost in Translation were that year as well. You do not get to discredit LOTR on my watch it won fair and square. Chances are critics got rating Seabiscuit, Mystic River, and Lost in Translation wrong and you have it right I highly doubt. All three of those films are highly praised so enough with that crap. LOTR ass raped your terrible Batman film.
TDKR did not even received a technical nomination which is pitiful when you compare it to it's predecessor the Dark Knight. That one got plenty of nominations.
Joker is a terrifying force of nature. Tommy is the same way in Goodfellas. Part of what makes the character so well written is the fact that you never know what will set him off. He is a hothead.
His dialogue was very well written. Joker while good as well is very much in the same vein of watching him do crazy things. His philosophy is not much different than Anton's from No Country For Old Men. Both are agents of chaos. When he says "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was rule? Good writing there.
Was Fifty Shades a well reviewed film on RT and MC? Nope. Avengers got good reviews from RT and MC and beat TDKR in technical nominations. Admit that and own up to it.
There were plenty of Holocaust survivors out there and not a single one became a supervillain. I don't see that as a compelling reason for his actions and at the end of the day Magneto is just your standard "let's destroy the world" villain, he is basically the cliched villain that Dr. Evil was spoofing.
Fantasy films have traditionally received more nominations/awards than comic book films so therefore using the academy as a data source is a fallacy. How did it win fair and square? The Oscars are subjective, there is no mathematical formula that determines which film wins, again if the 1979 Oscars were 10 years later and Apocalypse Now had the chance to stand the test of time many believe it would have won over Kramer vs. Kramer. No one has it wrong or right, it is a complete matter of opinion so the Oscars don't determine which films are better than others. I seem to remember you ripping on One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest yet it won all 5 major Oscars, something even LOTR wasn't able to achieve so therefore Cuckoo's Nest is better. LOTR never competed against Batman so therefore you can't say it was "ass raped". Much like how in high school if I had been in the East Regional I would have won yet because I was in the Mid-East I got 4th. Understand the analogy?
Again we didn't get to know why Tommy was the way he was or what was going on inside his head, we did with the Joker. Both were acted very well but the Joker was written better. Plus Tommy pretty much just depends on shock value, the entire point of his character was just to see him do crazy shit.
It doesn't matter, you were using the Oscars as an indication of which film is better and by your own criteria Fifty Shades of Grey is better than Dial M For Murder. I hope you see now how stupid you sound.
or anyone out of the movie LOTR.
It's not irrelevant at all, I just posted objective proof that haters do not understand the film, the dude thinks that Bruce quit over Rachel when in fact the opposite is true. Are you agreeing that he doesn't understand TDKR??? Because I am pretty sure beyond a reasonable doubt that neither of you know what the hell is going on in TDKR and are just sad and bitter that the deep themes and character development went straight over your head.
You never released your edit of Pulp Fiction for imdb, RT, and MC or the Oscars to rate. Therefore why should I believe you about your so called edit?
I do not give a damn if I can change your mind. The data does not agree with you on TDKR being the best third entry ever. I personally do not think that it is and there is nothing you can do to change my mind. The data agrees with me that LOTR Return of the King is better. Personally I do not consider TDKR to be as good as any of the LOTR films deal with it.
No I understand TDKR just fine. I still think it is a terrible film. Also yep what did I say about other people's view on the film?I never made those criticisms against TDKR therefore you are simply wasting your breath. Keep on projecting and putting words in my mouth and I will continue to ignore it.
Yes I did release it, I edited it on my movie maker software and I distributed it to my friends and they all said they liked it. Your definition of a trilogy that you found on google says nothing about RT, MC or the Oscars so stop bringing them up.
I still don't care about the data, you are the one who is so up your ass with data. I will never think any of those other films are even close to the level of TDKR and I have stated very convincingly why I think so. Here's the thing I can actually back up my argument with intelligent responses while you just point to the data. LOTR is just one film and the data suggests that The Dark Knight (2008) is just as good (LOTR wins in some areas, The Dark Knight wins in other areas).
You never told the guy that he was wrong that Bruce quit because of Rachel therefore you must believe it. You can keep deflecting all you want but you have demonstrated that you don't have the first clue what TDKR is all about.
I am supposed to just take your word at face value? Thing is as I pointed out that is a fan edit. You did no work at all on Pulp Fiction. Until it is rated separate like LOTR is on RT, MC, and the academy I will not buy it. Once you check all those boxes get back to me otherwise I will not believe you. So even if I were to humor your fan edit you have failed to prove it lol.
Yeah you do care about data otherwise you would not have cited TDKR spot on imdb. I did back up my argument plenty of times you are simply too dense to understand. LOTR is three separate films. I alreay debunked this whole point. Google definition of trilogy and LOTR is specifically referred to in the definition numb skull. Also no LOTR beats TDK trilogy. Fellowship and Return of the King beat Batman Begins and TDKR in ratings and Oscars. The only film that wins on imdb might I add is TDK. So even if I give you that round that means LOTR wins 2/3 rounds. You can do math right? That means it won plain and simple.
Yawn not commenting on other arguments people made that I did not next.
Take my word or don't take my word, I don't give a shit, the point is my cut of Pulp Fiction is just as much of a trilogy as LOTR. By the way for the record I don't actually think either of them are. The definition on google says nothing about RT, MC or the Oscars so can it with that. Want me to prove it? Post your name and address and I'll send you a copy:
I don't care at all about data, I only bring it up when people say things such as "obviously a disappointment" or "clearly this film is an embarrassment", that's not the case at all, plenty of people love it and the data backs it up on that. The difference is I never present my opinion as an objective fact, TDKR haters do because they were never taught the difference between objective and subjective (fact vs. opinion). The Dark Knight (2008) also wins at the box office, you have to average the box office numbers for the 3 LOTR pieces because it's not fair to compare each of the 3 pieces to one full Dark Knight movie and when you do that The Dark Knight comes out on top. LOTR was nothing more than a mindless, semi-fun fantasy adventure tale, nothing more. It would have been better though had Jackson not turned the characters into complete morons.
Funny thing is even if I consider your cut a trilogy and believe you that still means LOTR is a trilogy lol. THat also means that it ass rapes TDK trilogy on imdb and in other data. So fine let me humor you. Does not mean TDK is better than LOTR as a trilogy lol.
You said Last Crusade is clearly a bad film. Therefore you did exactly what you can't stand what people do to your film.
Nope nice try that is not how it works bud. You are manipulating it so that TDK comes out on top. LOTR was graded separately by critics and fans therefore that is how I will be doing it. Comparing them individually LOTR wins even in box office. Fail again. I know man it sucks when your team loses but own up and accept it like a man. I would have more respect for you if you just said I do not care if it wins I still think TDKR is better. Instead you have to try and cherry pick and manipulate things. Grow up.
Are you seriously not able to keep up with me??? Did you miss the part where I said that I don't actually consider either of them a trilogy? If we are going to count LOTR though then we have to count my Pulp Fiction Trilogy, I'm just playing by your logic as flawed as it is.
Yes and I do think Last Crusade is a bad film, so what?
Naw naw naw, you can't compare the box office results of each LOTR piece with all 3 Dark Knight movies, it's not fair. In order to see all of LOTR you have to pay for 3 tickets while as to see TDK (2008) you only have to pay for one ticket. Plus you can watch The Dark Knight as an individual story and be entertained, you don't have to watch The Dark Knight Rises afterwards for it to make sense. That is not the case with LOTR so if a movie goer only saw Fellowship then there would be no point as it's only 1/3 of a movie, therefore they had to buy 3 tickets. Therefore you have to average the box office numbers for LOTR and The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises actually beat it. LOTR is one story, even JR Tolkein said so and I believe him over some retarded troll whose been kicked in the helmet one too many times by his mother.
