Re: Burton's Catwoman... I always took it that the actions of the cats resurrected her. However, I'm less than sold on the nine lives idea... When she goes off the roof, she clearly says "Saved by kitty-litter..." That suggests that she didn't actually 'lose a life' in that instance... When she took out Shrek at the end, yes, he shot her a few times, but, it's open to suggestion that the injuries were not fatal, although certainly affected her, as when she kept coming for him, she was clearly inconvenienced by the wounds, rather than actually dying and using up a life... Immortality's a funny game, and the rules can be different, but with regards the roof incident, I'd say the evidence is that it wasn't a fatal fall, so shouldn't have counted as a 'lost life'... IMHO...
You make an interesting point. The whole reason we're discussing this is because of what SHE said about dying. So the question is whether she is to be believed. If she is, then all of the examples you just mentioned would be "real" deaths, because she *said* they were. But if she isn't to be believed, then they weren't. So if she is telling the truth, then she died all of those times that she said she did, regardless of whether it logically makes sense or not.
But then look at that final scene there, she holds that taser in her mouth and "kisses" Walken's character, which is followed by explosions and so forth, a bit later Batman frantically digging through the rubble finds the smoking corpse of Walken's character but no trace of Selina at all. The film ends with it made clear that she is still alive, though she isn't seen. The only way she lives through that is with the supernatural edge,
Now *that* is probably the only thing that legitimately seems supernatural, I'll give you that. Even her original "death" being pushed off the building showed her fall through half a dozen canopies that slowed her fall. But surviving the "kiss of death" definitely seems to have something supernatural behind it. That is definitely a fair point.
As far as the Catwoman movie you keep mentioning, I think it is pretty clear that regardless of what might have been the original intent when it was first being pitched, by the time it actually came out over a decade later it was in a different "universe" than the Burton movies, so there is no direct connection between what "powers" the Burton Catwoman had vs the Berry one. Even though I didn't see it, didn't the Berry Catwoman have some kind of Egyptian stuff going on?
Re: Burton's Catwoman... I always took it that the actions of the cats resurrected her. However, I'm less than sold on the nine lives idea... When she goes off the roof, she clearly says "Saved by kitty-litter..." That suggests that she didn't actually 'lose a life' in that instance... When she took out Shrek at the end, yes, he shot her a few times, but, it's open to suggestion that the injuries were not fatal, although certainly affected her, as when she kept coming for him, she was clearly inconvenienced by the wounds, rather than actually dying and using up a life... Immortality's a funny game, and the rules can be different, but with regards the roof incident, I'd say the evidence is that it wasn't a fatal fall, so shouldn't have counted as a 'lost life'... IMHO...
You make an interesting point. The whole reason we're discussing this is because of what SHE said about dying. So the question is whether she is to be believed. If she is, then all of the examples you just mentioned would be "real" deaths, because she *said* they were. But if she isn't to be believed, then they weren't. So if she is telling the truth, then she died all of those times that she said she did, regardless of whether it logically makes sense or not.
Not all, the fall into the cat litter would not have been a fatal fall, and she clearly said 'saved by'... I take that to mean she was saved from dying, as in she didn't die, because had she simply used one of her nine lives, the kitty litter would not have played a part in saving her, and no need for her to have said she had been saved by it, so I don't think that was actually one of her nine lives gone...
Re: Burton's Catwoman... I always took it that the actions of the cats resurrected her. However, I'm less than sold on the nine lives idea... When she goes off the roof, she clearly says "Saved by kitty-litter..." That suggests that she didn't actually 'lose a life' in that instance... When she took out Shrek at the end, yes, he shot her a few times, but, it's open to suggestion that the injuries were not fatal, although certainly affected her, as when she kept coming for him, she was clearly inconvenienced by the wounds, rather than actually dying and using up a life... Immortality's a funny game, and the rules can be different, but with regards the roof incident, I'd say the evidence is that it wasn't a fatal fall, so shouldn't have counted as a 'lost life'... IMHO...
