|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 10, 2024 8:16:08 GMT
What do you guys think?
I'll admit I was against the idea of a sequel. I kind of wish they had just done the original plan of making it a series of offbeat, experimental, anthology films about DC characters. There's a lot of really cool stuff that could have been done there. Still that said I do love this character and f*cking hell Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn? Two of my favourite things, crazy female singers and DC comics have been combined LOL.
I admit I am extremely biased as I cannot stand Margot Robbie. I think she is sooooo overrated, and I HATED her attempts to turn f*cking Harley Quinn of all people into a feminist icon. Yeah nothing says empowering like being a crazy bitch whose entire identity is decided by a crazy bastard.
Gaga's Harley however looks more like the classic, grubby little lunatic who you think is a victim, but is actually on his wavelength in terms of how twisted she is. Honestly it could be great. I just hope it's not too self indulgent, that's my biggest worry.
PS even as a grubby little lunatic, Gaga still looks f*cking amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Apr 10, 2024 10:19:38 GMT
I dunno, it's something different I suppose. Visually it looks quite nice.
I never saw the first one.
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Apr 10, 2024 21:24:17 GMT
Will wait for the reviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spark Doll King on Apr 10, 2024 21:42:46 GMT
I really liked the first one and wasn't overly into the idea of a sequel but this trailer has got me interested. Lady Gaga is probably one of the best picks for Harley.
It's the only comic movie that's caught my eye in years.
The main part I'm interested in in were dose it go wrong? One the one hand, Joker is clearly starved for understanding and kindness but love...? His only experiences with love are abusive. His only good romantic relationship was with a women he barely knew in fantasies.
I forsee that Harley is either going to make a mistake and disappoint him, or she is just not really able to deal with the monster she's courting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 10, 2024 21:53:01 GMT
Dunno, I’ve seriously gone off superhero movies over the last couple of years. With a few exceptions, they’re all so up their own arses these days.
I did enjoy the last Batman movie because it was more of a detective type of thing, although it was seriously too long by about an hour.
If this film is as miserable as the first one, as much as it was well acted, I probably won’t want to bother to be honest, unless I’m sitting in a bath of blood red water with my wrists cut, in which case it will be the perfect viewing companion. 😆
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 10, 2024 22:27:54 GMT
Dunno, I’ve seriously gone off superhero movies over the last couple of years. With a few exceptions, they’re all so up their own arses these days. I did enjoy the last Batman movie because it was more of a detective type of thing, although it was seriously too long by about an hour. If this film is as miserable as the first one, as much as it was well acted, I probably won’t want to bother to be honest, unless I’m sitting in a bath of blood red water with my wrists cut, in which case it will be the perfect viewing companion. 😆 I can understand people being fed up of superhero movies as to say the market has been oversaturated with them is the understatement of the century LOL. However I don't think people should dismiss the genre as a whole. At the end of the day every genre goes through its oversaturation period like westerns, and honestly there's more in superheroes than westerns. I think we just need to pull it back a little. Personally I thought the Robert Pattison Batman movie was AWFUL. Too long and boring for me. It seemed determined to suck all the fun out of Batman for me, sorry. I want the 70s Batman back. As I've said before Batman is the best character after the classic era Doctor. Both of those characters have a wider range than any other hero. The Doctor we know can travel anywhere, but he also can be vulnerable in any situation. He doesn't have super strength and even regeneration is kind of crap in classic who LOL. There is so much he can't survive, and it can't blow up Dalek fleets or regrow hands or repel machine gun fire. Even an ordinary Roman centurian or 20s gangster can kill the Doctor. However his super intelligence and general knowledge can allow him to confront alien monsters too. Regeneration also allows him to change in some ways, that can change the direction of the show, like becoming lighter, or more of an action man, but again the fact that there IS a core template there, allows him to be a character, not just a title. Finally the fact that there is a whimsical side to his nature, can also allow