And I played along with your little game. Problem is it still does not help you lol. I said go ahead and count your Pulp Fiction trilogy. It still does not help you in the LOTR vs TDK trilogy debate.
And I think TDKR is a bad film so what?
Oh yes I can. You act as if you are required to see all three films by force. Someone could very well have went to see Fellowship of the Ring in theaters but not see the other two. Nothing is forcing you to pay to see all three of them. You act as if you were required to purchase all three tickets when seeing one film. That was not the case. Tolkien was not alive for the films for the billionth time!
Also I believe the very definition of trilogy over some stupid biased fanboy I met online. Again can't fight the definition pal.
It does help me because it establishes that if my Pulp Fiction Trilogy isn't a trilogy then LOTR isn't a trilogy and therefore The Dark Knight crushes Middle Earth.
Good for you, you think it's bad, you know you're in the minority right?
No you can't, no fan went to go see FOTR and then said "yeah that's a complete story, I guess I can move on to something else", they then had to go see the other 2 in order for it all to make sense. The Dark Knight Trilogy isn't like that, you can just watch the 1st or 2nd or 3rd film and get a complete story and not need anything else. All 3 films can stand on their own, LOTR isn't like that, FOTR is NOTHING without TTT or ROTK. That is why LOTR isn't a trilogy, it's just one film sliced into 3 pieces and it's just as logical as slicing Pulp Fiction into 3 pieces.
Except you keep changing your definition of a trilogy, now you're saying that RT, IMDB and MC play a role and your definition said NOTHING ABOUT IT. I trust JR Tolkein over some pre-pubescent jizz stain who has to hide behind an alias on an online chatroom.
No it does not help your case at all. You are attempting to redefine the definition of trilogy. Sorry partner but the textbook definition does not lie. Be real with me. The real reason you want to disqualify it is not because it is not a trilogy it is because your ass is sore that it bests the Dark Knight trilogy in data.
Sorry but I am not letting you off the hook. You my friend do not get to argue against the textbook definition. A group of three related things says absolutely nothing about them having to be standalone. That is simply something you yourself made up. LOTR was released separately and rated separately by critics and fans. Therefore I will do the same.
Your point is? I can turn that right back around on you. You realize you are in the minority in hating Last Crusade and Forrest Gump right? Yep I realize I am in the minority it has no bearing on my opinion just like you still think those films are trash.
That is so lame I just do not know where to start. LOTR was released in theaters separately. You realize I did not see all of them in theaters correct? You act as if someone saw one in theaters they are guaranteed to see the next in theaters. More than likely they would but there is no requirement. I said go ahead and consider your edit of Pulp Fiction a trilogy it will never stop me from considering LOTR a trilogy. The book is closed on that point I will not comment on it anymore. You are done with that point next.
Nope I gave you a criteria to follow in order for me to believe you. You can't prove it because you're lying. If you could prove it you would have done it by now.
All three LOTR films are rated separately on IMDB, RT, and MC. So why isn't your edit of Pulp Ficition?
No actually you are trying to redefine the definition of a trilogy by saying that IMDB, MC and RT play a role in it yet you cannot provide a single definition that mentions those sources so you lost there. Sorry partner.
Actually I was never on the hook because you are not even arguing the textbook definition, you are trying to change the definition to find your poorly thought out narrative and it's showing how pathetic you are. LOTR was ONE PRODUCTION, it's ONE STORY, it was ONE NOVEL, therefore it's ONE FILM. It's about tied with The Dark Knight based on the data, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises flat out ass rape the rest of Middle Earth.
I do realize I'm in the minority and I flat out don't care, nothing you say can make me think it's anything greater than a pile of doshit.
It doesn't matter, people who see Fellowship are more likely to go see Two Towers and Return of the King because without them you don't have a story, with Batman Begins you have a story and therefore people aren't as likely to go see the sequels unless they fell in love with the original or are just hardcore Batman fans.
Wow you really are dumber than I thought, I never said either Pulp Fiction or LOTR were a trilogy and you now think they BOTH are? What a retard.
Your definition says nothing about MC, RT and IMDB, the google defintion says nothing about them so you lose that argument.
Nope nice attempt at twisting words. I said release your edit of Pulp Fiction then once it is rated separately by imdb, RT, MC and the Oscars I will then believe you. You keep failing to prove that you made an edit. Quit side stepping man it is embarrassing. I won this little game partner thank you.
LOTR is three films. Many movies were shot back to back that does not make them one film. Anyway they were released separately, rate by fans and critics separately and fit the textbook definition of trilogy. Therefore I will call it like I see it. Once I do that LOTR ass rapes TDK trilogy. It wins 2/3 rounds. Talk about an ass kicking damn! Jackson owns Nolan!
Yeah it does matter. Even if they did feel the film was not complete they are not required to see the next film. Also obviously more people went on to see the Batman sequels because they liked the first one right? TDK and TDKR made way more money than Batman Begins. Bottom line no one has a gun to your head forcing you to pay money to see them all once you have seen one. So um next point.
I never said Pulp Fiction was I said okay lets humor you and say that it is, it still did not help your case. Even if you do that it is not going to stop me from considering LOTR a trilogy. It is a trilogy that ass rapes TDK trilogy. Suck on it.
Show me a definition of a trilogy that says ANYTHING about RT, MC or IMDB and then we'll talk. Sorry partner but I completely demolished you and kicked your ass all over the place. I won this game a long time ago and I don't know why you keep doing this to yourself.
Yes it does because LOTR is just one story, the three pieces don't stand on their own, the entire thing could be re-edited and made into one 9 hour film and it would make more sense. TDK trilogy completely ass rapes the Middle Earth Franchise, it's a tie between TDK and LOTR, TDKR kills The Hobbit and Batman Begins wins by default. TDK wins 3-1
No it doesn't, people are more likely to see The Two Towers over The Dark Knight because Fellowship ended mid story, it didn't wrap up anything, no conflicts were resolved so therefore the audience was more likely to see The Two Towers. With Batman Begins all plot points were brought to a close and didn't tease a sequel.
Neither of them are trilogies, any way you twist this around to suit your agenda it doesn't work. Tolkein didn't think it was a trilogy and it doesn't fit any of your own definitions. The Dark Knight is the better franchise as opposed to Middle Earth and Nolan is by FAR the better film maker. Even putting aside the data there is nothing impressive about Jackson's films, they are straight forward fantasy films with no meaning behind them or deep characters. The Dark Knight on the other hand actually meant something.
Again you never answered my question. How many of the Holocaust survivors were mutants? Magneto felt discriminated against as well as completely mistreated and suppressed. He had enough therefore he was targeting humans because they were targeting mutants. Fight fire with fire type of attitude.
I never ripped one One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest. I simply said I think LOTR films are as good as it is and I still think that. LOTR won 11 Oscars. One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest won more major ones but bottom line at least LOTR has some nominations to back it up TDKR has none lol.
I do not care if fantasy films get more attention. Too bad for your precious Nolan then huh lol. Might I add even stepping away from comic book films he still has no Oscar. Peter Jackson has three suck on it.
I do not have to refer to just Tommy in order to put up a villain just as good as Joker. Anton was well written as well. An agent of chaos is exactly what Anton is. The fact that you put Anton and Carry's Riddler in the same category shows you have no credibility. Daniel Plainview as well as Anton are considered some of the best villains in cinema history. Carry's Riddler is not considered great at all. Tommy like Joker is a terrifying force. Difference is with him you never know what triggers him. He is a not a villain where you hear his philosophy, his temper is what makes him awesome. Also his dialogue is on par with anything Joker says. The how am I funny scene is a classic piece of cinema.
I use Oscars, RT, and MC. Avengers got good scores on RT, MC and scored a technical nomination over TDKR the same year it was released. Fifty Shades did not get anywhere near the scores Dial M did on RT or MC. Therefore it balances out.
