Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> Small Screen >> RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 5/1/2013 6:12:34 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Super Hans

I watched it on iPlayer last night, never seen any of Charlie Brooker's TV output before (read one of his books though, and have another to go on my shelf). Very funny!

The bit that made me laugh the most was the segment on the Leveson enquiry - pretty much summed up why the whole thing grated on me and just seemed like a vain,red carpet affair for a truckload of celebs to moan about the press! Suggesting that Chris Jeffries should be grateful to the press for pointing out how weird his har looked was the icing on the cake!

The TDKR thing made me chuckle - he's obviously had the desired effect by hacking off all the uber-fans. I like those films as much as anyone, but yeah, ultimately they're very, very good superhero films - not high art, all timecinematic classics. Comparing the ending to the "somedays you just can't get rid of a bomb" scene in the Adam West film was a good one.

Hard not to agree that not one person involved with Entertainment Tonight didn't seem to realise that the sinking of the Titanic was, in fact, a real event in history is pretty appalling and fightening!




No not high art, but I think in terms of blockbuster cinema they stand alongside films like the matrix, Jaws, Back to the future etc... Stuff like that.

(in reply to Super Hans)
Post #: 211
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 5/1/2013 8:03:09 PM   
Rebenectomy


Posts: 5629
Joined: 20/1/2008
From: 10-0-11-0-0 by 0-2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Super Hans
Comparing the ending to the "somedays you just can't get rid of a bomb" scene in the Adam West film was a good one.



I was watching A Matter of Loaf and Death the other night and Wallace and Gromit had their own tribute to 'can't get rid of a bomb' in there. Even had the ducks.

As for TDKR bit, it wasn't ill informed (to me that implies some factual inaccuracy), it was just a critic having an opinion (and a slightly tongue in cheek one at that), and is hardly worth dragging the subject into what is now two threads.


_____________________________

Body Hair Beautiful: An Armpits for August Special
http://www.lipstogetherandblow.com/2013/07/body-beautiful.html

(in reply to Super Hans)
Post #: 212
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 5/1/2013 8:14:08 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Super Hans
Comparing the ending to the "somedays you just can't get rid of a bomb" scene in the Adam West film was a good one.



I was watching A Matter of Loaf and Death the other night and Wallace and Gromit had their own tribute to 'can't get rid of a bomb' in there. Even had the ducks.

As for TDKR bit, it wasn't ill informed (to me that implies some factual inaccuracy), it was just a critic having an opinion (and a slightly tongue in cheek one at that), and is hardly worth dragging the subject into what is now two threads.



He said that DKR was ridiculous for being dark. Many Batman stories have been dark, fact. That is innacuracy. He was ill informed.

(in reply to Rebenectomy)
Post #: 213
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 2:41:21 PM   
Rebenectomy


Posts: 5629
Joined: 20/1/2008
From: 10-0-11-0-0 by 0-2
quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

He said that DKR was ridiculous for being dark.


Erm, no, he didn't. Not once does he use the word ridiculous.In fact he barely attacks it all for it's dark overtones, the majority of the segment (a whopping 1minute 45 seconds in an aprox 1 hour show I might add) is more about the pretentiousness of those people who try to attach far more gravity to the film than it warrants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjQxWapQ4tw


< Message edited by Rebenectomy -- 6/1/2013 2:42:53 PM >


_____________________________

Body Hair Beautiful: An Armpits for August Special
http://www.lipstogetherandblow.com/2013/07/body-beautiful.html

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 214
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 3:00:34 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

He said that DKR was ridiculous for being dark.


