Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Christien)
    http://www.chud.com/57241/the-dark-k...familiar-face/

    :excited:

    Also, it seems getting big-name actors to do five-ten minutes as Jor-El is becoming something of a tradition in Superman films:

    http://www.chud.com/57215/russell-cr...-leave-kal-el/


    Lazarus Pits? Personally, I think the pits are a bit too unrealistic for Nolan's Batman.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Fight Club on Blu-Ray <3

    EDIT: Now The King's Speech <3 two Bonham Carters in a row!

    EDIT 2: NOW to finish of a regal night (ish) The Queen!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    I only just found out, via your post in the other friend, that he was also in Inglorious Basterds. Though I'd recognised him somewhere. He stole the show. Very impressive stuff.

    I agree...

    Spoiler:
    Show
    The Mystique scene seemed very detached and out of place. A little awkward too. There was plenty of development with Mystique though which I'm pleased with.

    A little surprised that Xavier wasn't as comfortable (as Magneto) with her natural form though. :holmes:

    And the Jackman cameo was well executed. We also got a laugh. They were both smug and attending to various mutants with the 'smug-like' music in the background and he just tells them to '**** themselves' :rofl:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    It just happened a little too fast for me that's all.

    What I think was important about Xavier (that they didn't bring out too much) is that he really wanted to be accepted. He wanted to be part of the human world. He didn't use the mind tricks when he didn't have to, etc.

    It felt like his mission for him and Mystique was to research their mutations, look for others, and try and be an important part of the human society. Perhaps that's why he was a little more taken aback by Mystique's appearance.

    Also: a few of us squirmed a little at the Mystique/Magneto kiss moment. That was a little awkward.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madjackismad)


    Lazarus Pits? Personally, I think the pits are a bit too unrealistic for Nolan's Batman.


    Oh, I completely agree, but based on the comments, it seems it's just a green-screen cave. Even if it is genuinely full of some green, viscous substance, it'd probably be safer to assume that it's venom rather than Lazarus Pits, considering Bane's involved. I'd guess it'd explain young Ra's' presence as well; the League of Shadows in Begins was almost entirely based on this weird chemical that ****s people up, maybe TDKR shows how they discovered it, how Bane came to use it, etc. etc.? :dontknow:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christien)
    Oh, I completely agree, but based on the comments, it seems it's just a green-screen cave. Even if it is genuinely full of some green, viscous substance, it'd probably be safer to assume that it's venom rather than Lazarus Pits, considering Bane's involved. I'd guess it'd explain young Ra's' presence as well; the League of Shadows in Begins was almost entirely based on this weird chemical that ****s people up, maybe TDKR shows how they discovered it, how Bane came to use it, etc. etc.? :dontknow:
    Yeah but have you seen the news in the past day or so that Liam Neeson's been spotted on set probably reprising his role as a resurrected Ra's?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by cadaeibfeceh)
    Yeah but have you seen the news in the past day or so that Liam Neeson's been spotted on set probably reprising his role as a resurrected Ra's?
    If you scroll up, you'll see he actually posted that news here.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cyclone33)
    Green Lantern looks like a flop. I'm looking forward to Harry Potter Part. The end of my childhood is near! Ahhhh!!!!!!!!!
    lol your sig

    but...but teh Ryan reynolds
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1733578/

    Hokay I'm interested, sounds good
    Offline

    13
    I'm contemplating giving Gone Baby Gone a re-watch in a little bit. I remember really liking it the first time I watched it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cadaeibfeceh)
    Yeah but have you seen the news in the past day or so that Liam Neeson's been spotted on set probably reprising his role as a resurrected Ra's?


    Yeah, but I reckon that'll just be part of a flashback. To introduce supernatural elements in the final part of a fairly realistic trilogy - particularly when these elements concern a character we're already well acquainted with- would be a pretty stupid move on Nolan's part, and I don't think Nolan makes stupid moves. Besides hiring Katie Holmes, anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Christien)
    Yeah, but I reckon that'll just be part of a flashback. To introduce supernatural elements in the final part of a fairly realistic trilogy - particularly when these elements concern a character we're already well acquainted with- would be a pretty stupid move on Nolan's part, and I don't think Nolan makes stupid moves. Besides hiring Katie Holmes, anyway.
    I agree. It's probably going to be a flashback. I still think that...

    Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake - a Gotham City beat cop

    Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate - a Wayne Enterprises board member eager to help a still-grieving Bruce Wayne resume his father's philanthropic endeavors for Gotham
    ...seem a little inconspicuous and will turn out to be Alberto Falcone and Talia respectively. Therefore there will probably be a flashback with Liam talking to Talia or preparing Bane (before he goes off and gets killed).

    I preferred Katie Holmes as Rachel.

    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    It just happened a little too fast for me that's all.

    What I think was important about Xavier (that they didn't bring out too much) is that he really wanted to be accepted. He wanted to be part of the human world. He didn't use the mind tricks when he didn't have to, etc.

    It felt like his mission for him and Mystique was to research their mutations, look for others, and try and be an important part of the human society. Perhaps that's why he was a little more taken aback by Mystique's appearance.

    Also: a few of us squirmed a little at the Mystique/Magneto kiss moment. That was a little awkward.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I think a major part behind that was being brought up in the human world, living in a rich house, having an education whereas Mystique was an outsider from the beginning. Magneto was experimented on, taken away from his parents and spent his life wanting revenge
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    I agree. It's probably going to be a flashback. I still think that...



    ...seem a little inconspicuous and will turn out to be Alberto Falcone and Talia respectively. Therefore there will probably be a flashback with Liam talking to Talia or preparing Bane (before he goes off and gets killed).

    I preferred Katie Holmes as Rachel.



    Spoiler:
    Show
    I think a major part behind that was being brought up in the human world, living in a rich house, having an education whereas Mystique was an outsider from the beginning. Magneto was experimented on, taken away from his parents and spent his life wanting revenge
    I don't know about that so much. On the one hand, you already have Bane and Catwoman on board (although they seem to be reluctant to actually call her Catwoman), so cramming Falcone and Talia in seems to be heading towards overstuffed, Spider-Man 3 territory. On the other, I guess it doesn't make sense to have actors of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard's profile playing minor characters, and the idea of Talia and Bane being involved in the same conspiracy does make sense. Will have to wait another year to find out, anyway.


    Katie Holmes did nothing for me, but neither did the character. Maggie Gyllenhaal was at least competent in a tremendously annoying role, although I was still glad when Rachel bit it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    It's inevitable, yeah but it makes no sense. Comparing a book with another book, or a film with another film allows you to draw together the themes each portrays, the acting ability of actors, the effectiveness of any twists and the plot as a whole. You have something to compare essentially. Saying GTA 4 is a better game because it got a 10 compared to Red Dead Redemption (9.8) and Mass Effect 2 (9.2) makes no sense. And that happens. A lot.
    It all depends on how well substantiated the figures actually are. If the difference between 9.8 and 10 is tangible, then this means a lot more. My experience of game reviewing backs up your belief: that the differentiation is pointless, but - in my view at least - this is because it's arbitrary as to what something scores. There are no 'bands' of where a game should place, and it often feels like games that score 9.5+, for instance, were arbitrarily given that score on the basis that they were better than a previous title in a series that rated, say, 9.3 but weren't worthy of a perfect 10.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    True, but he would make a decision carefully anyway. I don't subscribe to the view that if they were all buy worthy and lets say Just Cause 2 got a 89, Saints Row 2 got a 91 and GTA 4 got a 95 - that that would make the decision any easier. You have the same problem with that rating system as well. It seems fundamental. And if you are contemplating between two games which are both worthy, the next logical system (from a casual standpoint) does seem to be reading the actual review or reading comparisons. If it's a good review then it will compare the two games. The same thing is going to inevitably happen when Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 come out. People who don't want to buy both will have to choose.
    Finickity point it may be, but I wouldn't say the choice was quite the same between COD and Battlefield as between GTA and Saints Row/Just Cause. Everyone knows the essential differences between COD (kill people; usually solo, sometimes in teams; no vehicles) and Battlefield (destroy crates/captures flags; usually in teams, sometimes alone; vehicles). Therefore, the choice comes down to which style of game you prefer, although you'll most likely read the reviews to ensure they've both bettered the previous instalment in the series.