Bourne Ultimatum beat TDKR on RT, MC and in Oscar nominations therefore it is a better film by the data.
It doesn't matter if they were mutants or not (mutants don't exist by the way), none of them ever because delusional psychopaths who attempted to take over the entire world, it was not a convincing plot point as I did not see it as a legit reason for him to become evil. They just wanted a reason to have a bad guy and the whole Holocaust thing was the best they could come up with. By the way I am getting pretty tired of constant parallels to the Holocaust, I think everyone out there with a rational brain knows the Holocaust was horrible, we don't need it shoved down our throats everywhere we go.
The big 5 Oscars carry more weight than technical Oscars. Cuckoo's Nest is one of 3 films to ever win all of the Big 5 and that is one hell of an accomplishment especially considering it came out in a very competitive year. LOTR came out in a shit year and it still couldn't reach the level of OFOTCN
Do you really think Oscars is all Nolan cares about? Do you really think that people get into film making for the sole purpose of winning Oscars? Do you really think they judge their work by how many Oscars they've won? Of course not that is fucking stupid. Nolan had a vision for his Batman Trilogy and he was able to fullfill it and I am sure he is very proud of his art.
Well I'm sorry that is how I feel about Anton and The Riddler, it's my opinion, deal with it.
So tell me this, what is the universal mathematical formula that people use to objectively determine which film is better than which? Which is objectively better: The Godfather or Citizen Kane? You've never really explained this. I think the reason you need the data is because you aren't smart enough to figure out your own opinion so you need the data to tell you what to think
Um X-men is a work of fiction of course mutants do not exist. That is not the point of what we are discussing. The point is mutants were oppressed more so than humans were, the film showcased this. No comic book movie dared to take on something so controversial up until that was made. The opening of X-men had people wondering if they had wondered into a different film.
No LOTR came out in a quite competitive year actually. Mystic River and Lost In Translation are considered great films. So I am not buying that point. Bottom line LOTR got some big Oscars. I am going to pull a card out of your deck. Fantasy films do not usually score the big Oscars even if they get nominated where as dramas often collect them. See I can play that game also.
Well I am sorry I feel like TDKR is a trash film it is my opinion deal with it.
Nope but as it stands Jackson has 3 and Nolan has 0. And you have the nerve to put Nolan anywhere near Jackson is simply appalling.
It boils down to opinion but remember I was not the one who cited data first it was you smart one.
But the holocaust is real dumbass and I don't buy that a holocaust survivor would ever become a world terrorist because of it. Again all I said was that I didn't find that to be a believable or convincing plot point. I have no idea what your retarded ass is getting at. The parallel between the X-Men and the Holocaust is also pretty insulting if you care.
Not nearly as competitive as 1975 where OFOTCN had to compete against Jaws and Dog Day Afternoon and Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon all of which are far better than Mystic River and Seabiscuit. Fantasy films at least get nominated more that comic book films and I have never seen a comic book film get nominated for Best Picture, I have however seen multiple fantasy films get nominated, game set and match.
Think it's a trash film all you want, it you understood it you'd probably think differently and I have proven that you don't get it.
OK dickhead, what has Jackson ever directed besides LOTR that is anywhere close to The Dark Knight Trilogy or Inception or Interstellar, or Memento or The Prestige??? What King Kong? The Hobbit? Jackson is a one hit wonder and his claim to fame isn't even that impressive. He got lucky and released his film in non-competitive years. Show me a reliable source where Nolan said that it's his ultimate goal to win an Academy Award and that an Oscar is secondary to his art. Until then STFU about the Oscars as it is purely based off the subjective opinion of a small group of people very shortly after the films release date (again 1979, 1994 and 1998).
I never said the data proves which film is better, it is you who seems to have this idea. I said that TDKR was the 66th greatest film of all time according to IMDB, that is an objective fact, whether that changes your opinion or not I don't care.
The Holocaust is real smart one where did I say it was fake? How is the parallel insulting? It is in no way glorifying it . Indiana Jones is fiction and uses the Nazis as it's villains twice in the series. You find that insulting?
Nope I still do not buy it it was just as competitive. Fantasy films do get nominated more but none of them have ever won before. Where as Dramas have won best picture many times over. Guess what LOTR won over two drama films that year game set and match.
It would not matter if he directed anything other than LOTR that is better than anything Nolan has ever done. Jackson has LOTR, as well as Heavenly Creatures. Another film which is on par with anything Nolan has done. King Kong was quite a good remake as well. Bottom line Jackson 3 Nolan 0.
Last Crusade is in the top 250 of imdb that is an objective fact. Also Forrest Gump being higher than TDKR is an objective fact. Whether that changes your mind or not I don't care.
It's insulting because they are taking such a serious issue such as the Holocaust and incorporating it into a mindless superhero film like it's all just part of the gag. It's insulting to the survivors of this event and their stories.
Well it wasn't competitive, OFOTCN had to compete against 3 other films that are currently accepted to be some of the greatest works of cinema ever while other films like Mystic River and Seabiscuit have faded into obscurity.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, so you admit that without LOTR Jackson is nothing, glad you are now being honest with yourself. Even if I did award Peter Jackson 1st place (which I'm not ready to do), Nolan has 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th place so Nolan wins. Just look at how many films Nolan has in the top 250: Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar! That is depth that no other director has. After LOTR Nolan completely skunks Peter Jackson.
Yes they are both objective facts, I still don't care and you won't change my opinion.
Apparently not enough to turn your deity Nolan off from it though huh? Nolan rather enjoyed X-men and took many inspirations for his Batman films.
Yes it was competitive. Mystic River and Lost in Translation are remembered by many film buffs. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Never said he was nothing without LOTR genius did you even listen? Heavenly Creatures is on par with any of the Nolan films you listed. Also King Kong was a rather terrific remake. So um no I said no such thing as Jackson being nothing without LOTR.
Since when do I care about the top 250? That is you bud not me. Remember I only care about RT, Oscars and MC. Imdb means nothing to me.
I have watched both trilogies and the influence X-Men may or may not have had on TDK is minimal, he took far more inspiration from James Bond and The Godfather.
No those 2 films have faded in obscurity while Dog Day Afternoon, Jaws and Barry Lyndon are still cultural phenomenons. "Attica, Attica, Attica" is still a classic quote remembered by all.
I looked up Heavenly Creatures, it's data is nothing impressive, it only has a 7. something on IMDB which is far below most of Nolan's films. I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and say that LOTR is a trilogy (which I don't believe) and it's ahead of all of Nolan's films (which it isn't) and here is how the rankings would go according to the data (not my opinion):
1) Return of the King - Jackson
2) Fellowship of The Ring - Jackson
3) The Two Towers - Jackson
4) The Dark Knight - Nolan
5) Inception - Nolan
6) Memento - Nolan
7) Interstellar - Nolan
8) The Prestige - Nolan
9) The Dark Knight Rises - Nolan
10) Batman Begins - Nolan
11) Dunkirk - Nolan
12) Heavenly Creatures - Jackson
13) Insomnia - Nolan
14) Following - Nolan
15) An Unexpected Journey - Jackson
Now if we are to score that like a cross country meet where you add up the places this is how it comes out:
- Nolan (4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8) = 30
- Jackson (1 + 2 + 3 + 12 + 15) = 33
Yeah even counting LOTR as a trilogy (which it isn't) and if you give it the top 3 spots (which it doesn't deserve) Nolan still beats Jackson. Face it without LOTR Jackson no one would even know who the hell Peter Jackson is. If you take away TDKR everyone would still know who Nolan is
What was the data for heavenly creatures on RT again? Oh yeah a 92% with an average score of 8.2/10. That beats TDKR score therefore I would say that is rather impressive data. What did I say about imdb? I put no stock in it that is you who does not me. Also Heavenly creatures got a writing Oscar nomination which is a major nomination. So Heavenly creatures made Jackson a name before LOTR came along. That was a nice try though.
