Saying someone has bias is an insult is ithmm
I disagree.
Its a theory that i put forward, in the context of your faulty analysis of TDK heath ledger role. I said that you may have a bias Or Something Else. Go look at the post and you will see how much you have gone off topic and how much you have misrepresented the point i made.
I take it I don't have any taste because I didn't buy into the TDK or Ledger hype? Go ahead spout the party line about how grim and realalistic it is, about how it rejuvinated a dead franchise, about how Ledger gave pathos and reality to the Joker, yada yada yada. Go ahead its all the same nonsense I've heard sense we first saw Ledger's "Scared and angry visage" sense he first time he uttered his oh so iconic lines "Why so serious?". In the end my opinion of the movie is the same a "deep", "dark", and meaningless mess with terrible pace and editing. The truth is while TDK may be a better movie then "Batman and Robin" neither it nor "Begins" is as well put together from structual point of view.
You thought Tommie Lee-Jones was as good as Eckhart as Two-face. He was awful, ergo, you have no taste. To top it off you seem to have genuine hatred of Ledgers Joker (a fictional character) and comtempt for the character. Now you can say that you don't like the character or his beliefs, but you have to admit that it was a good portrayal of the character. At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was a solidly 3 dimensional character and not just a 'tricked out emo' as you implied him to be. He has ideals, likes and dislikes, hes no more 2-D then Nicholsons (though imo better in every way).
Also, you shouldn't let your problems with the editing or directing affect your conclusions about the characters, becuase they're ultimately unrelated.
By the by. How are my pont off base. I am just curious which propaganda peice you bought into about TDK/Ledger.
That he was interesting. Surprisingly I can actually come up this one by myself, in the cinema. You see, I, unlike you, can actually form opinions that are only impacted by my own experience and not any petty bias against a fictional character.
Originally posted by Nephthys
You thought Tommie Lee-Jones was as good as Eckhart as Two-face. He was awful, ergo, you have no taste. To top it off you seem to have genuine hatred of Ledgers Joker (a fictional character) and comtempt for the character. Now you can say that you don't like the character or his beliefs, but you [b]have to admit that it was a good portrayal of the character. At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was a solidly 3 dimensional character and not just a 'tricked out emo' as you implied him to be. He has ideals, likes and dislikes, hes no more 2-D then Nicholsons (though imo better in every way).Also, you shouldn't let your problems with the editing or directing affect your conclusions about the characters, becuase they're ultimately unrelated.
That he was interesting. Surprisingly I can actually come up this one by myself, in the cinema. You see, I, unlike you, can actually form opinions that are only impacted by my own experience and not any petty bias against a fictional character. [/B]
Originally posted by omgchos
Saying someone has bias is an insult is ithmmI disagree.
Bias. Indicates a certain level of dishonesty. It's not unlike calling some one a liar. However you only mentioning that you called me bias is nice cherry picking. As you also called me stupid
Originally posted by omgchos
[B]
Its a theory that i put forward, in the context of your faulty analysis of TDK heath ledger role. I said that you may have a bias [b]Or Something Else. Go look at the post and you will see how much you have gone off topic and how much you have misrepresented the point i made. [/B]
How about we have looksy at what you wrote.....
Originally posted by omgchos
Well honestly i'd have to say that if you didn't think that both ledger's, and nicholson's portrayal were good, you have some kind of bias here.
Tha'ts right its not that I may have a bias. Its that you honestly believe I do.
Originally posted by omgchos
Whether it be the oh, so infamous Tim Burton fandom or something else.
Here you mention the possiblity of something else, but what's mentioned here is not a lack of bias, but rather that it may be caused by some thing other then Burton Fanboy-ism
Originally posted by omgchos
Legders joker was just the right amount of dark and malicious, not to mention the manerisms. This was what the joker was. Nicholson was a completely different take on hte joker character. Both of them worthy of enormous praise.
Why if they are both worthy of praise do you feel the need to only defend ledger? I mean you agreed with this
Originally posted by Nephthys
At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was a solidly 3 dimensional character and not just a 'tricked out emo' as you implied him to be. He has ideals, likes and dislikes, hes no more 2-D then Nicholsons (though imo better in every way).
Or at least felt no need to defend Nicholson's performance
Nor did you feel the need to say anything in regards to such comments as this
Originally posted by Luminatus
Nicholson Joker surrenders and shakes Baleman's hand in congratulations of fivctory.
or this in regards to Nicholsons Joker being better
Originally posted by Darth Martin
😗
Yet when you detected an insult to Ledger's Joker. You were all over it. Curious behavior for somebody who liked both equal. Again this indicates that if one of us is being bias or dishonest about our opinion. Its you. If you don't like Nicholson just say it.
