Nolan Fans

What a shame. I really liked him in TDK.

aaron wrote:What a shame. I really liked him in TDK.

Just because he said this, his scenes are cut from my fan-edit.

ryan4butler wrote:Just because he said this, his scenes are cut from my fan-edit.

fan-edit? herecy. Eric Roberts is the man. -Mickey Rourke said that, so that means its true.

Baneling wrote:

ryan4butler wrote:Just because he said this, his scenes are cut from my fan-edit.

fan-edit? herecy. Eric Roberts is the man. -Mickey Rourke said that, so that means its true.

Joking, he was great in TDKR and good in every other movie. :neutral:

ryan4butler wrote:Joking, he was great in TDKR and good in every other movie. :neutral:

That's better. But I am curious about that fan-edit. What would be stripped? Or could you mean all 3 movies made into 1 fan-edit?

.........................

Baneling wrote:

ryan4butler wrote:Joking, he was great in TDKR and good in every other movie. :neutral:

That's better. But I am curious about that fan-edit. What would be stripped? Or could you mean all 3 movies made into 1 fan-edit?

I meant just editing out Eric Roberts' scenes. The edit wouldnt make sence. There would be a shorter Joker introduction to the mob, no party scene or car flip. EVery shot that he was in would be taken out. Its stupid.

ryan4butler wrote: Its stupid.

NO YOU!

Baneling wrote:

ryan4butler wrote: Its stupid.

NO YOU!

It sort of sucks that he got to be part of this movie now that he's said this. What a stuck up, shallow point of view. I mean, he doesn't even pretend to be talking specifically about this movie, he just used it as a launching point to make a ridiculously broad judgement on all films made for a lot of money.

I personally was emotionally effected by this film, especially the ending which gave me chills, but I've heard others claim that it didn't move them at all either, so I'll accept that as an issue of taste. By contrast, questioning whether there's anything for the mind is just pure bias and close mindedness. The dark Knight is literally built on a philosophical and allegorical layer of what each character means and what their arcs and choices mean. This same year Nixon vs. Frost was nominated and the ironic thing is I saw that movie, and it was exactly what those people claim TDK to be, well made and entertaining but nothing more to chew off. It wasn't about anything more then the events of the film, it just was.

Except it's educational, I guess, which is the most overrated form of depth for a film to have and yet hollywood's snobs are obsessed with it, like being about history is innately more meaningful and anything made up is silly by comparison, cuz u know the bible and greek mythology and Aesop's Fables were all history books... (Not that I'm at all comparing TDK to those things, just showing how silly dismissing grand scale fantasy is

His terms are stupid as well, educated and enlighted are the same exact thing in that sense, he's referring to historical dramas either way. Saying you were not moved but were entertained is essentially a paradox, but i guess he means it wasn't touching which is fine. But the one that was downright bizzare is comforted, why comforted as such a high bar to reach for? I'd say more good art is unsettling then comforting, that tends to be more enlightening as to the problems with the world today, was there will be blood comforting that year? that's just a bizarre criteria to have for deciding what's art.

Me thinks Eric Roberts younger years are catching up with him. It is ironic and possibly telling that the most overacted (either him and gambot) role in the whole film is the actor who said this. Sal worked because his Italian sleaziness got across a sense of old school mob, but his performance was silly, I guess he thought he was making a silly movie.