the show to dip its toe into the supernatural in a light way like the McCoy era. Batman meanwhile, well to start with from a practical point of view, he can also face a wide range of enemies. On the one hand he is an ordinary human, so ordinary criminals can kill him. I mean obviously he can defend himself, but still the fact that one criminal could get lucky makes it a possibility, unlike Superman or even Spider-Man who has super speed and strength. However Batman's scientific genius, and gadgets can allow him to tackle supernatural and science fiction threats too. He stands out in this respect from other superheroes like Wonder Woman who have to tackle bigger threats due to having powers, but unlike say Sherlock Holmes or even Green Arrow, he can again tackle super criminals and monstrous badguys if need be too. He also has his roots in gothic fiction, which can allow the character to dabble in the supernatural and horror too. Also as Gotham is a timeless city it can draw from different periods adding to a further variety of stories too. In terms of character his tragic origins obviously allow him to be a great dramatic character, but at the same time his larger than life qualities and deadly seriousness make him a great comedy one too. Again more so than other heroes. That's the funny thing about the Adam West Batman, is that it doesn't change his character. West's Batman is every bit as serious, dedicated to his cause, and motivated by the same tragedy, but everything about him is just so f*cking stupid and that's what makes him hilarious LOL. Spider-Man in contrast is more self aware and would ironically be harder to put into that scenario. Ditto Wonder Woman or even Superman. Sadly however the idea is that Batman has to be gritty and dark in order to be effective. We get snobs like Critical Drinker saying that Batman should never be in a sci fi environment, but that is the wrong answer. To me the 70s was really one of the few times the comics used him to his full potential this way. You had stories that were silly, stories that were horror/supernatural adventures, sci fi stories, and yes gritty crime stories. In terms of adaptations I think Batman TAS and the DCAU as a whole and Gotham are the only ones to capture the versatility of Batman. That's not always a bad thing to be fair, as after all adaptations are separate from the comics and some stories wouldn't have worked trying to cram in everything. IE the violence would have limited West's comedy, the comedy would have undermined the gothic horror of Burton and grittiness of Nolan etc. Still having had so many gritty versions of Batman, I want to see the 70s version on the big screen now. That's peak Batman and sadly Robert Pattison was just an inferior retread of the Nolan Batman to me. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 10, 2024 22:31:15 GMT
I really liked the first one and wasn't overly into the idea of a sequel but this trailer has got me interested. Lady Gaga is probably one of the best picks for Harley. It's the only comic movie that's caught my eye in years. The main part I'm interested in in were dose it go wrong? One the one hand, Joker is clearly starved for understanding and kindness but love...? His only experiences with love are abusive. His only good romantic relationship was with a women he barely knew in fantasies. I forsee that Harley is either going to make a mistake and disappoint him, or she is just not really able to deal with the monster she's courting. Agreed. My biggest worry is that Harley will just be a delusion of his. The fact that she was doing the gun to the head thing he did in the first film which she couldn't possibly know about made me worried about that and it would tie into his character, being a more pathetic Joker, and imagining his perfect partner, but where as in the first film when he was still relatively normal it was a normal girl, now it's a mad sexy charismatic bitch to match his fractured mind. Sorry but that would be a bullshit twist, and I'd hate it if Gaga didn't actually get to play a Batman villain after being hyped for it for so long. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 10, 2024 22:41:22 GMT
Hardly a hot take, but I think Tim Burton did it best when it comes to Batman. I loved the dark humour, the mix of silly and macabre, the gothic aesthetic. It was a fun world to be in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 10, 2024 22:44:38 GMT
Well there’s dark, and then there’s Joker dark. Lol
I mean I prefer ‘serious’ over ‘fun’, so apart from the length, the Pattinson movie wasn’t a problem for me. In fact I preferred it to the second Nolan film, as even that reached a bit past the limits of how dark I like things to be. But Joker was even further past those limits.
Technically, I can’t fault it in the sense that it achieves exactly what it set out to do, and does it well. But it’s not for me.