LOTR is a trilogy I am done debating that. So you counted it as you should have. Funny thing is LOTR takes a giant dump all over anything Nolan has ever done in his career. Jackson 3 Oscars Nolan 0.
Of course you don’t count IMDb it’s because you get ass raped on it. I only counted it as a trilogy to give you the benefit of the doubt I never conceded it was a trilogy. Apparently reading comprehension isn’t your strength. I don’t count the oscars because it’s all subjective and it’s based on the opinion of a small group of people shortly after the released date. IMDb is a lot more accurate. Sorry but any way you cut it Nolan absolutely destroys Jackson. I gave you every break possible on those rankings and Nolan still dominated. Even people who disagreed with me before on this very subject at least conceded that. If Jackson didn’t have LOTR he would be a nobody, Nolan is still a cultural phenomenon without the dark knight.
shareNo it is because IMDB is a site without critics and has a bunch of boosted ratings. For all consideration though did you factor in RT and MC? The reason you do not consider Oscars is because Nolan gets ass raped by them. If we are considering IMDB then RT, Oscars and MC need to come into the equation also. If you factor that in LOTR ass rapes TDK trilogy.
I think it is funny how RT and MC got excluded. How convenient. Factor those in and see what happens numb skull.
At least Jackson has some films in the top 250. Nolan does not even have a single Oscar win lol. Jackson has 3.
I find IMDB to be more accurate because it is based on thousands of votes rather than just a couple. It also can change and fluctuate as people have a chance to take it in and really think about it. 2001 was panned by critics at first and if IMDB were around back then and the score couldn't change after the release date it may very well be on the Bottom 100 and that is why IMDB is more accurate than MC, RT or the Oscars. I don't think you want to consider IMDB because even if I give you every concession Nolan still ass rapes Jackson.
Again the Oscars are subjective.
I don't care why you find imdb to be more accurate. I gave you my reasons why I do not put stock in it. RT and MC even has a spot for the users to vote. Therefore it displays critics score and users scores imdb is just users without any critics.
2001 would not have been on the bottom 100 please spare me. imdb is just as subjective as the Oscars are smart one. Nope honestly as of right now Jackson has 3 Oscars Nolan has 0. If he was so much better he would have won at least one single Oscar.He has not won any lol.
I don't really give two fucks about your reasons. You can think whatever you want it doesn't make it true. All of your sources are 100% subjective, IMDB is at least a compilation of thousands of votes and it says more about the quality of a film than any of your sources. 2001 was hated by critics when it first came out, but a few decades later it is considered a Sci-Fi Masterpiece and is one of the most beloved films of all time. The public's perception on the film changed with repeat viewings but none of your sources allow that, you can't go back and take the Oscar away from Kramer vs. Kramer and give it to its rightful recipient which was Apocalypse Now now can you? Any way you slice it Nolan completely dominates Jackson on all fronts, they don't even belong in the same sentence, Nolan is a cultural phenomenon while if you take away LOTR then no one would even know who the hell Peter Jackson is.
shareNope Jackson had an Oscar nomination before LOTR. Heavenly Creatures is considered a great film and that was before LOTR.
Critics also change their rating from time to time as well. Alien was mixed and now you see it is hailed as a masterpiece by critics.
No if you factor in RT and MC plus Oscars which is only fair Jackson has some edges over Nolan. Deal with it. I know you're salty but Nolan is not some untouchable God like you seem to think.
I have proven that Oscar Nominations are not a reliable source so you can just completely disregard it. No one has even heard of Heavenly Creatures, I doubt you've seen it, you just went to IMDB and started searching Jackson's filmography.
Jackson doesn't have the edge over Nolan, all Jackson has is LOTR, take away that and he's on the level of M. Night Shamylan. Nolan however has classic, after classic after classic. Take away The Dark Knight and he still has Memento, The Prestige, Inception, FUCKING Interstellar (which definitely flew straight over your head), even Dunkirk is better than almost all of Jackson's films.
And I have proven that IMDB is not a reliable source so you can just completely disregard it.
shareNo it is reliable because it compiles votes from thousands of people rather than just a few and it can be modified over time as TFA is now off the Top 250 where it belongs and Scarface is now on the Top 250
shareNo it is not reliable. Then that means Avengers Infinity War is now better than TDKR correct? The fact that it can be modified leads to rating boosting.
That means Forrest Gump and Last Crusade is where it belongs also as well as the Matrix correct? I mean it has been over 20 years and Last Crusade still sits comfortably on the top 250. Same goes for Forrest Gump.
Sure according to IMDB the Avengers is better, according to my opinion it isn't. According to my opinion Last Crusade is a complete insult to my intelligence after 2 of the greatest adventure movies ever (Raiders and Temple). Forest Gump is also an insult to my intelligence.
shareSorry but I am not giving imdb any grounds of being reliable. I think it's ratings are trash. Funny thing is I love LOTR but you never see me cite imdb for LOTR even though I easily could. The reason I do not is because I have no respect for imdb. So you will not get anywhere with me when you try to say it is reliable sorry.
shareOf course you don't cite IMDB because you know that Nolan crushes Jackson if we count it. You are a biased, immature fanboy.
shareOf course you do not cite Oscars because you know that Jackson crushes Nolan if we count them. You are a biased, immature fanboy.
shareNo because the Oscars are too subjective, they are based on the Academy's opinions shortly after the release date and they can't be modified.
shareSorry we are not playing that game.
IMDB can have people create sock accounts to boost a films rating. I have already given flaws to what films are in the top 250 that shouldn't be. Avengers Infinity War is in theaters as we speak. At least for the Oscars they have a whole year to decide who to nominate.
Here is the bottom line. You do not get to use data that suits you. Oscars in this case are not suiting you which is why you want to throw them out. Not going to happen on my watch.
So someone created thousands of email addresses, cell phones, credit cards and profiles all so they could boost interstellar and inceptions ratings? Come on man that conspiracy theory is crazy even for you, you are grasping st straws
With the oscars shortly after the release date it’s a done deal, IMDB is constantly changing which is what makes it a better source
Did I say that boosting ratings could only happen with Nolan films? Nope it can happen with any film and I have seen it happen many times. Are you denying that boosting of ratings occur?
Therefore that is why I put more stock in RT and MC. There are user scores on those websites as well. See those actually have both fans and critics. Imdb only has users.
IMDB would get my respect if it took these measures.
Voting on a film which has not been released gets you banned from voting.
Track IP address making it to where you can not create sock accounts to boost a films rating.
A film has to be out for at the bare minimum a year before being considered for the top 250.
Show a critics top 250 as well not just fans.
They will not do that which is why I have no respect for it.
Yes I am denying it occurs because with all of the information you have to type in to make 1 IMDB account it would be absurd for anyone to spend that much time to make sure that Interstellar is rated ahead of Heavenly Creatures. That is just ludicrous
You only put stock in the sources that back up your claim. You don't want to accept the fact that Nolan is one of the most beloved film makers of all time while Jackson is pretty much a one hit wonder.
All you have are baseless conspiracy theories and its quite pathetic.
[deleted]
I went against your views about the war on drugs. If you remember his exact words were reported for calling someone a moron. You have insulted people many times and he has not said a word to you. It is because he agrees with you therefore he will give you a pass to insult anyone. That is what I find funny about people like you and him you have double standards.
Second then those complaints made against TDKR which I did not make you should be taking up with the people who made them then right? See you just told me to take it up with him well likewise bud.
I reported yours because I figured since you said nothing to the guy you agreed with what he did. See I used a bit of your logic. Projecting is kind of lame isn't it?