You make an interesting point. The whole reason we're discussing this is because of what SHE said about dying. So the question is whether she is to be believed. If she is, then all of the examples you just mentioned would be "real" deaths, because she *said* they were. But if she isn't to be believed, then they weren't. So if she is telling the truth, then she died all of those times that she said she did, regardless of whether it logically makes sense or not.
Not all, the fall into the cat litter would not have been a fatal fall, and she clearly said 'saved by'... I take that to mean she was saved from dying, as in she didn't die, because had she simply used one of her nine lives, the kitty litter would not have played a part in saving her, and no need for her to have said she had been saved by it, so I don't think that was actually one of her nine lives gone...
To be clear, I am saying that *IF* we are accepting her *claims* about dying as true, then any *claim* she makes about dying would be "real". It has been a while since I've seen that movie and I don't remember all of her comments, but if she did *not* claim that as a death, then what I am saying would not apply to that situation.
Re: Burton's Catwoman... I always took it that the actions of the cats resurrected her. However, I'm less than sold on the nine lives idea... When she goes off the roof, she clearly says "Saved by kitty-litter..." That suggests that she didn't actually 'lose a life' in that instance... When she took out Shrek at the end, yes, he shot her a few times, but, it's open to suggestion that the injuries were not fatal, although certainly affected her, as when she kept coming for him, she was clearly inconvenienced by the wounds, rather than actually dying and using up a life... Immortality's a funny game, and the rules can be different, but with regards the roof incident, I'd say the evidence is that it wasn't a fatal fall, so shouldn't have counted as a 'lost life'... IMHO...
You make an interesting point. The whole reason we're discussing this is because of what SHE said about dying. So the question is whether she is to be believed. If she is, then all of the examples you just mentioned would be "real" deaths, because she *said* they were. But if she isn't to be believed, then they weren't. So if she is telling the truth, then she died all of those times that she said she did, regardless of whether it logically makes sense or not.
Not all, the fall into the cat litter would not have been a fatal fall, and she clearly said 'saved by'... I take that to mean she was saved from dying, as in she didn't die, because had she simply used one of her nine lives, the kitty litter would not have played a part in saving her, and no need for her to have said she had been saved by it, so I don't think that was actually one of her nine lives gone...
To be clear, I am saying that *IF* we are accepting her *claims* about dying as true, then any *claim* she makes about dying would be "real". It has been a while since I've seen that movie and I don't remember all of her comments, but if she did *not* claim that as a death, then what I am saying would not apply to that situation.
Another example, might be illustrated in Enter the Dragon, when Han puts his cat on the guillotine. Roper picks it up, tells it it has eight more, then sets it loose... It didn't *actually* lose a life, but it would have got lucky (had the guillotine not then been shown to be a rigged fake...)
Arguably, she did survive the electrocution, so maybe something was going on, but as mentioned, that specific situation with the kitty litter, nope, I don't think that would have 'cost her a life', and she acknowledged that
Still, at least in the comics, Batman does encounter the supernatural on a fairly regular basis,
I'm sorry if you still do not understand what I asked, but once again, I was *NOT* asking about the comic universe. As a comic fan, I am well aware of all the supernatural things in the DCU. But I specifically asked if you saw anything in Batman 1 or Batman Returns that made you think there were supernatural things going on in the world those movies take place in. I mean, the Joker *died* in Batman 1. It is clear that is *not* the same world as the comics, where the Joker kills Robin 2 and shoots Batgirl, because the movie Joker doesn't even live long enough for there to BE at Robin or Batgirl. That being the case, the movie is obviously taking place in a separate world/universe from the comics. So yes, I am fully aware of the supernatural elements of the DCU comics, and that has nothing to do with what I actually asked. So again, sorry if my question was not clear enough.
Still, at least in the comics, Batman does encounter the supernatural on a fairly regular basis,
I'm sorry if you still do not understand what I asked, but once again, I was *NOT* asking about the comic universe. As a comic fan, I am well aware of all the supernatural things in the DCU. But I specifically asked if you saw anything in Batman 1 or Batman Returns that made you think there were supernatural things going on in the world those movies take place in. I mean, the Joker *died* in Batman 1. It is clear that is *not* the same world as the comics, where the Joker kills Robin 2 and shoots Batgirl, because the movie Joker doesn't even live long enough for there to BE at Robin or Batgirl. That being the case, the movie is obviously taking place in a separate world/universe from the comics. So yes, I am fully aware of the supernatural elements of the DCU comics, and that has nothing to do with what I actually asked. So again, sorry if my question was not clear enough.
