Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

It looks like it might be getting closer to that top 20 worst list.

Why would some logic-defying blockbuster even make it into a top 100 list

It’s actually a decent flick, if you consider how much of a complete train wreck the last installment in the series was.

Walter Grant5 said:It’s actually a decent flick, if you consider how much of a complete train wreck the last installment in the series was.

I wouldn't just say the last one was crazy; I think it was almost a joke at this point. I saw "The Dark Knight" in theaters and then again on Blu-ray, and I guess it's okay. But it's just okay. It probably isn't quite enough better than that ridiculous sequel to really land in the top 100 American films of all time.

Walter Grant5 said:It’s actually a decent flick, if you consider how much of a complete train wreck the last installment in the series was.

Well, Nolan left it that way on purpose just so you could marvel at the sheer absurdity of life itself. I don't understand how people miss that; not everything is required to follow strict logic, is it?

So now we have someone looking for rigorous logic in a film adaptation of a superhero comic book. How about that.

If *The Dark Knight* wasn't trying to be a Batman movie, I might’ve actually liked it. It feels like they're trying to force this caricature through some "gritty realism" filter, which honestly just cheapens the whole concept. But hey, Nolan’s got that one specific blueprint he tries to jam into everything he touches. That formula just sucks the soul out of the story. The last time I felt any actual magic from him was *The Prestige*. Everything else lately? Just a desperate attempt at logic and realism that doesn't even work.

brightpilot6 said:Well, Nolan left it that way on purpose just so you could marvel at the sheer absurdity of life itself. I don't understand how people miss that; not everything is required to follow strict logic, is it?

So now we have someone looking for rigorous logic in a film adaptation of a superhero comic book. How about that.

I’m not looking for logic. Honestly, I actually dig it when cartoons are nonsensical. What really gets under my skin is when people try way too hard to make them "logical," only to end up pissing off the very crowd they're trying to impress. It’s exactly what Christopher Nolan keeps pulling—that constant, desperate grasping at being profound that just misses the mark.

I feel like this movie tries so hard to be a gritty crime drama, but it just doesn't land because the three leads feel more like cartoon characters than real people. At the same time, it fails at being a high-octane comic book flick since they shot it in Chicago without making any effort to capture that mysterious, fictional vibe of Gotham City. I guess it ends up being this weird hybrid of both. The whole Batman mythos has always leaned toward fantasy, so trying to force it into realism feels a bit awkward, maybe a little like the Dallas Cowboys trying to play a perfectly technical game.

I’m talking about cinema as its own entity here, rather than constantly measuring a film against its comic book source material or how strictly it adheres to the panels.

To be honest, ever since I finished Nolan’s trilogy, I just can't bring myself to watch the older Batman movies anymore.

By the way, what exactly is so illogical about *The Dark Knight*?

brightpilot6 said:Does anyone happen to have any recommendations for some solid independent films worth watching?

Apparently, Tina has another unreleased film out there

As for everything else, I noticed someone shared a link with several movies, including this one

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/

Both the first and second parts are excellent...

Larry Fox5 said:Trying to rank these things is just impossible—and honestly, trying to even agree on what the criteria should be? Forget about it...

It’s one thing if we're talking hard metrics like viewership numbers or actual box office revenue........., but it's a whole different story when you assemble some "panel of five experts" who sit in their ivory towers making subjective judgments about whether a movie is "good." Even people in their own industry call out those critiques for being nothing more than personal opinions.

Movies like Rain Man, Papillon, Sin City, or Fargo......... they're all absolute classics that should have been on that list for a dozen different reasons, yet they aren't.

The movies are good, but honestly, none of them belonged on this list to begin with.

Speaking of those classics on the list though...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065214/

🙏

brightpilot6 said:Does anyone happen to have any recommendations for some solid independent films worth watching?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Honestly, this one is fantastic—definitely a must-see! ☕

Sam Thomas3 said:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Honestly, this one is fantastic—definitely a must-see! ☕

Speaking of great American cinema...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119472/?ref_=nm_knf_i2

brightpilot6 said:I’m talking about cinema as its own entity here, rather than constantly measuring a film against its comic book source material or how strictly it adheres to the panels.