The shooting definitely hindered this movie in the box office. It would have probably gotten closer to The Avengers, domestically, had it never happened.
shareMore than a billion dollars world is still respectable.
shareAnd it’s still the 65th greatest film of all time
share65th comes great after 64th!
shareOn a site that is completely user based without any critics... That means boosting of ratings occur. The top 250 is no indication of quality.
shareIt made over a billion dollars and has great reviews on RT and MC. Most definitely the greatest third entry of all time.
shareNah I can name a few other third entries that are better. I can name some which beat it on RT and MC as well. Also money is not an indicator of quality either...
shareI can’t think of any third entries that are in the same ballpark as TDKR
shareLord of the Rings the Return of the King, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Before Midnight to name a few.
shareYeah The Bourne Ultimatum is definitely better in all aspects, Critics also thought much higher of it too.
shareI always thought ROTK was the weakest entry and after reading the book I now realize how badly Peter Jackson butchered the source material. It has a lot of problems and I cannot forgive what they did to the Army of the Dead (aka the Pirate Ghosts). It has good moments, I am not denying that but there are too many bad moments to keep me from thinking it's anything above average.
I didn't like the Bourne Ultimatum but I also never really got into the whole Bourne series, it was never my cup of tea. TDKR however is filmmaking at its greatest.
Disagree. I think Return of the King is the best film in the Lord of the rings trilogy. Bourne Ultimatum is better made than The Dark Knight Rises in my book. As is Before Midnight.
shareNever saw Before Midnight, but ROTK really rubbed me the wrong way. I did enjoy the Frodo/Sam/Gollum segments, the relationships between the characters was very well developed and strong and even some of the changes from the novel worked like when Frodo sends Sam away which gives Sam such a powerful and dramatic return.
However the Aragorn/Gandalf segments really just started to feel like self parody and were impossible to take seriously. The Seige of Gondor was just a repeat of Helms Deep just not nearly as good and of course we have more of that Arwen subplot which is one of the stupidest segments I have ever seen in a big budget movie.
However I think what I hate the most about it is that it begins subplots that were fully developed in the book but then half asses them so they don't really make sense (why are Eowyn and Faramir in love? Why would Sauron think Pippin has the ring? WTF ever happened to make Denethor a giant douche?)
I never really considered Lord of the Rings to be a trilogy either, it's just one big movie that was so long that it had to be broken up but the Return of the King portion of the movie is by far the weakest in my opinion. Just too many problems for me to ignore.
Personally I do consider it a trilogy. Either way no denying the critical success it had. All the third films I listed either match or surpass The Dark Knight Rises critically. so looks like others are in the same ballpark after all.
shareI never understood why ROTK won the Oscar for Best Picture but then after looking at its competition I began to understand. I mean seriously, Seabiscuit?
And no it is still not in the ballpark of TDKR. Again it begins subplots that were fully developed in the book yet only half asses them and they end up making no sense at all.
According to you it isn't. According to me it is better.
shareI don't think it's that good, that's my opinion.
shareThat is fine but listing it making a billion dollars as reasons to why it is a good film was suspect. Since when does the amount of money a film makes determine it's quality?
shareIt means that obviously plenty of people found it to be good.
shareSo then that is a testament of the film's quality then? I can name many films which made more money than The Dark Knight Rises. Money is not an indicator of quality.
shareNo it's not a 100% indication of a films quality but it does prove that plenty of people loved it and that is true, more people loved TDKR than didn't and its by a very wide margin.
sharePeople loving it has no bearing on my view of it. Tons of people loved Return of the King and it obviously had no bearing on your view. So why should people loving The Dark Knight Rises change my view of it?
shareGo ahead and love ROTK (you don't need my approval) just accept that it is heavily flawed.
shareYou act as if your opinion on Return of the King is an indisputable fact. It isn't. In my book and in many others eyes Return of the King is better than TDKR. It beat it in every rating category. Also all your so called flaws you call Return of the King on I think are simply without any base sorry. I have a feeling you are one of those people that is biased towards things they like.
A film having flaws does not mean the overall product is bad at all. Some of the greatest films of all time have flaws does it take away their place among films in history? Nope and as it stands Return of the King and other third entries like Bourne Ultimatum and before Midnight are more critically successful than TDKR.
Therefore when you say TDKR is the best third entry ever it goes no further than your opinion. Return of the King being better than TDKR I can make the claim because critically and by people it is considered the better film. Should it shape your opinion? Nope you're entitled to think what you want as am I. However using imdb and box office cash to try and further your point was silly. The top 250 has no credibility since no critics at all are on it. Imdb is completely user based so that means boosting of ratings occur. Box office cash does not mean a film is quality.
Of course its my opinion that TDKR is the best third entry ever, any statement claiming any film is the best third entry ever is entirely subjective. Someone else could come along and say The Godfather Part III is the greatest third entry ever and we could not tell them their wrong despite me thinking that movie is complete trash in comparison.
Having said that there are definitely objective flaws in ROTK, there are so many subplots that are either half assed or don't go anywhere and its completely impossible to ignore. Or there are lines that seemingly contradict themselves such as "why should we go to aid those who would not come to ours" (I may have misquoted) when he never even asked them for help in the previous movie, or Legolas saying "the stars are veiled" when there are plenty of visible stars in the background and again I cannot forgive the reduction of the Army of the Dead to simple pirate ghosts who could have solved all of their problems in a heartbeat.
IMDB and Box Office do not prove which film is better however it does prove that more people loved it than hated it and it proves that objectively speaking it is one of the most beloved films of all time. Very few films have been able to break the 1 billion dollar mark and TDKR accomplished that.
Of course its my opinion that TDKR is the best third entry ever, any statement claiming any film is the best third entry ever is entirely subjective. Someone else could come along and say The Godfather Part III is the greatest third entry ever and we could not tell them their wrong despite me thinking that movie is complete trash in comparison (not bad, but also not a classic as the other two are).
Having said that there are definitely objective flaws in ROTK, there are so many subplots that are either half assed or don't go anywhere and its completely impossible to ignore. Or there are lines that seemingly contradict themselves such as "why should we go to aid those who would not come to ours" (I may have misquoted) when he never even asked them for help in the previous movie, or Legolas saying "the stars are veiled" when there are plenty of visible stars in the background and again I cannot forgive the reduction of the Army of the Dead to simple pirate ghosts who could have solved all of their problems in a heartbeat. Again I am not totally ripping on ROTK, as I stated previously the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline was very well written and executed and even some of the changes from the book like Frodo sending Sam away were an improvement and strengthened the characters relationships in the end. I have very few complaints with that segment it is the Aragorn/Gandalf/Gimli/Legolas portion that I take issue with and I know I am not alone on this. Also as I know I said earlier that expanded Arwen "am I going to leave Middle Earth?" subplot was the stupidest expansion of a character I have ever seen. I really couldn't care less about her stupid story (which by the way made no f-cking sense at all) and what pisses me off is if they cut it out we would have had more than enough time for the Scouring of the Shire chapter which is quite possibly my favorite chapter out of the book. The movies also completely took a sh!t on the characters of Merry and Pippin who were a couple of badasses in the books yet just simple comic relief in the movies.
IMDB and Box Office do not prove which film is better however it does prove that more people loved it than hated it and it proves that objectively speaking it is one of the most beloved films of all time. Very few films have been able to break the 1 billion dollar mark and TDKR accomplished that even with the shooting which most definitely hurt ticket sales.
Transformers Dark of the Moon, Transformers Age of Extinction all surpassed the billion dollar mark. While as Blade Runner 2049 did not do a quarter of the money those films did. That is why I do not put stock in box office.
shareThat is because most of the movie going public doesn't like to think, they just want to be entertained. Blade Runner 2049 isn't the kind of film that spells everything out it requires the viewer to analyze what they have seen and that is part of the reason it's box office wasn't as high.
