|
Post by gothamknight1992 on Mar 9, 2009 17:52:19 GMT -5
Batman Begins and Spider-Man: The Movie were very popular until the sequels came along then everybody said the middle trilogy films were better than part one.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Mar 31, 2009 6:43:08 GMT -5
I agree with you on the Batman films, I think "The Empire Strikes Back" is the best film of the original Star wars trilogy, but I think the Spiderman movies are quite lame to be honest
|
|
batjoke
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 114
|
Post by batjoke on Mar 31, 2009 14:06:41 GMT -5
I dont like the spiderman movies because all the villans die.
|
|
|
Post by gothamknight1992 on Mar 31, 2009 18:41:44 GMT -5
I dont like the spiderman movies because all the villans die. The Sandman didn't die.
|
|
mr. battastic
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Eat floor.... high fiber
Posts: 124
|
Post by mr. battastic on Mar 31, 2009 20:16:09 GMT -5
wat upset me wit the spider man films was the 3rd one. i liked one and two just fine but they had an awesome opportunity wit venom and crashed it into flames. only complaints wit the batman films is where they stress taking a life and he left Ras to die and then taking two face off a building wit him in tdk.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Apr 1, 2009 16:31:18 GMT -5
spider-man 2 was the best of that trilogy
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Apr 3, 2009 9:05:24 GMT -5
he left him to die but didnt take his life, 2 different things
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Apr 4, 2009 13:03:22 GMT -5
but he did take Two Face off the building in TDK, causing him to die. but i suppose that was acceptable because he saved the life of a child, and to do that he had to sacrifice Two Face.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Apr 6, 2009 9:19:03 GMT -5
but he did take Two Face off the building in TDK, causing him to die. but i suppose that was acceptable because he saved the life of a child, and to do that he had to sacrifice Two Face. I don't think Batman thought all of this through. He could have just as easily died himself. His sole intention was to save Gordon's son. Harvey's death was more of a side effect.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Apr 6, 2009 15:40:37 GMT -5
but he did take Two Face off the building in TDK, causing him to die. but i suppose that was acceptable because he saved the life of a child, and to do that he had to sacrifice Two Face. I don't think Batman thought all of this through. He could have just as easily died himself. His sole intention was to save Gordon's son. Harvey's death was more of a side effect. Plus we have to keep in mind that Bruce is still just starting out in this series.
|
|
mr. battastic
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Eat floor.... high fiber
Posts: 124
|
Post by mr. battastic on Apr 7, 2009 17:44:59 GMT -5
he left him to die but didnt take his life, 2 different things agreed, but does that not still go against wat he represents? i understand i might be picky but with the exception of the movies theres always a way batman can save both the villain and victim. and puts himself in more risk than letting someone die. again I'm nit picking the issue but in my opinion it feels against his character.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on May 22, 2009 4:57:53 GMT -5
Id say that Two-Face dying was more accidental as he was trying to save another life. It is against Batman rules but Im sure the saving of an innocent over a demented criminal is someting Batman can live with.
|
|
|
Post by doppelganger on May 23, 2009 15:53:24 GMT -5
wat upset me wit the spider man films was the 3rd one. i liked one and two just fine but they had an awesome opportunity wit venom and crashed it into flames. only complaints wit the batman films is where they stress taking a life and he left Ras to die and then taking two face off a building wit him in tdk. I side with everyone else that posted before me. Two-faces's death was accidental and the ending would have sucked if Batman rescued Ras!
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on May 24, 2009 18:39:30 GMT -5
he left him to die but didnt take his life, 2 different things agreed, but does that not still go against wat he represents? i understand i might be picky but with the exception of the movies theres always a way batman can save both the villain and victim. and puts himself in more risk than letting someone die. again I'm nit picking the issue but in my opinion it feels against his character. Ra's was waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too big of a liability. If he would have lived through that ordeal, he could easily kill Bruce or expose his secret or destroy Gotham. He easily could have found a way to save him, but it would have been the death of him.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Jun 2, 2009 9:46:08 GMT -5
that was the disappointing thing about the earlier Batman movies, all the villains seemed to die.
Am I wrong on this?
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 2, 2009 11:34:27 GMT -5
that was the disappointing thing about the earlier Batman movies, all the villains seemed to die. Am I wrong on this? No you're pretty much right. Penguin, Catwoman, Two-Face and even Joker died. I'm sorry, but you can't just kill the Joker! The Spidey movies are doing the same thing. When Goblin, Ock, and Harry died, I could accept that because they died in the comics, but I'm really mad that they killed Venom, even if he was done poorly in the film.
|
|