    Again, going from my experience, I'd say any game in the 90s tends to be there because it is considered exceptional, but not quite flawless enough to achieve a perfect 100. An 89, on the other hand, can be seen as an excellent game but with several minor flaws that prevent it moving into the 90s. If I saw GTA 4 had a 95, while Just Cause 2 was an 89; this would come to my mind. Likewise, the score usually has a break-down, or a few sentence summary next to it. These would help inform the casual gamer without necessarily being forced to delve into the reviews themselves.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Ah but that is a problem that is very much present in the numeric rating systems too. Each publication has their own editor guide and approach to rating a game. Look at how many 10/10 each publication gives, and how it varies from game to game.

    I think they (game developers and publishers at least) already do that. You're not going to get IGN '5.5/10' on the box cover or the advert for Duke Nukem Forever.
    Yes, they already do that, but that's what I mean. There's already a proliferation of comments from favourable sources - i.e. Nuts Magazine, which is only happy to splash out 10/10s and 5*s all over the shop. If, however, as you say, there is a magazine considered to be very harsh and their top rating's sparse (i.e. your example of publications differing) then this is 'worth' more to the informed purchaser.

    Now, the average person won't know the stalwarts of the games or film reviewing industry, necessarily, but they'll know enough to realise that Nuts Magazine isn't exactly a sophisticated source for a review. However, if a film studio owned a magazine and didn't make this explicit (i.e. Universal didn't call it Universal Film Magazine), then a 5* rating for a Universal film from their magazine might be considered a better indicator of its quality than it might actually be.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Game journalism is in itself a bit of a mess at the moment. A lot of review websites feature adverts advertising the very game they are reviewing. See Gamespot and the firing of Jeff Gertsmann. It's a clash between the marketing department, the game developers/publishers and the editor with his bad review. Same goes for embargoes where publishers will only allow reviews early from people who will review positively. A bit of flawed system for those wanting a fair judgement on whether the game is actually any good.
    That's the problem with a commercially-driven market. It leads everyone involved in the process to ensure that there's the greatest commercial value extracted from the process. Unfortunately, this usually takes the form of ensuring reviews are positive, whichever way is possible and the least biased to achieve this, in order to gain the most.

    Film reviews tend to praise independent cinema and really slate big budget Hollywood blockbuster when they turn out a trite, senseless, and flawed offering. Independent games companies tend to be slated more often than not and critiqued in a far harsher light than games produced by the "big" games companies. Often this is because they make mistakes with the controls or poach ideas from other games in a boring way, but a lot of the time it just seems overly-harsh and an entirely commercially-driven decision.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    The problem with the headings in game reviews is that there is too much emphasis on these factors, in my opinion. A lot of the game reviews are poor because they don't actually review the game. They spent a few paragraphs talking about the story (can be found on the box) and the features without actually commenting on whether these features work well. It's still growing, I guess.
    I agree on the point of game reviews needlessly talking about the story but, then again, it sets the tone of the review. Story lines are only mentioned in that level of coverage when they're actually important to the game (i.e. not really for games like Tiger Woods, FIFA or COD).

    As for there being too much emphasis on these headings for games reviews, I disagree. A game, at the end of the day, is something played for enjoyment. A film is also watched for the purposes of enjoyment, but it can be much more politically focused or educational than a game. It can also address deeper, far-reaching, consequences in a way that a game just can't. As such, film reviews need to be unique and deal with the elements as interwoven. In a games review, there needs to be some element of isolating the overall workability of the control system and the hours of gameplay to be had, the quality of the single player etc as these are important elements for gamers. They need to know they'll enjoy the game, it will have longevity and they won't get too frustrated.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    All Dogs Go To Heaven (1989)

    :moon:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Definitely give it a watch. It's a pretty unknown film outside circles of film enthusiasts and the director is very promising. Very much looking forward to any film he does. Or Neill Blomkamp for that matter.

    And the soundtrack is exceptional too.



    Glad to hear it.

    It only gets better from this point on. Sadly, there's only one episode left and another year until season 2.



    Is it Hitchcock? :holmes:



    I've never fully gotten over Gambon's interpretation of Dumbledore. He refuses to read the books or find out how his character should be portrayed and it's actually distracting. Dumbledore always seems like he's angry.



    I only just found out, via your post in the other friend, that he was also in Inglorious Basterds. Though I'd recognised him somewhere. He stole the show. Very impressive stuff.