Now the Transformer movies are a huge pile of shit and Blade Runner 2049 was definitely my favorite movie of 2017 and this all comes back into my previous point that its all completely subjective. Did more people seem to like Transformers over Blade Runner? Yes and a similar thing happened to the original but lets not forget most people are stupid.
According to the user ratings, Blade Runner 2049 was rated higher than any Transformers film. More people just went to see Transformers. It does not mean it was more liked just more marketable.
shareAccording to the box office Transformers was the better movie, according to any film critic with a functional brain Blade Runner 2049 was better.
shareWhich is why I put more stock in critics. Hence why Rottentomatoes and metacritic is a much better measuring stick than imdb. A completely user based site where the boosting of ratings occur.
shareGood for you, I go by what I think is better, I don't need RT and MC to tell me what to think. By the way TDKR did amazing on both of those sites.
shareSo did Return of the King, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Before Midnight. I do not need a site to tell me what to think. Thing is you were the one who claimed yep and TDKR is the 64th greatest film ever as if it was indisputable truth.
Sorry but on a completely user based website that is not impressive to me. I do not put any stock in the top 250 of imdb.
Bourne Ultimatum, Return of the King and Before Midnight actually beat TDKR on RT and MC. They also beat it in Oscar nominations as well.
In my book all three of those films are better than TDKR.
According to IMDB it is the 65th greatest film of all time so therefore I can say that. If Birdemic was rated higher than Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds then I could say that Birdemic was better.
You can't really use Oscar nominations as any kind of gauge I mean Fifty Shades of Grey has more nominations than Reservoir Dogs, The Shining and Dial M For Murder put together. I acknowledge that ROTK did very well on IMDB but that does not sway my opinion one bit and I have already pointed out countless objective flaws in the storytelling. Yeah it did win Best Picture but let's be honest 2003 was a shit year, I mean seriously Seabiscuit????
Yep but you didn't say according to imdb. You claimed it as if it was the end all be all.
So now we are going to try and demean Return of the King's accomplishments. How many Oscars did The Dark Knight Rises even get nominated for?
There are flaws in every film again does not take away it's place in history. Check the goofs list of imdb there exists one for The Dark knight Rises and for every film. You did not point out objective flaws only subjective.
Learn the Difference between subjective and objective okay.
As it stands The Bourne Ultimatum, Before Midnight and Return of the King are better received critically. In my opinion all those are superior films as well.
Imdb is completely user based. I do not put any credibility in the top 250 at all.
Rating boosting occurs on imdb that is the problem when only allowing users.
I could list objective flaws for the Dark Knight Rises. Thing is a blind person like you will close your ears and deny it. I have no issue with you thinking highly of it it is a very solid film but to act as if nothing can rival it is in my book silly.
I didn't think I had to say according to IMDB but fine have it your way. The point is I can legitimately say it is the 65th greatest film of all time and that is one heck of an accomplishment especially since it had to follow two amazing movies.
I really have never heard of a comic book movie sweeping the Oscars so there really isn't any comparison and I've already pointed out that 2003 was a shit year. Plus most of its wins are for technical categories which say little to nothing about the films overall quality. Again 50 shades of grey has more nominations than Reservoir Dogs, The Shining and Dial M For Murder combined. What makes Oscars such a stupid indication of a films quality is that it all depends on what year it was released. Take 1975 that year was stacked, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest had to compete against Jaws, Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, and Dog Day Afternoon and it still swept the Oscars, now that was an accomplishment and Cuckoo's Nest is one of the greatest films ever made, hands down miles ahead of ROTK.
Those films you listed may be better critically however I still don't care, that will never sway my opinion.
There may be minor technical goofs with TDKR, sure every film has them, like in Star Wars random star destroyers just disappear off the screen but in ROTK it is beyond inexcusable, there are so many plot holes, story errors and just flat out lazy writing that I can't just ignore it. In Edward Scissorhands sure there is a plot hole, where did Edward get those giant chunks of ice but I was so absorbed into the story it didn't matter and in all honesty that plot hole didn't really take anything away from the story so it's OK, it's not the same with ROTK, if you ignore the book (and the movie should be able to stand on its own), there is no logical reason at all that Sauron should think that Pippin has the ring and that plot element takes the story in a completely different direction.
Achieving a high rating on imdb is not impressive to me. Because as I pointed out boosting of ratings can occur. I have seen it many times.
You can say according to imdb it is the 64th greatest film ever. It stops there. That is not a list with credibility. You just like that it ranks a film you love highly. I notice that looking through your posts there are films on the top 250 you dislike. Funny thing is the imdb rating never gets mentioned for those I wonder why? Biased perhaps?
Um Return of the King won best picture, best director, and best writing adapted screenplay. None of those are technical awards...
2003 had Mystic River which was a terrific film, it also had Lost in Translation one of my favorite films.
50 Shades of Gray has no significant nod. Is there a best picture, director, or even writing nod for that film? Nope therefore yeah the nomination does not mean much.
I never said it should sway your opinion. Bottom line though objectively speaking if we are speaking unbiased Return of the King beats TDKR at every turn.
I can list several plot errors in TDKR. You like I said though seem like the type of person that would cover his ears and deny it like a 10 year old kid.
If technical awards are so easy to get why didn't TDKR get a single nomination? When do fantasy films ever sweep the awards? Oh yeah that is right Return of the King was the first fantasy film to do that.
One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest is a terrific film I agree. However it is not miles better than Return of the King. The data suggests otherwise. In your opinion maybe but nothing else.
Then again when you listed money as a means to prove a film's quality and cited imdb as it if were a completely unbiased rating measurement I should have known you had no credibility.
Wait hold up, putting data aside tell me what about ROTK makes it even in the same ballpark as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? We aren't going any further until you explain this.
shareLol you think you call the shots here? Give me one reason why I should bow down to your demands?
Repond to my entire post and show you are a mature level headed individual. If you can do that then we will see if you are worthy of me responding to that question.
The fact that you think you run the show makes me think you are not worthy of a response. Prove to me otherwise.
Learn some tact it will help you in life my friend. If you had asked for a response with some tact I would have had no problem giving you one. The fact that you acted as if you were running the show proves to me I might dealing with an immature person.
No you made an outrageous statement and I want you to defend it,
You don't get to just throw out statements like that and expect to get away with it, that's an incredibly asinine and childish way of arguing.
Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET and Beauty and the Beast were all nominated for Best Picture
shareBut did they win? Nope. Lol no different than saying TDKR is hands down the best third entry ever. According to who you?
Why is your opinion indisputable truth? I love Return of the King but I do not say it is hands down the best third entry ever.
In my opinion it is but I do not go any further than that. I also do not cite imdb as a means of credibility to try and validate my point like you did lol. If I wanted to I could go that route. Return of the King is higher rated than any third entry on imdb, has more Oscar wins than most movies in history, is highly rated on both RT, and MC, made over a billion dollars, and is the first fantasy movie to achieve winning best picture.
Thing is though I am not insecure in my opinion therefore I do not need to list it's accolades to try and validate my opinion. Although since people like you like to play that game it is fun to turn it around on people. Ratings mean something to you as long as it supports your notion the second it does not, they get dropped like a ten ton brick.
As I stated previously 2003 was a shit year so you are really comparing apples to oranges, Pulp Fiction was unable to win in 1994 (which still boggles my mind but whatever) but had that been released in 2003 it would have ass raped ROTK like a bitch. If ROTK had been released in 1975, 1994 or even 1974 I highly doubt it would have even been nominated.
I never said my opinion was indisputable truth, I simply stated it and it is a fact that TDKR is the 65th greatest film of all time according to IMDB.
The thing is though I don't need RT, MC and the Academy to tell me what to like, I am actually smart enough to make that decision on my own and I clearly like Cuckoo's Nest over ROTK. I asked you to back up your opinion and you were unable to do it.
