Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
ok, I have officially lost any remaining respect for your opinion on this matter...The acting in Episode III is laughable.
Ian Mcdiarmid outdid Holmes, Bale, or Caine.
Yes, maybe Holmes acting was better than Portmans, but Bale was horrible! The younglings did better than Bale.
Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor are the only actors to give good performances in Episode III. Natalie Portman almost ruined every scene she was in, and Hayden Christensen was almost as bad. Sam Jackson was also very disappointing.
In my opinion Michael Caine, Christian Bale, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson and Morgan Freeman gave great performances.
Episode III has one great performance: Ian McDiarmid. Batman has at least six.
I just wanted to say something about the Ducard part in Batman. It does make sense that Ducard showed up at that prison. You learn later in the film that the shadow league had tried in the past to destroy Gotham, but because of people like Bruce Wayne's dad they were not successful. That is why Ducard knows who Bruce Wayne is and where he was. He wanted to recruit him into the Shadow League so there would be no chance of anyone stopping them from destroying Gotham. Get Gotham's richest resident and most pissed off at the criminal activity and that could be a huge weapon to help accomplish what Ducard wanted. Obviusly that's not the way it went, but that's why Ducard was at the prison. Make sense?
And my 2 cents- I enjoyed ROTS but Batman was far superior.
Originally posted by LordSorgo
Now that i have reviewed your horrible spelling and bad grammar skills, i will try my hardest to understand what crap you are spewing, and post against it.Cowardly killer? They turned him into some hopeless loner hero who goes around saving the shitty slums of Gotham. He would have been a way better character if he was turned into a Dark Slaughtering machine.
The fighting scenes were good?
...
...
😂You think Batman is dark because he conquered his fear and decided to throw on some bat suit? False! Him being able to conquer his fear just shows what he can accomplish and him not killing that prisoner shows how much compassion he has. HOW THE F*CK DOES THIS MAKE HIM DARK?
Warner brothers poorly marketed this film? NOT MY PROBLEM! If Lucas marketed his film better, than i guess he is superior to Warner Bros. If Warner Bros can't do a good job, they deserve what they get. Truthfully.
[B] what movie did you watch?
Thank you for asking....A SHITTY ONE! [/B]
So you love to throw insults huh? Well I'm not going to stoop to your level.Dark Slaughtering machine? Again you are watching the wrong movie if you want to go see that.The Punisher would be more up your alley if thats what you want Batman to do because thats not who Batman is.
You clearly dont understand dark because everybody I have seen post has all said the same thing,that this movie was dark.That requires no explanation that it was dark.
I will admit that Star Wars was marketed better but as others have already said,that is a lame argument to say it was a better film just because it made more at the box office.
Yes the fight scenes were good.You obviously dont understand the character of Batman and how those fight scenes were appropriate.No a shitty movie was not what I saw,I hate to tell you. 😛
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yeah whatever dude.Lucas betrayed the fans by not including a young Han Solo in the movie.Now that was a shit thing to do,if anything,As for Star Wars making much more money at the box office than Batman Begins? well that doesnt surprise me because warner brothers poorly marketed this film.The marketing of this film was not at all done well like it should have been where the marketing for the sith was done very well and brilliantly so that had a lot to do with its box office success.You market a film brilliantly like spiderman and the sith did and its popular with many people already,its going to do wonders at the box office.The marketing for this film was nothing at all close to the brilliant advertising they did with Batman 89.Huge mistake on Warner Brothers part.If they had done a year long advertising campaine on this film like they should have done and like they did with Batman 89,the results would have been much better at the box office.
Not ONCE did Lucas say he was EVER going to include Han Solo. Answer my question..WHY WOULD HE! The reason he wasn't in E3 was because he was already "introduced" in E4.
As for marketing, the two movies were equal. Star Wars has a namesake that people have been tied to for almost 30 years. That's all, marketing didn't hurt Batman, past Batman films hurt Batman.
Originally posted by LordSorgo
My box office comparisons are completly Valid. Being that Batman is nowhere in the top twenties and Episode III made the most money ever so far on it's opening day.
Invalid. Star Wars is obviously bigger than Batman. Star Wars plays an intrigal part in MILLIONS of peoples everyday lives.
The rest of your claims are strictly personal opinion.
Originally posted by LordSorgo
Now that i have reviewed your horrible spelling and bad grammar skills, i will try my hardest to understand what crap you are spewing, and post against it.
It's not your place to correct other peoples grammar or spelling. That's a cowardly back up defense. Continue to flame users on the forum, and get your bags packed. 3 day vacation, courtesy of moi.
Respect one anothers opinions, and refrain from harassing them.
Sorry for the successive posting, my internet is down, so I'm at the library, and I can't copy and paste in one reply as I usually do.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Not ONCE did Lucas say he was EVER going to include Han Solo. Answer my question..WHY WOULD HE! The reason he wasn't in E3 was because he was already "introduced" in E4.
Most of the characters (except Solo) are re-introduced in the new trilogy. Since he included certain important characters it wouldn't hurt to see re-introduction of a younger Solo. I mean if Lucas can write chronicles of a young Indiana Jones why not write a young Han Solo in the new triology? That was one of the reasons why I paid a ticket for Episode III in the first place. I wanted a least a glimpse of Solo doing some heroic act in his youth. Kashyyyk was the perfect backdrop for Han Solo to appear. For me Lucas didn't deliver for that reason alone.
bluegrass> Excellent point! I agree.
That's true. There were plans to have a young Han Solo living with the Wookies.
It would have been lame, stupid, and, well, lame, but it WAS considerred, with quite a lot of seriousness.
Having Chewbacca and the Millenium Falcon was bad enough, but if they had a Tarzan-esque Han Solo (boy who lives with furry friends) I would have went nuts.
It's such a lame idea anyway. He's an ******* who hates furry creatures. He wanted to blow an Ewoks face off just for pointing a stick at him - he's not Kevin from the Gummi Bears.