Erm, no, he didn't. Not once does he use the word ridiculous.In fact he barely attacks it all for it's dark overtones, the majority of the segment (a whopping 1minute 45 seconds in an aprox 1 hour show I might add) is more about the pretentiousness of those people who try to attach far more gravity to the film than it warrants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjQxWapQ4tw



It doesn't matter how much time he spends on it. And he doesn't say the actual word ridiculous but "The Dark Knight Rises is a superhero film for people who like to think they're watching the seventh seal even though what they're watching is a childrens film about a childrens character who hits people in the face" and "It's no more intellectually nourishing than the 1966 batman movie which was camp and loopy and fun and never once mistook itself for ingmar bergman's from the life of the marionettes"

Those two statements are making fun of the film because he believes it's trying to be higher art and that Batman is something for kids and therefore should be camp and loopy and things generally associated with kids films. That, coupled with the blue patriarch 'joke' means he obviously thinks the films are ridiculous for being something he believes they have no reason being (even though Batman has been dark which leads me to the ill informed part of my argument"

Also, him saying the batman films should be for kids then going back to the twitter posts where he said why would he watch avengers, he's not a child means he's not even interested in the films in the first place. He's hating for the sake of hating and generally being a bit of a twat.

(in reply to Rebenectomy)
Post #: 215
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 3:47:07 PM   
Rhubarb


Posts: 24507
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home
I'm amazed that people still bite as his trolling. Oh no wait, Batman fans. Nevermind.

_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.



(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 216
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 3:55:18 PM   
rikkie


Posts: 4660
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ego Tripping At The Gates Of Hell

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

I'm amazed that people still bite as his trolling. Oh no wait, Batman fans. Nevermind.


+1!

Po-faced humourless indignation against satire is worthy of the Daily Mail readership.

_____________________________

Oh no, not the bees! Not the bees! Ahhhhhh! All over my eyes! Eyes! Blaaaarghhh!

(in reply to Rhubarb)
Post #: 217
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 4:20:11 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012
It's more to do with the fact that he was hating for the sake of hating. Which annoyed me because he used to make fun of things which deserved mocking, which I felt let down by when he decided to make fun of something just because. And i'm a fan of avengers as much as i am of batman so dont try and paint me as some nolan fanboy.

(in reply to rikkie)
Post #: 218
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 4:22:10 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23659
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

It's more to do with the fact that he was hating for the sake of hating. Which annoyed me because he used to make fun of things which deserved mocking, which I felt let down by when he decided to make fun of something just because. And i'm a fan of avengers as much as i am of batman so dont try and paint me as some nolan fanboy.


b-but Nolan's Batman movies *do* deserve to be mocked.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 219
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 4:52:45 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4259
Joined: 5/2/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

It's more to do with the fact that he was hating for the sake of hating. Which annoyed me because he used to make fun of things which deserved mocking, which I felt let down by when he decided to make fun of something just because. And i'm a fan of avengers as much as i am of batman so dont try and paint me as some nolan fanboy.


b-but Nolan's Batman movies *do* deserve to be mocked.

why?

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 220
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 4:56:33 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
Why not?

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 221
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 5:06:19 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
One of my most controversial, possibly silly and tiresome arguments on this forum was on Batman Begins and how ridiculous, even in the setting Nolan presents, the League of Shadows seem in context of that world, something about the ideology and the way the group functions just seems unbelievable and ridiculous, especially Ras mentions that they sacked Rome, unleashed the Black Plague and started the great London Fire. It's only a step away from an Illuminati organtization that is resposible for every bad thing that has happened in the world lead by a guy who doesn't in any way look or even remotely gives the impression of anything Arabic whose name is Demon's Head (not a problem, Ras travelled all over the world and shit and had to hide his identity, but anyways HIS NAME IS DEMON'S HEAD), "Every great European or Western tragedy? IT WAS US!!!! We also helped create what is now referred as the Colombian Exchange and caused the absolute apocalypse that was that exchange for the American natives and told the Mongols to sack, burn and rape Baghdad too!!!!!" I still find them silly, so I kinda sympathize with the Brooker but not totally agree.

And why does Ra's have an apostrophe? There's no need for it. This is the sort of shit that takes me out of a movie damnit.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 6/1/2013 5:21:35 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 222
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 5:26:34 PM   
Rhubarb


Posts: 24507
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home
quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

Why not?