Only Catwoman's resurrection... It *might* have been suggested that the cats stomping over her acted like CPR and got her restarted, rather than anything 'supernatural' per se, but equally it might have been one of those moments of Divine Intervention, or like Connor's first death triggering the Quickening in Highlander, but that would be the only instance I can think of... The behaviour of the penguins could be interpreted as the flock seeing him as their Alpha, although I believe they were also being artificially controlled when he had them as mobile bombs, as Batman reversed the signal and returned them to Penguin's lair, which would bely the idea that they were actually trained, but being controlled all along...
Only Catwoman's resurrection... It *might* have been suggested that the cats stomping over her acted like CPR and got her restarted, rather than anything 'supernatural' per se,
IMO, Catwoman did not actually die from that fall. They specifically showed her fall through half a dozen canopies to slow her down. If they wanted to truly portray a death, I'm not sure why they would have done that. That said, I agree with what @azrael605 said earlier about her surviving the 'kiss of death'. Something seems supernatural about her surviving that, IMO. Especially considering she had just been shot several times.
IMO, Catwoman did not actually die from that fall. They specifically showed her fall through half a dozen canopies to slow her down.
Yes, it's possible that she was just knocked out, and the trampling of the cats, and them nipping at her fingers just woke her up. Although, I would have thought that a fall like that would have broken a few bones/ruptured a few organs, so in that regard, yes, more plausible that a Quickening-type effect was at work, because for the remainder of the film, she was walking around and moving without any ill-effects or broken limbs grating as she walked...
That said, I agree with what @azrael605 said earlier about her surviving the 'kiss of death'. Something seems supernatural about her surviving that, IMO. Especially considering she had just been shot several times.
Yes, that was definitely something otherworldly... The gunshots are a bit more ambiguous and contradictory... Batman, who was wearing armor, was literally put on the floor... Catwoman, while doubled up by one of the shots, and clearly inconvenienced/slightly incapacitated by them, still kept going... So that shows the same gun producing two different results... aa shot powerful enough to drop an armoured man, would definitely drop an un-armored women... But none of the hits actually put her down. Doubled her over, yes, clearly caused injury which slowed her down, but nothing instantly fatal... I think it's one of those scenes which, without suspending disbelief, becomes more and more contradictory, and makes less and less sense...
Just saw an article a few minutes ago where they said that the sources at Warners have denied those claims. But numerically they have fewer films scheduled for the next few years than they do this year, this schedule is not a new thing though.
Oddly, I saw an article saying they had added 2 new untitled DC films to their schedule.
Honestly I like the look Gadot has as WW so I'd see it for that alone.
WW generally does not look like a body builder, athlete yes, but not body builder. *points at Lynda Carter*.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I myself have no desire to see the movie OTHER THAN to see Gadot as WW.
I grew up, with Lynda Carter's WW, she owned that role, and I was quite the fan. Boy I had such a crush !
Lynda's left a pretty big bustier to fill, I can't wait to see how well Gadot does.
Finally saw it yesterday
What a dreary movie in both design and mood.
Not something I'll watch again.
I go to the movies to forget about how ugly the world can be, don't want to come out feeling more depressed than beforehand.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I go to the movies to forget about how ugly the world can be, don't want to come out feeling more depressed than beforehand.
I understand that sentiment. However, it also precludes some truly excellent movies like "Mystic River". Definitely not a happy movie, but also one of the best movies I have ever seen.
After a disappointing weekend that saw it lose to a horrible Melissa McCarthy comedy in only its third week of release, Batman vs. Superman looks poised for a total domestic run between $325 and $340 million. That’s below Deadpool, Furious 7 and even American Sniper and certainly not what Warner Bros. had hoped for their big (and expensive) movie. Current projections indicate that Batman vs. Superman won’t turn a profit when all is said and done. Hoping to inch closer to profitability, Warner Bros. is reportedly mulling the idea of releasing Zack Snyder’s extended, R-rated cut of Batman vs. Superman directly to theaters.
