Author Topic: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE (Read 9794 times)

Gay Boy · « **Reply #60 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:03:47 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:02:20 PM

Quote from: Willco on December 04, 2007, 02:01:07 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.

It did well. Yeah it didn't become the NEXT TITANIC like some were suggesting, but it make back its budget while getting positive reviews. Keep dreaming

Jackson needs a new editor though...

Do you agree that Avatar will suffer the same fate of King Kong? Somewhat dissapointment boxoffice with a lack of restraint on the director causing it to appear bloated?

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #61 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:08:02 PM »

Quote from: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 02:03:47 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: Willco on December 04, 2007, 02:01:07 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.

It did well. Yeah it didn't become the NEXT TITANIC like some were suggesting, but it make back its budget while getting positive reviews. Keep dreaming

Jackson needs a new editor though...
Do you agree that Avatar will suffer the same fate of King Kong? Somewhat dissapointment boxoffice with a lack of restraint on the director causing it to appear bloated?

I don't know. History seems to show us that CGI flicks don't do great. Beowulf is slowly making back its budget, but it certainly wasn't the revolution some expected. Avatar has a $200 million budget, if not more right? It'll be hard to make that up without any star power. Many people go to the movies just to see their favorite stars, not their favorite stars in 3D.

King Kong suffered from being bloated and relying on CGI back drops. There are many cases where the jungle surrounding simply looks fake. In terms of the length, I don't have any problems with entire scenes outside of the dino chase, which is also too much CGI.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #62 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:08:08 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:02:20 PM

Quote from: Willco on December 04, 2007, 02:01:07 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.
It did well.

Not really. It was a disappointment. Not with blog writers, but with studio executives. You don't spend a fortune on a production budget and marketing to "make your budget back". And if you think all of the box office gross goes to a studio, you're grossly misinformed as well.

Also, it got just a 76% RT rating from the press. That's not that great of a critical reception. It was hardly a critical darling.

The audience didn't care for it much, either. It was bloated and unnecessary.

bud · « **Reply #63 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:12:32 PM »

king kong probably looks like butt in hd. some of that cg--especially during the chase, or whatever that was--looked awful.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #64 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:15:01 PM »

Quote from: Willco on December 04, 2007, 02:08:08 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: Willco on December 04, 2007, 02:01:07 PM
King Kong sucked and was a box office disappointment.
It did well.

Not really. It was a disappointment. Not with blog writers, but with studio executives. You don't spend a fortune on a production budget and marketing to "make your budget back". And if you think all of the box office gross goes to a studio, you're grossly misinformed as well.

Also, it got just a 76% RT rating from the press. That's not that great of a critical reception. It was hardly a critical darling.

The audience didn't care for it much, either. It was bloated and unnecessary.

The movie doubled it's production budget at the box office. Its overall RT is 84%; spinning this by not including the entire RT is just stupid. It was generally liked in the press - not a huge top 10 choice for everyone, but still received good reviews overall.

Gay Boy · « **Reply #65 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:15:46 PM »

The production budget was over 200 million PD, it barely made it back domestically.

MCD · « **Reply #66 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:17:57 PM »

Quote from: bud on December 04, 2007, 02:12:32 PM

king kong probably looks like butt in hd. some of that cg--especially during the chase, or whatever that was--looked awful.

i didn't like the movie but the transfer and the CG scenes are great.

TVC15 · « **Reply #67 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:31:22 PM »

Quote from: bud on December 04, 2007, 02:12:32 PM

king kong probably looks like butt in hd. some of that cg--especially during the chase, or whatever that was--looked awful.

I never put my HD-DVD copy in, but I did see it in the theatre 3 times, and that chase scene was really the only bad CG part. Unless you count too many closeups on the damned dirty ape as bad CG.

Also, I think Cheebs is a bit off in his assessment of Cameron. Cameron is a wildcard. He was full of himself before, during the making of Titanic. Like every month during its making there was a report about how over budget it was and how it could end up a fiasco.