I have pointed out objective plot holes and lazy writing in ROTK and you were also unable to defend it which further proves that I'm right. You seem to think that I believe LOTR is mindless garbage and it's not completely, as i said the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline was very well handled but its the other segment that is mindless garbage. Is it safe to say that you can't defend the objective flaws I have pointed out in ROTK?
You aren't very smart are you?
And as I pointed out I disagree with your notion that 2003 was a bad year for films. Mystic River and Lost in Translation were amazing films in my book.
Second now you are speaking hypothetically. You think Pulp Fiction would have beaten Return of the King you can not prove that therefore why should I humor that?
Arguing hypothetical scenarios is stupid. Bottom line it won several huge Oscars that were not technical. No matter how hard you try you can not take that away.
It is a fact that according to imdb it is the 65th greatest film ever. It is also a fact that Return of the king is higher rated than TDKR. Funny how you do not list Return of the King's spot on imdb I wonder why?
As I said citing imdb means nothing the top 250 is a joke. A site where boosting of ratings occur.
You complained about the Ghost army. Thing is Aragorn released them because he is a man of honor. He promised them if they helped with that battle he would release them. Had he gone back on his word that would have completely betrayed what Aragorn is about.
Had he had more foresight he would have used them for more but as in life sometimes we do not always have the best foresight now do we?
Aragorn is a man of honor and nobility.
So basically they went through all of that trouble because Aragorn is a dumbass? That is some lazy writing. The main problem I have is that the movie gave them the power to kill which made the heroes job far too easy and they weren't like that in the book. The pirate ghosts were a cop out plain and simple and if they were going to portray them in a way that makes sense they just don't put them in the movie, it isn't difficult. If we didn't have to spend all of that time with the Pirate Ghosts maybe we could have had time for the Battle of the Shire.
Mystic River and Lost in Translation were nothing special, Seabiscuit was a complete joke and the fact that it was nominated just shows that they gave the Best Picture to ROTK because there was no one else to give it to. As for Pulp Fiction vs. ROTK you can "humor me" or not, I don't care, but I think deep down you know that my claim is true.
I accept that ROTK is higher on IMDB, I still don't care nothing will ever change my opinion. I have pointed out numerous examples as to why ROTK has flaws.
I actually saw the LOTR movie because I read the book and I always thought it was entertaining, it was at least on the same level as Pirate of the Caribbean or the Star Wars prequels but after I read the books I was infuriated because I realized how badly Peter Jackson butchered the source material,
Lord of the Rings on the same level as the Star Wars prequels lol nice joke.
Also no Mystic River and Lost in Translation were terrific.
I am not going to humor your pulp fiction point because it is hypothetical. I do not argue hypotheticals it is pointless.
Pulp Fiction is nothing special in my book I think Return of the King is better.
Not to mention since when does lacking foresight make you a dumbass? Tons of the greatest heroes in cinema have lacked foresight as have intelligent people in life. So nope can't agree on that sorry.
There are things LOTR did better and things that the prequels did better. The prequels had a far better story and more well defined characters, LOTR made better usage of CGI and didn't over rely on it and they both had some pretty bad acting in some places and good acting in other places. Neither of the love stories were particularly well executed but Anakin and Padme's relationship at least went somewhere and had an impact on the story.
I'm guessing you didn't understand the deep themes that Pulp Fiction was trying to convey, no worries ROTK seems a lot closer to your intelligence level, you must have loved the "that still only counts as one" line, LOL.
Aragorn was a dumbass, both he and Elrond knew about the Pirate Ghosts but instead they trusted the entire survival of Middle Earth on a Hobbit who had never seen combat before, it's only by blind luck that their plan worked in the first place. The Pirate Ghosts could have solved all of their problems in the blink of an eye but they didn't use them right at the start because they were dumbasses, of course if they portrayed them like they were in the book this wouldn't have been a problem but as things stand this is a huge plot hole that makes the characters look like idiots.
Literally just had this conversation with a friend after hearing how much the movie mad in its opening weekend... “In its opening weekend it grossed $630 million worldwide and $250 million in the United States and Canada, setting the records for the highest-grossing openings for both”
don’t get me wrong. Avengers: infinity war was an awesome movie, but I still think the TDKR takes the cake. A:IW has some of the best CGI, and the most entertaining storyline/punchlines I’ve seen in awhile. But TDKR was way ahead of its times and I stick with that.
I think TDKR is great, it has an epic feel to it, even if I think The Avengers(2012) is better.
But no matter how many superhero movies they put out, you can't really beat TDK. It is unique. Logan was easily the most effective attempt at it, but still, it lacks a better plot.
TDK reached every high note in pretty much every department.
I saw TDKR in IMAX and TDK at AMC Theaters at the Mall of America in Minneapolis. Both were spectacular experiences and I wish I could wipe my memory, go back in time, and do it over and over again.
shareI still get that feeling every time I watch TDKR. I try to place a few months in between views so I can “surprise myself”
shareI kind of wish I had the mind erasing machine from Total Recall so that I could erase my knowledge of TDKR and then rewatch it and relive the experience of seeing it for the first time.
shareTook me 30+ years to get through Blade Runner (1982) in one sitting. I'd seen 'The making of' more times than the film itself.
sharethe shooting was a false flag to promote the movie and bump up its box office revenue
shareI’ve read into this theory, which is why it took me so long to actually watch the movie.
sharei don't get it,
did you watch like 30 seconds of the movie every few days?
what else were you doing that kept you so busy
Technically it was 49.8600001 seconds per every 24 hours, not including Sunday’s.
^^I’m totally kidding.
What I meant to say and maybe I should’ve made it more clear in my original post is that I didn’t watch TDKR until 2 years after the release. I watched the whole movie in one sitting.
I guess all of the theories that were circulating around the time of the release preventing me from watching without divulging into said theories first.
I have always had an open mind, and a lot of the (false flags) events that took place in the year or so before and after this movies release had me a little shook. Not quite sure why it took a certain event to call my attention to this movie, but it was extremely unsettling at first. Still unsettling, but... well no but... just still unsettling. However I love This movie.
Eh?
It's only two and three quarter hours long!
TDKR is embarrassingly bad. Looked great but was worse than any of the new DC crap. Yes, worse than Suicide Squad. Still can't believe Nolan did this. I like most of Nolan's stuff.
shareWell unfortunately just about every critic and the majority of the human population disagree with you. To be perfectly honest I think you want to hate TDKR because you think its the cool thing to do. It's a very immature attitude.
shareIt's interesting that you think that way.
shareI have noticed that most people who complain about TDKR don't really understand it.
shareOf course you have. Most people aren't on your level, are they?
shareWell the haters think that Bruce quit because of Rachel, can't figure out how Bruce got back to Gotham and don't understand why Talia slept with Bruce so yeah it looks that way.
shareNotice how he puts words in your mouth. Since he can not accept anybody disliking this film he will hold points made against the film against you that you did not even make. The straw man is his favorite technique when debating.
This will be his method. He will state in all my time I have never heard a legitimate complaint made against TDKR. This is implying that you must get through him first in order to understand the film. It is impossible to dislike the film if you do you do not understand like he does.
I just figured I would prep you for what he will do.
Didn't put words in anyone's mouth, from my perspective the haters don't understand the film because ALL of the complaints I have heard about it stem from an inability to comprehend it.
shareYou never even listened to my complaints against the film before you began to project. You said you never corrected the haters therefore you agree with them. That is fine though since that is the game played you agree with reporting and telling moderators on people since you never corrected ThreeTenToYuma.
Also people do not need to get your approval to understand and dislike the film. It is possible to fully understand it and still think it is not good.
OK let's go again what are your complaints with TDKR?
shareFirst thing is first. Before we start this I have a few stipulations and a few questions.