After a disappointing weekend that saw it lose to a horrible Melissa McCarthy comedy in only its third week of release, Batman vs. Superman looks poised for a total domestic run between $325 and $340 million. That’s below Deadpool, Furious 7 and even American Sniper and certainly not what Warner Bros. had hoped for their big (and expensive) movie. Current projections indicate that Batman vs. Superman won’t turn a profit when all is said and done. Hoping to inch closer to profitability, Warner Bros. is reportedly mulling the idea of releasing Zack Snyder’s extended, R-rated cut of Batman vs. Superman directly to theaters.
Is it safe to officially recognize Batman vs Superman as 'dogshit' yet?
You can call it anything you want. That is the great thing about a subjective opinion: you are no more right or wrong than anyone else. That said, there are 3 fairly OBjective ways to "measure" a movie:
1) critical reviews/scores
2) audience reviews/scores
3) box office
The critics' obviously hate this movie. No disagreement there. The audience reviews/scores have not been AS bad as the critics, but even they are getting below the 70% mark now:
Finally, it seems the movie is making less money than expected. So on all 3 accounts, purely from an objective perspective, the movie is definitely a disappointment.
Does that make it "dogshit"? If you think so, that's fine. Someone else probably thinks your favorite movie is "dogshit" too, and they are just as subjectively right as you are.
After a disappointing weekend that saw it lose to a horrible Melissa McCarthy comedy in only its third week of release, Batman vs. Superman looks poised for a total domestic run between $325 and $340 million. That’s below Deadpool, Furious 7 and even American Sniper and certainly not what Warner Bros. had hoped for their big (and expensive) movie. Current projections indicate that Batman vs. Superman won’t turn a profit when all is said and done. Hoping to inch closer to profitability, Warner Bros. is reportedly mulling the idea of releasing Zack Snyder’s extended, R-rated cut of Batman vs. Superman directly to theaters.
Is it safe to officially recognize Batman vs Superman as 'dogshit' yet?
You can call it anything you want. That is the great thing about a subjective opinion: you are no more right or wrong than anyone else. That said, there are 3 fairly OBjective ways to "measure" a movie:
1) critical reviews/scores
2) audience reviews/scores
3) box office
The critics' obviously hate this movie. No disagreement there. The audience reviews/scores have not been AS bad as the critics, but even they are getting below the 70% mark now:
Finally, it seems the movie is making less money than expected. So on all 3 accounts, purely from an objective perspective, the movie is definitely a disappointment.
Does that make it "dogshit"? If you think so, that's fine. Someone else probably thinks your favorite movie is "dogshit" too, and they are just as subjectively right as you are.
Safe enough to say 'failure'?
It looks like a fair few other people think so too
And anyone who doesn't like Stickmen can go TRIBBLE themselves! ( ) It's pretty much a flawless movie... Good plot, good acting, good dialogue, good soundtrack, good humor, good timing... On a measurable scale, it pretty much ticks all the boxes
Comments
You make an interesting point. The whole reason we're discussing this is because of what SHE said about dying. So the question is whether she is to be believed. If she is, then all of the examples you just mentioned would be "real" deaths, because she *said* they were. But if she isn't to be believed, then they weren't. So if she is telling the truth, then she died all of those times that she said she did, regardless of whether it logically makes sense or not.
Now *that* is probably the only thing that legitimately seems supernatural, I'll give you that. Even her original "death" being pushed off the building showed her fall through half a dozen canopies that slowed her fall. But surviving the "kiss of death" definitely seems to have something supernatural behind it. That is definitely a fair point.