At best I could say that i appreciate it rather than enjoy it. Seen from that perspective , I found the Pattinson film sitting on the right side of ‘dark’ on the spectrum of ‘fun’ vs serious, or ‘dark’.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Apr 10, 2024 22:46:16 GMT
I love Gotham as depicted in Batman. The one in Returns just doesn't feel like the same place to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2024 22:46:38 GMT
Hardly a hot take, but I think Tim Burton did it best when it comes to Batman. I loved the dark humour, the mix of silly and macabre, the gothic aesthetic. It was a fun world to be in. Agreed. I'm tired in equal amounts of the self-seriousness and sarky irreverence of modern cinema. We need a return to plain good storytelling. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Apr 10, 2024 22:51:32 GMT
Well there’s dark, and then there’s Joker dark. Lol I mean I prefer ‘serious’ over ‘fun’, so apart from the length, the Pattinson movie wasn’t a problem for me. In fact I preferred it to the second Nolan film, as even that reached a bit past the limits of how dark I like things to be. But Joker was even further past those limits. Technically, I can’t fault it in the sense that it achieves exactly what it set out to do, and does it well. But it’s not for me. At best I could say that i appreciate it rather than enjoy it. Seen from that perspective , I found the Pattinson film sitting on the right side of ‘dark’ on the spectrum of ‘fun’ vs serious, or ‘dark’. I just felt The Batman was them trying to do their own version of Se7en, the critically acclaimed rain drenched serial killer flick from the 90s. It doesn't really hold a candle to it. I like the Gotham in the film, but three hours is pushing it. Who can hold it in for that long? |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 10, 2024 22:57:05 GMT
Well there’s dark, and then there’s Joker dark. Lol I mean I prefer ‘serious’ over ‘fun’, so apart from the length, the Pattinson movie wasn’t a problem for me. In fact I preferred it to the second Nolan film, as even that reached a bit past the limits of how dark I like things to be. But Joker was even further past those limits. Technically, I can’t fault it in the sense that it achieves exactly what it set out to do, and does it well. But it’s not for me. At best I could say that i appreciate it rather than enjoy it. Seen from that perspective , I found the Pattinson film sitting on the right side of ‘dark’ on the spectrum of ‘fun’ vs serious, or ‘dark’. I just felt The Batman was them trying to do their own version of Se7en, the critically acclaimed rain drenched serial killer flick from the 90s. It doesn't really hold a candle to it. I like the Gotham in the film, but three hours is pushing it. Who can hold it in for that long? Oh I agree about the length. Like I said above, it could’ve done with losing a full hour. But liked the tone. That’s interesting what you say about Se7en. I must check that one out again with your comparison in mind. I have seen it once, but it was ages ago and I don’t really remember it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2024 23:05:37 GMT
Well there’s dark, and then there’s Joker dark. Lol I mean I prefer ‘serious’ over ‘fun’, so apart from the length, the Pattinson movie wasn’t a problem for me. In fact I preferred it to the second Nolan film, as even that reached a bit past the limits of how dark I like things to be. But Joker was even further past those limits. Technically, I can’t fault it in the sense that it achieves exactly what it set out to do, and does it well. But it’s not for me. At best I could say that i appreciate it rather than enjoy it. Seen from that perspective , I found the Pattinson film sitting on the right side of ‘dark’ on the spectrum of ‘fun’ vs serious, or ‘dark’. I just felt The Batman was them trying to do their own version of Se7en, the critically acclaimed rain drenched serial killer flick from the 90s. It doesn't really hold a candle to it. I like the Gotham in the film, but three hours is pushing it. Who can hold it in for that long? There are 5-hour films that can hold my full attention and barely-feature-length films that bore me to tears. I don't think the running time is the problem, it's always the pacing. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 10, 2024 23:11:57 GMT
I just felt The Batman was them trying to do their own version of Se7en, the critically acclaimed rain drenched serial killer flick from the 90s. It doesn't really hold a candle to it. I like the Gotham in the film, but three hours is pushing it. Who can hold it in for that long? There are 5-hour films that can hold my full attention and barely-feature-length films that bore me to tears. I don't think the running time is the problem, it's always the pacing. That’s a good point. It’s why The Sea Devils feels longer than The Silurians, even though it’s an episode shorter. Or why Logopolis feels longer than Daleks Masterplan and The War Games put together. 😆 |
|