Also, I don't particularly think that taking more than a decade off from Hollywood is indicative of hubris. Or anything at all, really. Yes, Lucas did it, but so did Malick. I'm not the biggest fan of Cameron, but I see no reason that would indicate he is now doomed to make bad movies.

Gay Boy · « **Reply #68 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:32:52 PM »

He isn't doomed to but filming a movie entirely cgi except for a handful of humans. This no set, no interaction type of cgi filming is a trend I really dont like.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #69 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:36:09 PM »

He's essentially making a $200 million Stars Wars prequel

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #70 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:42:13 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on December 04, 2007, 02:15:01 PM

... spinning this by not including the entire RT is just stupid.

Not really. Spinning by including online press is stupid and here's why:

Majority of audience members don't read online reviews.
Anything that includes AICN reviews should be automatically negated.
People read the press, Ebert & Roeper, etc. ... NOT CHUD.

Gay Boy · « **Reply #71 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:43:16 PM »

is aicn and chud included on RT? I didnt think they were.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #72 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:44:29 PM »

Yeah, they are... but in the overall ratings. Not Cream of the Crop, which is respectable and mostly newspaper press. There are times when I will listen to the online press versus Cream of the Crop, which does tend to lean older on sensibilities when it comes to film. If I just read Cream of the Crop reviews, I'd likely miss out on a few modern gems simply because they're old and crotchety and don't like these new fangled movies meant for whippersnappers.

That said, when saying if a film was critically well received, you go by that ranking and not overall. Cream of the Crop is not only the only thing mainstream audiences really read, but they're also the ones that hold sway come Oscar time. If Kong really was as well received as PD says it was, it would've gotten more Oscar buzz - especially so close to December. But the fact of the matter shows that amongst the respected and print press, it generated ratings in the 7s and that's nothing to get excited about.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #73 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:49:53 PM »

Well I'm sorry King Kong wasn't as well respected as TRANSFORMERS

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #74 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:51:10 PM »

Funny enough, the ranking for Transformers was just 6% less than King Kong in Cream of the Crop.

TVC15 · « **Reply #75 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:51:49 PM »

Quote from: Gay Boy on December 04, 2007, 02:32:52 PM

He isn't doomed to but filming a movie entirely cgi except for a handful of humans. This no set, no interaction type of cgi filming is a trend I really dont like.

I don't particularly think it's a swell idea in general, but Cameron has always been on the vanguard of special effects, so he clearly knows what looks good and what doesn't, and we all know he isn't afraid to sink budget money in order to redo something over and over until it is right.

If Cameron does one thing superlatively well, in his best and worst movies, it's special effects.

bluemax · « **Reply #76 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:56:09 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on December 04, 2007, 05:03:45 AM

how did he get them WRONG?

How didn't he get them wrong?

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #77 on:** December 04, 2007, 04:04:26 PM »

I still like it. The onesTVC posted are poses for the toy line, but yeah, that's what he looks like.

*shrugs* I like it.

Bloodwake · « **Reply #78 on:** December 04, 2007, 04:12:10 PM »

Sorry, the new Joker looks awesome.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #79 on:** December 04, 2007, 08:17:48 PM »

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #80 on:** December 04, 2007, 09:09:34 PM »

good one

EvilBoris · « **Reply #81 on:** December 04, 2007, 11:43:17 PM »

Pretty lurid.. strange I'm not letting my disappointment of the first one seep into my hype for this one. I'm really expecting a memorable performance to shake things up in the austere Nolan vision.

Eduardo24 · « **Reply #82 on:** January 26, 2008, 09:59:21 PM »

Bump of an old thread, I know.

Why some people said '89 Joker is the "true" joker and not the one in TDK? I am not a comic book fan, but I have reading the wiki on him and it seems to me the Nolan version is much more similar to the one in the comics. Sociopath, mass murderer and absolutely brutal at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29#Criminal_career

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #83 on:** January 26, 2008, 10:07:00 PM »

lmfao hes dead

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #84 on:** January 26, 2008, 10:19:25 PM »

Like, OMG!