To be honest, ever since I finished Nolan’s trilogy, I just can't bring myself to watch the older Batman movies anymore.

By the way, what exactly is so illogical about *The Dark Knight*?

Look, I’m talking about the movie as a standalone piece of cinema. Because let's be real—even Burton’s Batman flicks didn't actually hold up to the source material.

Honestly, once you've seen Burton's second one, I just can't get into Nolan's Batman movies. Can't do it.

Pretty much what Rob says.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, I’m talking about the movie as a standalone piece of cinema. Because let's be real—even Burton’s Batman flicks didn't actually hold up to the source material.

Honestly, once you've seen Burton's second one, I just can't get into Nolan's Batman movies. Can't do it.

Pretty much what Rob says.

What exactly do you mean by that? That we're dealing with "cartoon characters"?

Is that where this "paradoxical logic" comes from?

So, are you suggesting one should view the film strictly as a standalone cinematic work, ignoring its comic book roots entirely, yet somehow still find fault with the fact that they are "cartoon characters"?

brightpilot6 said:What exactly do you mean by that? That we're dealing with "cartoon characters"?

Is that where this "paradoxical logic" comes from?

So, are you suggesting one should view the film strictly as a standalone cinematic work, ignoring its comic book roots entirely, yet somehow still find fault with the fact that they are "cartoon characters"?

Look, the movie doesn't follow its own internal logic. It uses caricatures but tries to present them—and a non-realistic world—as if everything is grounded and real. Get it? In this day and age, calling someone a "cartoon character" is just describing their nature. I don't see them that way because they evolved from comics to video games, but because they're just caricatures at their core. Trying to force them into some modern social context is just plain stupid.

But I see where you're heading with this, Prika. What happened to you?

Larry Fox5 said:Yeah, true—but the question is just which dimension we're talking about. Half the time Dylan is totally faking it, playing like he couldn't care less, and his voice? Absolute garbage. My old mentor always said he was a brilliant songwriter, sure, but a pathetic musician and singer at best...

Between Seal & Jeff Beck, Jimi & BB King, and even the Stones on *Stripped*, there are plenty of versions that are five classes better than the original.

Ever actually heard Dylan when he sings like a normal person?

I guess it’s just because the filmmaker lacks a certain sense of atmosphere, or maybe they just don't know how to build a self-sustaining world within their story. There are some incredibly fun, lighthearted movies like "Back to the Future" that worked so well simply because they had directors and writers who actually knew what they were doing.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, the movie doesn't follow its own internal logic. It uses caricatures but tries to present them—and a non-realistic world—as if everything is grounded and real. Get it? In this day and age, calling someone a "cartoon character" is just describing their nature. I don't see them that way because they evolved from comics to video games, but because they're just caricatures at their core. Trying to force them into some modern social context is just plain stupid.

But I see where you're heading with this, Prika. What happened to you?

So I have to ask you, which specific internal logic is being violated? Exactly which part?

And what does one even mean by a "caricatured" character? Even someone like Hannibal Lecter could be considered a caricature, yet he is placed within a realistic framework.

If you view the film purely as a cinematic work, the notion that it "has caricatured characters" falls away; instead, the film simply possesses characters as they are presented, whether realistic or otherwise. Does the underlying motive matter—is it a Batman story or some gritty true tale? It's all somewhat moot.

Besides, could you provide just one instance where something unrealistic was portrayed with such realism that it genuinely bothered you? Is there any single trait among the characters in *Dark Knight* that truly feels incompatible with the real world?

You claimed this film operates on paradoxical logic, which is quite a heavy accusation to make, especially when paired with an argument this thin and difficult to follow.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, the movie doesn't follow its own internal logic. It uses caricatures but tries to present them—and a non-realistic world—as if everything is grounded and real. Get it? In this day and age, calling someone a "cartoon character" is just describing their nature. I don't see them that way because they evolved from comics to video games, but because they're just caricatures at their core. Trying to force them into some modern social context is just plain stupid.

But I see where you're heading with this, Prika. What happened to you?

I have little patience for people who argue using empty platitudes, only to resort to insults the moment we touch upon concrete points, much like you and Jessica Gonzalez.

I've dealt with that particular tactic far too many times before.