That ONE problem you have with a movie

Tools    





Registered User
Any Batman film where he uses guns, firearms or explosives - whether it's machine guns on the Batmobile, guns on his Bat-cycle, missiles fired from his Bat-plane, bombs dropped from his Batmobile, or when he drives over police cars with his Bat-tank - crushing them while they are occupied (potentially injuring or killing the people inside) or in any other way recklessly endangers innocent people.

Well...












I've never understood why in The Wizard of Oz, when the Wicked Witch locks Dorothy in that room with the hourglass, why Dorothy never just turns the hourglass over.



Registered User
I've never understood why in The Wizard of Oz, when the Wicked Witch locks Dorothy in that room with the hourglass, why Dorothy never just turns the hourglass over.

Because Dorothy knows that if she waits, she will be awarded with two hour glasses later.



Hi Corax.

I'm well aware of Batman's early history with guns. During his first year he even carried a hand gun. Not only that but he killed bad guys both with guns or just chucking them off buildings.

But after that a moratorium was declared that Batman shall not use guns and shall not kill - it became a defining part of his character as his hatred for guns tied into his origin, since his parents were murdered with a gun.

In cases where he'd been depicted with a gun in modern times (in comics) there was usually something in the story to tie into the fact that he refuses to use firearms.

Since rejecting guns kind of became Batman's very particular "thing," it seemed like movie makers were unaware of this fact when they'd have him utilize firearms.



Registered User
I'm well aware of Batman's early history with guns. During his first year he even carried a hand gun. Not only that but he killed bad guys both with guns or just chucking them off buildings.
Frank Miller's Batman uses a gun (DKR) and Batman uses a gat in Crisis books, right?

But after that a moratorium was declared that Batman shall not use guns and shall not kill - it became a defining part of his character as his hatred for guns tied into his origin, since his parents were murdered with a gun.
And since if he used guns, we'd only see the Joker and the rest his rogue's gallery once.
Since rejecting guns kind of became Batman's very particular "thing," it seemed like movie makers were unaware of this fact when they'd have him utilize firearms.
Zach Snyder is aware of the complaint and brings subtle nuance to the conversation stating,
“Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f***ing movie and then you come and say to me something about, like, ‘My superhero wouldn’t do that,’ I’m like, ‘Are you serious?’ I’m, like, down the f***ing road on that,” Snyder said.

“It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f***ing lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f***ing dream world,” he added.



Registered User
>>>>Wow....that takes out an entire genre in one dose of reality.

We would still have Vampire's Kiss. Also, we should note that I did NOT object to other vampire films on this basis in that post.


The next thing you tell me is that Dracula was just a medieval warlord with an attitude that was even grisly for that era.


Oh no, he was monster with true supernatural powers. He just didn't happen to be vampire. He was a werewolf.



We would still have Vampire's Kiss. Also, we should note that I did NOT object to other vampire films on this basis in that post.
Also, and more importantly, I'd argue, Martin.
(Full disclosure - I have not seen Vampire's Kiss)

Oh no, he was monster with true supernatural powers. He just didn't happen to be vampire. He was a werewolf.
Well, that explains that one scene in Nick Cage's uncle's adaptation.



Frank Miller's Batman uses a gun (DKR) and Batman uses a gat in Crisis books, right?


And since if he used guns, we'd only see the Joker and the rest his rogue's gallery once.

Zach Snyder is aware of the complaint and brings subtle nuance to the conversation stating,
I don't recall if Batman used a gun in DKR, but I'll take your word for it. Thing is, DKR was ground breaking when it came out as being an outside-of-canon story of a dark future (possibly the first "Elseworlds" book?) Thus, they could do things they wouldn't do (at that time) within canon - like having Green Arrow lose his arm.

Point taken that if Batman continued to use guns his rogue's gallery would be one-time appearances only (and Gordon really would be duty-bound to hunt the vigilante killer down rather than work with him). But having recurring villains was not the REASON for him to reject guns - it was because DC (or "National" at the time) wanted Batman to be a hero and not a killer since the majority of their readers in the Golden Age were children.

