Eh, I just thought it was Miller’s typically rough sense of humour playing off all the Verhoeven battles, not a snipe. More playful teasing. I could be wrong I guess.
I have felt that since he returned there has been some baiting of lissener though, so perhaps it was a bit too close to the edge given that.
Sorry, but that’s a ludicrous statement. Bruce Wayne is not an outcast…he’s a freaking millionaire playboy. Yes, as Batman he’s an outsider, but he makes himself that way, he’s not forced into it. And he LIKES it that way. The themes couldn’t be more different and your attempt to make them the same to further your argument is just laughable.
Yeah, I’m sure Burton was drawn to it because of the millionaire playboy angle and not the outcast element. I think he was gonna call it “Bruce Wayne” until the studio decided it wouldn’t be as easy to market. Come on, he was taking on an already clearly-defined character; the reason he was interested was because of the theme of the outsider against society (the fact that the outsider status was self-imposed doesn’t change the basic theme). Even taking Batman out of the equation, tell me there aren’t similarities between Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas, Sleepy Hollow, The Corpse Bride, and Big Fish (I haven’t seen his remakes, but both Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory would seem to have elements of outsider-vs.-society and comic book/fairy tale storylines). Anyway, even if you don’t buy that, here’s a definite theme running through all his movies: they suck ass. He’s never lived up to the promise he’s shown (or his own hype). I can’t think of another director that’s actually seen as “visionary” that’s made so many mediocre films.
Yep - I agree with your analysis, obviously. You made your case much better than I did. Though, as I said, I did think Ed Wood was decent.
It does in the sense that the “basic theme” only exists in your opinion wrt Batman.
That’s your opinion and frankly it isn’t a very well spoken or well founded one. Batman, Sleepy Hollow and Big Fish are very good movies.
Speaking of “not very well spoken or well founded”, “They’re good” isn’t exactly an insightful critical analysis.
While I agree that woodstock’s opinion is not very well spoken, I have to say I disagree with you, Rik, on *Sleepy Hollow *and Big Fish. Burton’s brilliant when he’s brilliant (Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), but he’s pretty inconsistent.
All the same, woodstock’s “statement” is representative of the main reason I try to stay out of threads of this nature; threads set up to go negative off the bat. Not much to be gained by sending out a general call for negative opinions.
Why’s that? I’ve never really understood why people take this stuff personally - if you say you love a certain director’s work and I say I think he puts out hack crap, it’s no reflection on you, or my opinion of you or your intellect or anything. It’s all just opinions, as are most discussions of aesthetics. There are plenty of things I like that most people can’t stand, but I don’t assume anyone’s looking down on me for my particular taste. It’s fun to argue merits (or the lack thereof) of artistic works, but the only judgement being made is about the work itself, not the admirers of the work.
Michael Bay would get my vote for worse director.
Heh. I wrote a whole paper on why Traffic sucked. Any drug movie that portrays sex with a black man as the ultimate low (and plenty of movies do…Requiem for a Dream, Thirteen) is going to get some nasty words from me. Traffic was a racist, simplistic, faux-intellectual, pseudo-comlex movie that relies on cheap camera tricks (ohhhh…I used indoor balanced film outside whenever I shot something in “Mexico”, I’m an artiste now!) to make it’s crappy platitudic (ohhh…drugs are complicated and bad!) faux-point to make upper class white people feel ‘informed’ and ‘objective’ about a ‘tragic’ subject that they and this movie know jack-shit about. It has as much resemblence to the actual drug trade as a nice winter haiku does to string theory.
FWIW, I think both Con Air and Showgirls are pure genius and truly masterful films. Few movies show such masterful understanding and pure exploitation of their medium.
My controversial nomination is Robert Altman. McCabe and Mrs. Miller was at least interesting. The rest of his movies are ugly, plotless, bad sounding, pointless muddles that discredit the “auture” theory. Yeah, theres something going on there. But whatever it is that is there just isn’t worth sitting through three hours of characters you don’t care about walking around and mumbling. It’s about as interesting as watching an antfarm while listening to other people talk on their cell phone. If I wanted to see an old man wank, I’d…well, whatever I did it would probably be more interesting than watching a Rober Altman film.
I agree.
Neither is “they suck ass.”
Whatever his inconsistencies as a director (and I generally like most of his movies), I think Tim Burton should get credit for the work he did on Pee Wee’s Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. In the case of the former, he took I character I only found amusing in small doses–Pee Wee Herman–and was able to make an imaginative and entertaining full-length movie around him. And if you still think that was easy to do, just compare Big Adventure to its nearly-forgotten follow-up, Big Top Pee Wee, which wasn’t directed Burton. As for Beetlejuice, I found it to be one of the funniest movies from the last 25 years. Unfortunately, Burton’s success with weird comedies like PW’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, and Ed Wood made the failure of his hug comic strike-out, **Mars Attacks!, ** all the more infuriating. But even the best directors have had their disappointing efforts.
As opposed to “they suck” it’s practically Shakespearean.
De gustibus, but whether either movie disappointed you, it’s safe to say neither “sucked ass.”
No, you really don’t know the answer. Not even remotely. Although we’ve fought in the past, I like lissener quite a bit. I was sad to see him get banned, and thrilled to see him come back. I’m fairly certain I can provide cites for both statements, as I posted to that effect in the threads generated by both his departure and his return. If lissener took offence at my earlier post, I’ll certainly apologize, as that was not my intent, but seeing as hasn’t complained about it, I’m going to assume he took my post in the spirit it was intended.
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I guess my comment that precipitated it just popped into my head apropos of nothing.
Oh, sorry. I didn’t realize I was dealing with the final arbiter of a film’s worth when I made that comment. My bad. If I’d realized it had been your majesty I’d been arguing with, I’d surely have bowed out before now.
Now you know…and knowing is half the battle. :rolleyes:
Wow, that’s deep. Must be a line of dialogue from a Tim Burton film.
No, it’s more your speed, apparently.
Far be it from me to speak for lissener, but as an outside observer I’ve seen time and time again where if he defends himself from snipes and outright hostility, he gets accused of being oversensitive or defensive or any number of things he actually isn’t being. If he let your insult pass by without comment I wouldn’t automatically assume it’s because it wasn’t offensive to him. Maybe he just didn’t want to rise to your bait. Whatever your stance toward him elsewhere and in the past, implying he should be killed (hyperbole or not) because he likes Verhoven is pretty beyond the pale. “Just kidding” doesn’t cut it as an excuse for me.
Back on-topic: I agree that Tim Burton should get a pass for Pee Wee and Beetlejuice. I also happen to love Big Fish. I cried.
I’ve never seen an Uwe Boll movie, but after reading about him, I don’t think I’d want to.