As far as the Catwoman movie you keep mentioning, I think it is pretty clear that regardless of what might have been the original intent when it was first being pitched, by the time it actually came out over a decade later it was in a different "universe" than the Burton movies, so there is no direct connection between what "powers" the Burton Catwoman had vs the Berry one. Even though I didn't see it, didn't the Berry Catwoman have some kind of Egyptian stuff going on?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
To be clear, I am saying that *IF* we are accepting her *claims* about dying as true, then any *claim* she makes about dying would be "real". It has been a while since I've seen that movie and I don't remember all of her comments, but if she did *not* claim that as a death, then what I am saying would not apply to that situation.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Another example, might be illustrated in Enter the Dragon, when Han puts his cat on the guillotine. Roper picks it up, tells it it has eight more, then sets it loose... It didn't *actually* lose a life, but it would have got lucky (had the guillotine not then been shown to be a rigged fake...)
Arguably, she did survive the electrocution, so maybe something was going on, but as mentioned, that specific situation with the kitty litter, nope, I don't think that would have 'cost her a life', and she acknowledged that
I'm sorry if you still do not understand what I asked, but once again, I was *NOT* asking about the comic universe. As a comic fan, I am well aware of all the supernatural things in the DCU. But I specifically asked if you saw anything in Batman 1 or Batman Returns that made you think there were supernatural things going on in the world those movies take place in. I mean, the Joker *died* in Batman 1. It is clear that is *not* the same world as the comics, where the Joker kills Robin 2 and shoots Batgirl, because the movie Joker doesn't even live long enough for there to BE at Robin or Batgirl. That being the case, the movie is obviously taking place in a separate world/universe from the comics. So yes, I am fully aware of the supernatural elements of the DCU comics, and that has nothing to do with what I actually asked. So again, sorry if my question was not clear enough.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
IMO, Catwoman did not actually die from that fall. They specifically showed her fall through half a dozen canopies to slow her down. If they wanted to truly portray a death, I'm not sure why they would have done that. That said, I agree with what @azrael605 said earlier about her surviving the 'kiss of death'. Something seems supernatural about her surviving that, IMO. Especially considering she had just been shot several times.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yes, that was definitely something otherworldly... The gunshots are a bit more ambiguous and contradictory... Batman, who was wearing armor, was literally put on the floor... Catwoman, while doubled up by one of the shots, and clearly inconvenienced/slightly incapacitated by them, still kept going... So that shows the same gun producing two different results... aa shot powerful enough to drop an armoured man, would definitely drop an un-armored women... But none of the hits actually put her down. Doubled her over, yes, clearly caused injury which slowed her down, but nothing instantly fatal... I think it's one of those scenes which, without suspending disbelief, becomes more and more contradictory, and makes less and less sense...
Oddly, I saw an article saying they had added 2 new untitled DC films to their schedule.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I agree wholeheartedly.
I myself have no desire to see the movie OTHER THAN to see Gadot as WW.
I grew up, with Lynda Carter's WW, she owned that role, and I was quite the fan. Boy I had such a crush !
Lynda's left a pretty big bustier to fill, I can't wait to see how well Gadot does.
http://www.smodcast.com/channel/fatmanonbatman?audio=120
The first host discusses it solo until Kevin takes over at 8:25 for the rest of the show. I agree with his take, both the good and the bad.
Warning, very graphic language.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
What a dreary movie in both design and mood.
Not something I'll watch again.
I go to the movies to forget about how ugly the world can be, don't want to come out feeling more depressed than beforehand.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I understand that sentiment. However, it also precludes some truly excellent movies like "Mystic River". Definitely not a happy movie, but also one of the best movies I have ever seen.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
You can call it anything you want. That is the great thing about a subjective opinion: you are no more right or wrong than anyone else. That said, there are 3 fairly OBjective ways to "measure" a movie:
1) critical reviews/scores
2) audience reviews/scores
3) box office
The critics' obviously hate this movie. No disagreement there. The audience reviews/scores have not been AS bad as the critics, but even they are getting below the 70% mark now:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/
Finally, it seems the movie is making less money than expected. So on all 3 accounts, purely from an objective perspective, the movie is definitely a disappointment.
Does that make it "dogshit"? If you think so, that's fine. Someone else probably thinks your favorite movie is "dogshit" too, and they are just as subjectively right as you are.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Safe enough to say 'failure'?
It looks like a fair few other people think so too
And anyone who doesn't like Stickmen can go TRIBBLE themselves! (