As to Zach Snyder's ruminations - Batman isn't a politician, he's s fictional hero.

So my opinion is: making him reject guns was one of the best decisions that formed his character ever after, and it made a kind of ironic sense based on his traumatic origins.

Every character doesn't have to become ultra-realistic, but I think Nolan did a fairly good job of balancing the character's essence with realism (but I still have a few issues with his films too). Batman's hatred for guns is a long-time part of his mythos that I hope remains whether in or out of the movies.

Interesting how just the mention of Batman on so many different threads turns into a philosophical discussion! (And I am guilty as charged.)



SPOILERS FROM MOVIES

Die Hard 1 and 2.

Thornberg is an annoyingly unnecessary character in both movies, and doesn't add anything to the plots in my opinion.
Well, I agree with you about him when it comes to his role in Die Harder, but he was pretty neccesary in the original movie, especially since it bothered to show him having to deal with a pretty unsupportive environment at his workplace, which gave insight into his character, and kept him from being just some one-dimensional "jerk". Really, if any characterization was unnecessary in Die Hard, it would've been the police captain, since he was obviously just there to be the irrational, uncooperative authority figure who gets in the way, and he ended up being one of that movie's weaker aspects as a result, since a lot of the characters in it were much better-written.



Welcome to the human race...
Heat: the entire scenario wherein Neil's gang plans to whack Waingro in the diner's parking lot only for him to make a silent getaway in the, what, 10-15 seconds they stop to watch a police cruiser roll past the diner? Necessary for the plot and arguably in character as this is a team of thieves who aren't necessarily that efficient at murders, but it can't help but feel like a contrivance.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



Registered User
Heat: the entire scenario wherein Neil's gang plans to whack Waingro in the diner's parking lot only for him to make a silent getaway in the, what, 10-15 seconds they stop to watch a police cruiser roll past the diner? Necessary for the plot and arguably in character as this is a team of thieves who aren't necessarily that efficient at murders, but it can't help but feel like a contrivance.

Their greatest fear is prison. And they should know. They've been there. When they feel the heat coming around the corner, immediate instincts to self-preservation kick in.



Narrowing conscious focus can result in target fixation which results in NOT seeing a lot of what is around you. Recall the Invisible Gorilla test





About 58% of people do not see the gorilla. And this is a no-stress, from the armchair, observation.



My ONE problem...only one? For the moment, it will be portrayals of characters by actors who don't fit, which brings me to two that come right onto mind -

Ben Hur - the 1959 version, in which Judah Ben Hur, an ancient world Jew from Jerusalem, is portrayed by blond, northern Euro Charlton Heston, a guy who seems completely off and never even wears appropriate clothing.

And then, there's a corollary, which is how aristocratic Roman characters in Ben Hur, as well as many other movies, are generally played by guys with British accents, even when they're American actors and they have to mimic a British accent. For what it's worth, having studied Latin at a young point in my life....Latin sounds nothing like British English. Not even a bit. The worst there might be Jay Robinson, who did the emperor Caligula in a couple of movies, notably Demetrius and the Gladiator. Robinson spoke New York English, mimicked a British accent for the role, playing a Latin speaking Roman.

Got that off my chest.



Registered User
My ONE problem...only one? For the moment, it will be portrayals of characters by actors who don't fit, which brings me to two that come right onto mind -

Ben Hur - the 1959 version, in which Judah Ben Hur, an ancient world Jew from Jerusalem, is portrayed by blond, northern Euro Charlton Heston, a guy who seems completely off and never even wears appropriate clothing.