I am not arguing points I did not make. I do not care if people made lame points against the film it is not my job to correct them. If it is then it was your job to correct ThreeTenToYuma. I do not care how high it is rated on imdb, RT, or MC. That does not change my opinion of the film just like how you do not care how highly Forrest Gump is rated. Therefore do not mention what data it has.
I do not care if the majority disagrees with me. Money is not an indication of quality. Just because a lot of people enjoyed TDKR does not mean I have to. Much like how many loved Last Crusade and Forrest Gump but you still think they suck regardless of what the majority thinks. If you bring up data for TDKR then you need to do the same thing for Forrest Gump and Last Crusade.
Now for my questions. Is it possible to understand TDKR and still think it is a bad film? I do not want to hear in all my time I have never heard a legit complaint. That indicates people need to get through you first to have an opinion. It does not work that way. Why is it data gets mentioned immediately for TDKR but not for LOTR, Forrest Gump, or Last Crusade? I know you are aware of the data but you never mention it. Could it be that you are biased and only do it when it comes to films you like?
Once we come to agreements on those stipulations and you answer my questions I will be glad to share.
Hey I was just trying to give you a forum to express your complaints but if you aren’t interested then go fuck yourself
shareAnd I gave you the stipulations and asked you questions. I posted those because I am not going to get involved in a circular argument.
Whenever I said I disliked it you would do one of three things.
You would cite the data, pointing out that I am in the minority indicating that should change my mind. Which I find hypocritical because you do not care at all about what Forrest Gump, Last Crusade and LOTR are rated. So we are supposed to care but you don't have to nice.
Holding other people's dumb complaints against me that I never even made. I am not responsible for correcting them, just because I do not correct them does not mean I agree with them.
Last you would claim that I did not understand the film. Then when I would say that I do you would say in all my time I have never heard a legit complaint. This indicates that unless someone can get past you they have no right to have an opinion on the film. Basically showcasing that your view is superior to everyone else's.
Lets face it there is not a single criticism you would listen to. Even if you did this is the most you would grant, you would say yeah but that is a nitpick and is only a small fraction of the film. That is as far as you would budge.
So that is why it is not worth discussing it with you. You want to have a circular argument. If you do not resort to those antics I am glad to discuss the film.
TDKR apologists are hilarious to me. I enjoy watching them try so hard.
shareWell then I guess you don’t get a chance to express your opinion, I was doing you a favor and you don’t get to set the conditions s when someone else is doing you a favor. I am open to hear complaints about TDKR but as of now all the ones I’ve heard wouldn’t be an issue if the person making the complaint understood the film
shareYou are not doing me any favor this is a public forum. I told you I am not interested in a circular argument. Those stipulations are completely fair. The reason you do not want to abide by them is those are the exact tactics you love to use.
shareWell then I'm going to have to say no to your "stipulations". Good riddance.
shareLol yep as I thought you can't have an actual debate.
shareI offered to have one but you pussied out.
shareNice try. I gave you the stipulations and you did not want to abide by them. So I will list them again. They are completely fair and reasonable. Take it or leave it. The ball is in your court.
shareUm no, I don't need to bow down to whatever idiotic and ridiculous conditions you feel like setting. If you want to have a discussion fine but don't attempt to set a whole bunch of moronic stipulations and then claim victory when I understandably refuse to abide by your ridiculous terms.
shareMy terms are perfectly sound and reasonable.
I do not want to hear about the data of the film. I know how much money it made and am well aware I am in the minority. I do not care it has no bearing on my view of the film. Just like how you do not care you are in the minority for Forrest Gump, Last Crusade and LOTR. It has no bearing on your view and you do not care so why should I?
I am not arguing points against the film I did not make. That is dumb. Just because you do not correct somebody does not mean you agree with them. If that is the case then that means you agree with reporting people to the administrators. You after all never corrected ThreeTenToYuma.
Last thing saying in all my time I have never heard a legit complaint. Newsflash people do not need to get through you in order to understand and have an opinion on the film.
Put it this way, I'm not accepting your terms, now either calmly and maturely express your concerns about the film and I will evaluate their legitimacy or fuck off.
shareThen we are done here. I am not going to have a circular argument with you.
You love the three scapegoats to bail you out.
1: Well it is on the top 250 of imdb and you are in the minority.
2: You never corrected the criticisms therefore you agree with them.
3: Clearly you do not understand the film. In all my time I have never heard a legit complaint against the film. Indicating that people need to get through you first.
Sorry I am not arguing those points as they are foolish and as I said circular arguments.
Oh and by the way reported for language!
Good riddance dickhead. You don't get to set the conditions here, that isn't how this works.
shareReported again for insults!
shareYou basically just admitted you will use those three arguments to bail you out. Quite sad dude. You are more interested in a circular argument than a reasonable debate. Grow up and learn something then get back to me. I mean after all you're a principal so shouldn't learning something come easy to someone so intelligent? After all you do have two masters degrees right? Didn't you say that?
shareNo I'm taking a stand by putting you in your place and stating that you don't get to set the terms to any discussion, especially when I'm trying to do you a favor.
shareIf you really are smart you wouldn't need any of those three things to dismantle me. You do not want to cooperate with my stipulations because you can not debate any other way it is quite obvious.
Also no favor is being done. This is a public forum. You act as if I can not share my view without your approval. Not the case bud.
I can debate anyway I want to, I don't need to accept your moronic stipulations. By the way reporting posts is for cowards who can't hack it.
shareThen you admit ThreeTenToYuma is also a coward then correct? Isn't that your friend? Wow you just insulted him.
As I said you're admitting that you have to debate in a juvenile way. Using straw man arguments is so childish it is actually funny. I have no interest in debating someone who uses those tactics sorry.
Again that is something you'll have to discuss with ThreeTenToYuma, I didn't report any of your posts. It sounds to me though that he was tired of the Nazi like rhetoric and I can understand it.
shareThen it is not my responsibility to correct complaints made against The Dark Knight Rises which I did not make. You need to take that up with them. Do not be hypocritical.
shareThen do you disagree with Bruce quitting because of Rachel?
shareDo you agree with reporting to the moderators?
shareYes and no. Reporting someone to the moderators for simply having a disagreement or from being called a "dumbass" is ridiculous. It's a public forum people have different opinions, you need to get over it.
However if you are going to promote shouting in people's faces in public, launching sexist and bigoted attacks against the first family, and mocking children of conservatives then that needs to be reported. The left's Nazi tactics are sick and despicable and they should not be allowed to say things like that.
Well, who'da thunk I would respect your politics.
shareThen this exactly showcases that you are a hypocrite. He reported me not for anything of which you said above. He reported me for calling you a moron.
You just said having a disagreement or calling someone an insult is not a reason to report someone. That is exactly what he did and you did not correct him why is that?
I think he was just frustrated from all of the KKK/Nazi like tactics that the left has embraced. If they didn't act like filthy animals I'm sure he wouldn't have done it.
shareSo because he was frustrated with other people's actions that gives him the right to take it out on me?
Funny thing is he reported me for insulting you but said nothing at all when you did it to me why is that?
Him reporting me had nothing to do with that. He did not like my point of view, and that is why he reported me. If it was about insults like he was saying he would have reported you also.
No because that board is flooded with hate/Nazi like rhetoric and I can totally understand him being a little bit frustrated. I was standing up for civility and since you went against me he probably assumed you identified with the Nazis. A perfectly logical assumption I might add.
Again these are things you should be discussing with ThreeTenToYuma, I never reported any of your posts. You reported plenty of mine however because you're a coward.
I tried to watch it on TNT the other night but I couldn't stand the Bane character. It's not what I imagined Bane's voice to sound like at all. In the comics he wasn't British and didn't talk like Sean Connery.
share