Himu · « **Reply #85 on:** January 26, 2008, 10:24:06 PM »

OH GOD HE'S DEAD?! LET'S LIONATE HIM

TVC15 · « **Reply #86 on:** January 26, 2008, 10:34:55 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo24 on January 26, 2008, 09:59:21 PM

Bump of an old thread, I know.

Why some people said '89 Joker is the "true" joker and not the one in TDK? I am not a comic book fan, but I have reading the wiki on him and it seems to me the Nolan version is much more similar to the one in the comics. Sociopath, mass murderer and absolutely brutal at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29#Criminal_career

Nolan's Joker visually blows. At no point in the comics does the Joker look like a Polish grandma hobo.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #87 on:** January 26, 2008, 11:28:33 PM »

They're both mass-murdering sociopaths. but one of them doesn't wear stupid make-up that was never in the comics.

It's important to the Joker's character that he looks fucked up. But on purpose, not because he didn't have a mirror when he was putting on the make-up.

TVC15 · « **Reply #88 on:** January 26, 2008, 11:32:42 PM »

Yeah, I am all for gritty, but the Joker in TDK is just grittiness without purpose, possibly even contrary to the character it is being applied to.

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #89 on:** January 27, 2008, 12:41:20 AM »

again, makeup over chemically fucked-up skin is stupid

looks like a rodeo clown who drank himself out of a job

chemically burned and fucked face =

smeared stage makeup and greasy unwashed hair =

TVC15 · « **Reply #90 on:** January 27, 2008, 12:46:36 AM »

The Man Who Laughs. . .is that worth seeing, Eel?

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #91 on:** January 27, 2008, 12:47:05 AM »

TVC15 · « **Reply #92 on:** January 27, 2008, 12:50:56 AM »

Quote from: Eel_O_Brian on January 27, 2008, 12:47:05 AM

eh

Wikipedia says the magic words: GERMAN EXPRESSIONISM. Which means it is by default better than anything Nolan has done.

Eric P · « **Reply #93 on:** January 27, 2008, 12:53:26 AM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on January 27, 2008, 12:46:36 AM

The Man Who Laughs. . .is that worth seeing, Eel?

i will disagree with eel and say that it's worth watching.

it's no mad love, but it's visually interesting (think swashbuckling like the count of monte cristo, but with a gloomy expressionistic outlook) and the make up is pretty wow.

the acting / story isn't the greatest, but it's very fun to watch

i enjoyed my time with it

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #94 on:** January 27, 2008, 12:56:14 AM »

i found it a little boring, to be honest

period melodrama

without that image and the joker connection, i proabably wouldn't have sought it out

it is visually interesting, yes

you may like it way more than I did considering your film tastes

but any silent film is worth seeing once, imo

brawndolicious · « **Reply #95 on:** January 27, 2008, 03:00:18 AM »

Quote from: Eel_O_Brian on January 27, 2008, 12:41:20 AM

again, makeup over chemically fucked-up skin is stupid

looks like a rodeo clown who drank himself out of a job

Do you mean the concept of a Joker is stupid or the way they did it in Begins is stupid? I figure the reason for it in the comics is that the criminal is supposed to be very vain and then he gets his face fucked up so he looks for a way to use that to scare people.

Eel O'Brian · « **Reply #96 on:** January 27, 2008, 03:12:03 AM »

I mean that in the comics the Joker's skin is bleached, his hair is green, and his face is fucked due to chemical exposure, unless they've revised his origin again recently. In the new movie, he's just a normal guy with scars on his face who's apparently a really big fan of Joan Crawford.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #97 on:** January 27, 2008, 03:36:59 AM »

yeah I don't get the point of throwing out the origin for a character like that. It's not how the Joker looks that is important, it's why he looks like that. A few scars and a ton of make-up is just a stupid idea. and all the Nolan fanboys justify it as "not that bad" in motion.

News:

Author Topic: Nolan's Joker looks TERRIBLE (Read 9794 times)