Now you have lodged the complaint against me that I called Ledger an Emo, Goth, and Punk Rocker. Claiming that he is not.
I have admitted that my commentary was not meant to be taken literaly a concept you still don't seem to understand. How ever it is interesting to note that his look was based on the punk rock look and their is deffinatly some some goth and emo influence in both his appearence and appearent ideology. You trying to pretend like their isn't is silly. The costume designers have more or less said so(at least in regards to punk rock).
Now so you understand the concept of none literal review/commentary lets have look at some things you have written.
Originally posted by omgchos
I used to be a big fan of the batman movies actually. All accept the steaming pile that was Batman returns. Until i found them too childish
Hmm. I doubt you literaly mean that the characters act like children or that it was directed at children, but you said it anyway. No doubt to intone your feeling that it was silly. For referance the definition of childish
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/childish
Nor is it likely that you believe. "Batman Returns" is literaly made of excrement(I image that was the manner of pile you were referancing), but it invoked the neccesary visual image and had the right social and vernacular connotations to make your point. So you said it. Same way I used Emo.
Once again. While it may be hard for you to understand. People can honestly have opinion that differ from you. You liked Ledger fine, you liked or disliked Nicholson fine. Its your deal.
Now I on the other hand found Ledgers performance less then stellar. Though some it was not his fault. Some of the fault falls to the character as it was written. A character that seemed at least to me to be an over the top jalopy of every anti-authority, counter culture subcultue their is. Far from scarey or smart he came across like Napoleon Dynamite in face paint intoning how bad ass he was.
Again. Just so you understand this is my honest opinion and some of what I said of should not be taken completly literal. Do you understand?
Originally posted by Nephthys
You thought Tommie Lee-Jones was as good as Eckhart as Two-face. He was awful, ergo, you have no taste. To top it off you seem to have genuine hatred of Ledgers Joker (a fictional character) and comtempt for the character. Now you can say that you don't like the character or his beliefs, but you [b]have to admit that it was a good portrayal of the character. At the end of the day, you have to admit that he was a solidly 3 dimensional character and not just a 'tricked out emo' as you implied him to be. He has ideals, likes and dislikes, hes no more 2-D then Nicholsons (though imo better in every way).
[/B]
No I can say this the character sucked and his performance was nothing special. As I said before others have played similiar characters better. He wasn't a 3 dimensional character. We learned nothing about him. What did he like? What did he want? No, I'm sorry the character was a bad characticher of the subcultures i've already noted, mixed with bad Hollywood manic, genuis villian cliche's. Played by I guy who had no buisness playing the role. He wasn't scary, nor creepy, nor did he come across particularly smart. Now was Nicholson a 3 dimensional character, not particularly though he far more of a character and arch then Ledger. Had an actualy story. The real difference though is that Nicholsons character was unique and he played it to a T. It helps that he fit the role perfect.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Also, you shouldn't let your problems with the editing or directing affect your conclusions about the characters, becuase they're ultimately unrelated.
It doesn't I liked Two-Face, Alfred, and Lucius. The comment about the quality of the film were more directed at the comments about how bad the Batman Anthology films were.
Originally posted by Nephthys
That he was interesting. Surprisingly I can actually come up this one by myself, in the cinema.
Fine I'll play along. What did you fin interesting about him?
Originally posted by Nephthys
You see, I, unlike you, can actually form opinions that are only impacted by my own experience and not any petty bias against a fictional character.
You displayed distain for "Forever" Two-Face. Does that mean you have a bias against him? or simply that you disliked the character/performance?
Originally posted by Nightstick
Bias. Indicates a certain level of dishonesty. It's not unlike calling some one a liar. However you only mentioning that you called me bias is nice cherry picking. As you also called me stupidHow about we have looksy at what you wrote.....
Tha'ts right its not that I may have a bias. Its that you honestly believe I do.
Here you mention the possiblity of something else, but what's mentioned here is not a lack of bias, but rather that it may be caused by some thing other then Burton Fanboy-ism
Why if they are both worthy of praise do you feel the need to only defend ledger? I mean you agreed with this
Or at least felt no need to defend Nicholson's performance
Nor did you feel the need to say anything in regards to such comments as this
or this in regards to Nicholsons Joker being better
Yet when you detected an insult to Ledger's Joker. You were all over it. Curious behavior for somebody who liked both equal. Again this indicates that if one of us is being bias or dishonest about our opinion. Its you. If you don't like Nicholson just say it.