    I agree...

    Spoiler:
    Show
    The Mystique scene seemed very detached and out of place. A little awkward too. There was plenty of development with Mystique though which I'm pleased with.

    A little surprised that Xavier wasn't as comfortable (as Magneto) with her natural form though. :holmes:

    And the Jackman cameo was well executed. We also got a laugh. They were both smug and attending to various mutants with the 'smug-like' music in the background and he just tells them to '**** themselves' :rofl:
    Hoping to give it a watch .. going to try and compile a list of movies to watch over the next coming weeks.

    Neill Blomkamp .. famously known for his District 9 film, he should really make more feature length films.. starting with Halo:shock:

    As for Gambon, I think his interpretation, despite not reading about the character, fits in very well with the films. Sure he seems angry most of the time he's on screen, but it helps for when he's meant to be calm or opening up about his past .. because you can see the contrast between his moods. Overall, the films/stories seem much more darker when he is playing Dumbledore.. especially when you compare it to the Dumbledore of HP 1 & 2.

    Oh, and I wanted to mention 'The Shape of Things' 2003 film Rachel Weisz:coma: & Paul Rudd .. although her american accent is slightly off-putting .. but the ending is slightly unexpected.. definitely a film to watch especially for fans of 500 Days of Summer.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Christien)
    Oh, I completely agree, but based on the comments, it seems it's just a green-screen cave. Even if it is genuinely full of some green, viscous substance, it'd probably be safer to assume that it's venom rather than Lazarus Pits, considering Bane's involved. I'd guess it'd explain young Ra's' presence as well; the League of Shadows in Begins was almost entirely based on this weird chemical that ****s people up, maybe TDKR shows how they discovered it, how Bane came to use it, etc. etc.? :dontknow:
    I hope Nolan doesn't include the Lazarus pits, especially how they are in the comics .. would make it very unrealistic .. after all, the praise for his take on the Batman films is due to how realistic he makes it. Especially compared to the past Batman films *shudder* just remembered them.

    As Ra's Al Ghul is going to be part of the new film.. It's best he sticks to the flash backs.. Or if he is going to make a return, then please have some kind of realistic stance on it. Rather than being hundreds of years old thanks to the pits.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by getfunky!)
    I hope Nolan doesn't include the Lazarus pits, especially how they are in the comics .. would make it very unrealistic .. after all, the praise for his take on the Batman films is due to how realistic he makes it. Especially compared to the past Batman films *shudder* just remembered them.

    As Ra's Al Ghul is going to be part of the new film.. It's best he sticks to the flash backs.. Or if he is going to make a return, then please have some kind of realistic stance on it. Rather than being hundreds of years old thanks to the pits.

    There is pretty much no 'realistic' way to incorporate Ra's anymore. Some sort of heroic escape from the train crash would be the most likely option, but he's just sitting down and chilling after Batman's left. :dontknow: Still, over probably the most consistently brilliant career of any director working today, Nolan has earned a licence to do whatever he wants, and if he wants to bring Ra's back in a bigger capacity than a flashback, you have to believe he can make it work.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I went to see X Men: First Class last night, not something I'd usually go and see but still... I'd only seen the first X Men film before and I remembered enjoying it but not what actually happened in it. I'll have to watch it again now though, because I was pleasantly surprised by First Class... It had its cheesy moments but overall I quite liked it. Guess I'll have to watch the others now as well, when I have a spare moment
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mimimimi)
    I went to see X Men: First Class last night, not something I'd usually go and see but still... I'd only seen the first X Men film before and I remembered enjoying it but not what actually happened in it. I'll have to watch it again now though, because I was pleasantly surprised by First Class... It had its cheesy moments but overall I quite liked it. Guess I'll have to watch the others now as well, when I have a spare moment
    Mmmm, First Class is probably the best of the bunch. The others all vary in mediocrity. They're fun, sure, but not good. Especially not X-Men: Origins: Wolverine.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    Mmmm, First Class is probably the best of the bunch. The others all vary in mediocrity. They're fun, sure, but not good. Especially not X-Men: Origins: Wolverine.
    Yeah, I have only heard bad thing about the Wolverine one... I'm going to rewatch the first one again and see how I go - if I enjoy it I'll continue with the series
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.