And then, there's a corollary, which is how aristocratic Roman characters in Ben Hur, as well as many other movies, are generally played by guys with British accents, even when they're American actors and they have to mimic a British accent. For what it's worth, having studied Latin at a young point in my life....Latin sounds nothing like British English. Not even a bit. The worst there might be Jay Robinson, who did the emperor Caligula in a couple of movies, notably Demetrius and the Gladiator. Robinson spoke New York English, mimicked a British accent for the role, playing a Latin speaking Roman.

Got that off my chest.




Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well, I agree with you about him when it comes to his role in Die Harder, but he was pretty neccesary in the original movie, especially since it bothered to show him having to deal with a pretty unsupportive environment at his workplace, which gave insight into his character, and kept him from being just some one-dimensional "jerk". Really, if any characterization was unnecessary in Die Hard, it would've been the police captain, since he was obviously just there to be the irrational, uncooperative authority figure who gets in the way, and he ended up being one of that movie's weaker aspects as a result, since a lot of the characters in it were much better-written.
I see what you mean in a sense, but I thought that since the movie is about a hostage situation, a police commander, would be more revelant to that type of premise compared to a reporter, if that makes sense? I guess I just didn't think the reporters subplot had anything to do with the hostage situation maybe.

But I do think he was also a lot more unnecessary in the second one. I still like the first movie a lot more.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Witness (1985)

It was almost a masterpiece for me, but in the climax, they do the whole, hostage taker tells the hero to drop his gun and the hero ACTUALLY DOES IT, even though he knows that by disarming himself, that the hostage taker is now free to shoot the hero and the hostage.

I still think it's a good movie, just not perfect as I felt it could have been otherwise.



What makes you think it doesn't have enough?
You kiddin'? All we got was one real fight between a couple old people and a little bit of training. Did you know Lucas originally considered Toshiro Mifune to play Obi? And Mifune turned down the role because he thought sci-fi was way too cheesy?



My ONE problem...only one? For the moment, it will be portrayals of characters by actors who don't fit, which brings me to two that come right onto mind -

Ben Hur - the 1959 version, in which Judah Ben Hur, an ancient world Jew from Jerusalem, is portrayed by blond, northern Euro Charlton Heston, a guy who seems completely off and never even wears appropriate clothing.

And then, there's a corollary, which is how aristocratic Roman characters in Ben Hur, as well as many other movies, are generally played by guys with British accents, even when they're American actors and they have to mimic a British accent. For what it's worth, having studied Latin at a young point in my life....Latin sounds nothing like British English. Not even a bit. The worst there might be Jay Robinson, who did the emperor Caligula in a couple of movies, notably Demetrius and the Gladiator. Robinson spoke New York English, mimicked a British accent for the role, playing a Latin speaking Roman.

Got that off my chest.
Hehehe, honestly, I learned to overlook those mistakes for the era a long time ago. Most peplum movies will do things like that. No way in hell most mythic figures in Greece were Italian. :P :P



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well when it comes to incorrect accents or ethnicities, I love old spaghetti westerns, and feel they are better than American Westerns for me, but if I can accept European actors playing Americans, than I guess I can accept European and American actors playing Hebrews...



Registered User
Ex Machina - Ava's smile. Her internal life should have been left a mystery.



Hehehe, honestly, I learned to overlook those mistakes for the era a long time ago. Most peplum movies will do things like that. No way in hell most mythic figures in Greece were Italian. :P :P
I generally also ignore those strange errors, but it does amaze me that, given all of the effort put into costumes and scenery in some of these movies, it doesn't seem to bother them that the characters, who actually do have some historical context, don't make sense. I assume that they must have made some calculation that Heston was a box office draw. He also did an ancient world character in The Ten Commandments, Moses at that, the movie where we also had Russian Yul Brynner being an Egyptian, complete with Russian accent.

As for the Roman guys with British accents (even fake ones), I guess one empire is as good as the next. Ironically, have actually spoken Latin (not the church version), I don't really know what would make an English script sound Roman or what a what accent a native Latin speaker would have in English and not even the remotest idea how an ancient Egyptian would sound, so I guess nobody will really care.