Now you have lodged the complaint against me that I called Ledger an Emo, Goth, and Punk Rocker. Claiming that he is not.
I have admitted that my commentary was not meant to be taken literaly a concept you still don't seem to understand. How ever it is interesting to note that his look was based on the punk rock look and their is deffinatly some some goth and emo influence in both his appearence and appearent ideology. You trying to pretend like their isn't is silly. The costume designers have more or less said so(at least in regards to punk rock).
Now so you understand the concept of none literal review/commentary lets have look at some things you have written.
Hmm. I doubt you literaly mean that the characters act like children or that it was directed at children, but you said it anyway. No doubt to intone your feeling that it was silly. For referance the definition of childish
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/childish
Nor is it likely that you believe. "Batman Returns" is literaly made of excrement(I image that was the manner of pile you were referancing), but it invoked the neccesary visual image and had the right social and vernacular connotations to make your point. So you said it. Same way I used Emo.
Once again. While it may be hard for you to understand. People can honestly have opinion that differ from you. You liked Ledger fine, you liked or disliked Nicholson fine. Its your deal.
Now I on the other hand found Ledgers performance less then stellar. Though some it was not his fault. Some of the fault falls to the character as it was written. A character that seemed at least to me to be an over the top jalopy of every anti-authority, counter culture subcultue their is. Far from scarey or smart he came across like Napoleon Dynamite in face paint intoning how bad ass he was.
Again. Just so you understand this is my honest opinion and some of what I said of should not be taken completly literal. Do you understand?
Ok first the childish bit.....
# Of or suitable for a child.
# Behaving immaturely.
All of those stupid looking gadgets and colors where they shouldn't be is childish enough. Men in big green tights, and every villain is made to look like they have just popped out of a carnival. Like the vido i posted in the other thread, the penguin is sitting in a mini batcar bouncing around in it likes it's a video game making little kid comments while driving the batcar. And on top of that the gadget he put on the bottom looked like a box with an antenna and a spinning top stuck to it. Poison Ivy looked like something out of a saturday morning cartoon, and mr freeze looked like a transformer. Not to mention the whole freezing thing he did. It looked like one of those old cartoons where someone stays out in the snow to long and little icicles form on them. And they stay alive for what 10 minutes while incased in ice. I disagree. There are many more things i could mention, but if you like them fine i don't care. But don't tell me they don't have a childish aspect to them.
Then the Bias......
Twisting my words does not prove you right. I said you probably have bias, specifically tim burton fanboyism. Or something else. Something besides bias. And btw i think by now i've proven that you do indeed have bias. And saying someone is bias is not an insult. It denotes no lack of honesty. It indicates that because you like or agree with something that you look at all other things in a different way. Like if i am a die hard mission impossible fan(the show that is). And when i go and see the Tom Cruise movie where Phelps turns out to be the bad guy, i am outraged. Because he was the main character in my favorite show. I won't look at the movie for what it is, ill focus on the fact that they have altered a favorite character of mine. This is true for a few people i know. And when i tell them they are obviously biased towards the show they don't take it as an insult as a child would. They see it for what it is. The Truth.
Now the last bit......
Saying a movie is a steaming pile of shit and calling a character from a movie a representation of a subculture of emo people is not even in the same ball park. One is a comment on quality while the other is a comment on substance. I like how you always twist words and fail miserably it is quite amusing. And you say i never defend Nicholson. Against what should i be defending him. So far you have insulted ledger, and i defended him. If you had insulted nicholsons character in such a biased and inaccurate way i would have(now your even going as far as to put words in my mouth?). And why shouldn't i take what you say litteraly? Are you being sarcastic? Should i just put you on my ignore list because by your own admission you gonna be talking nonsense and nothing you say should be taken seriously?
Originally posted by omgchos
Ok first the childish bit.....
# Of or suitable for a child.
# Behaving immaturely.
All of those stupid looking gadgets and colors where they shouldn't be is childish enough. Men in big green tights, and every villain is made to look like they have just popped out of a carnival. Like the vido i posted in the other thread, the penguin is sitting in a mini batcar bouncing around in it likes it's a video game making little kid comments while driving the batcar. And on top of that the gadget he put on the bottom looked like a box with an antenna and a spinning top stuck to it. Poison Ivy looked like something out of a saturday morning cartoon, and mr freeze looked like a transformer. Not to mention the whole freezing thing he did. It looked like one of those old cartoons where someone stays out in the snow to long and little icicles form on them. And they stay alive for what 10 minutes while incased in ice. I disagree. There are many more things i could mention, but if you like them fine i don't care. But don't tell me they don't have a childish aspect to them.
While I'll admitt that their are elements that could be taken as childish. Their was also a fair bit of death, destruction, and mayham. So calling it childish is not entirely accurate. Nor can it be taken entirely literaly. Yet it got your point across. In an applicable way. Much the same way that my commentary on Ledger Joker while not 100% literal or accurate reasonable convayed my opinion on the matter.
Originally posted by omgchos
Then the Bias......Twisting my words does not prove you right. I said you probably have bias, specifically tim burton fanboyism. Or something else. Something besides bias. And btw i think by now i've proven that you do indeed have bias. And saying someone is bias is not an insult. It denotes no lack of honesty. It indicates that because you like or agree with something that you look at all other things in a different way. Like if i am a die hard mission impossible fan(the show that is). And when i go and see the Tom Cruise movie where Phelps turns out to be the bad guy, i am outraged. Because he was the main character in my favorite show. I won't look at the movie for what it is, ill focus on the fact that they have altered a favorite character of mine. This is true for a few people i know. And when i tell them they are obviously biased towards the show they don't take it as an insult as a child would. They see it for what it is. The Truth.
Lets break down your Mission Impossible example. So these people you know. First claim that the Mission Impossible movie is bad. Then you correct them to the truth. That its not bad they are just bias. Strange. Even while claiming their is no dishonesty. You draw a distinction between an honest reaction/opinion and a bias one.
The second problem is while a bias may have been true for your Mission Impossible fans. Its not the only reason why some one may like the Mission Impossible TV show and not the movie.
I get the idea that the basic crux of your argument is that I dislike Ledger(Joker) because I like Nicholson(Joker). Because obviously nobody could dislike Ledger on his own merit. 🙄 , but lets put this argument to rest. I liked Joker from the Adam West show, Nicholson Joker, Joker from Batman the Animated Series, Joker from the comics, Joker from Bird of Prey the TV show etc. So its not NIcholson fanboyism. "Forever" was my favorite Batman movie. So its not Burton fanboyism. I was a fan both Jones's and Eckhart Two-Face. So its not even a bias against style change. Though I will admitt that I prefered the style of the Batman Anthology over that of the Nolanverse Batman. That's not to say that the Nolanverse was with out it good parts. As I have already mentioned Ras, Gordon, Lucius, Alfred, Dent etc.
In other words your seeing bias where it doesn't exist. I realise it comes as a suprise to you, but some of us simply didn't like Ledger Joker or TDK. I know saying this will have little impact on you brainwashing, but I thought i'd say it anyhow.
Originally posted by omgchos
Now the last bit......Saying a movie is a steaming pile of shit and calling a character from a movie a representation of a subculture of emo people is not even in the same ball park. One is a comment on quality while the other is a comment on substance. I like how you always twist words and fail miserably it is quite amusing. And you say i never defend Nicholson. Against what should i be defending him. So far you have insulted ledger, and i defended him. If you had insulted nicholsons character in such a biased and inaccurate way i would have(now your even going as far as to put words in my mouth?). And why shouldn't i take what you say litteraly? Are you being sarcastic? Should i just put you on my ignore list because by your own admission you gonna be talking nonsense and nothing you say should be taken seriously?
You can try and make all the symantic distinctions you want, but if you'd be happier with me calling Ledger Joker a steaming pile of sh*t. I'm comfortable with that. Though I still think emo b*tch in runny make up is more descriptive and just as apt.
Sorry. Pretending like you'd defend Nicholson Joker when you haven't is just silly.
As for the literal vs non-literal thing. If ya haven't figured it out yet from examples like Batman Returns is not actually made of excrement etc. Then yes by all means put me on your ignore list. I'd rather not deal with your jibberish anyhow.
Back on topic while Nolonverse Batman may be out of his league facing Joker or a reinforced Riddler, or Mr. Freeze. He'd have a shot at Penguin who is crude by comparison to the others, and Catwoman if he could catch her alone and by suprise. He could even go up against Two-Face. His real problems starts when he either goes against super tech or the villian team up.