Exactly. This modern trend of people not being able to take any critisism of things they like does my head in. It manifests itself most in things that I like - big blockbusters and pop music - and especially in the latter with this endless Team Breezy, Belieber, Little Monster nonsense, where certain acts are utterly above critisism. I love Lady Gaga but you know, I can see she's ridiculous and can have jokes made about her in my presence without flipping out entirely.

_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.



(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 223
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 5:28:10 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Yeah, but that's stupid Rhub. The internet operates on complete devotion or total hatred.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Rhubarb)
Post #: 224
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 5:31:32 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23659
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
My problem isn't that they tried to make serious and realistic Batman movies, but because they failed fairly miserably. Batman Begins is the most successful film in the series for me because tonally it's much more consistent than what came later. It might have the ostensibly 'realistic' gadgets and stuff, but it's no more grounded in reality than your average Bond movie, and the fantastical elements (the ninjas, the psychotropic gas etc) are introduced early and handled respectfully. on the other hand, The Dark Knight is the worst for this because it has its cake and eats it - personally, the tone it's aiming for (ie the riffing on Heat in an attempt to *not* be a superhero movie) just comes off as contemptuous towards its source material, and the use of concepts that don't work in a non-superhero movie just work counter to the film's overall tone. The most obvious example is the whole Two-Face plot in the final third, which leaves the film stuck between the apparently 'realistic' film they wanted to make and the hyperreal source material (that BB actually gets right). A successful realistic Batman movie would have to be something like a straight remake of Miller's Year One, or that planned Aronofsky version. I actually prefer TDKR to TDK because while it's regularly quite silly, it's tonally more coherent than TDK is on a fundamental level.

All of this isn't to say that I hate the movies or anything - I could probably watch all of them again and enjoy them - but they're the least satisfying films of Nolan's career for me (BB excluded, it'd be about fourth/fifth in my rankings).

< Message edited by Olaf -- 6/1/2013 5:32:18 PM >


_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 225
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 5:42:27 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18002
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
When did this become the Batman thread?

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 226
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 5:44:19 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23659
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

When did this become the Batman thread?


Charlie Brooker mentioned the Batman movies in his 2012 Wipe special last week.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 227
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 5:53:17 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
We need this because the TDKR Favorite Film thread was transformed into a Kevin Smith thread and I am in no way responsible for that.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 228
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 6:05:39 PM   
Rhubarb


Posts: 24507
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home
quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

When did this become the Batman thread?


WOOP WOOP (that's the sound of the thread police)

_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.



(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 229
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 6:08:00 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4259
Joined: 5/2/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

My problem isn't that they tried to make serious and realistic Batman movies, but because they failed fairly miserably. Batman Begins is the most successful film in the series for me because tonally it's much more consistent than what came later. It might have the ostensibly 'realistic' gadgets and stuff, but it's no more grounded in reality than your average Bond movie, and the fantastical elements (the ninjas, the psychotropic gas etc) are introduced early and handled respectfully. on the other hand, The Dark Knight is the worst for this because it has its cake and eats it - personally, the tone it's aiming for (ie the riffing on Heat in an attempt to *not* be a superhero movie) just comes off as contemptuous towards its source material, and the use of concepts that don't work in a non-superhero movie just work counter to the film's overall tone. The most obvious example is the whole Two-Face plot in the final third, which leaves the film stuck between the apparently 'realistic' film they wanted to make and the hyperreal source material (that BB actually gets right). A successful realistic Batman movie would have to be something like a straight remake of Miller's Year One, or that planned Aronofsky version. I actually prefer TDKR to TDK because while it's regularly quite silly, it's tonally more coherent than TDK is on a fundamental level.

All of this isn't to say that I hate the movies or anything - I could probably watch all of them again and enjoy them - but they're the least satisfying films of Nolan's career for me (BB excluded, it'd be about fourth/fifth in my rankings).


Yeah,TDK still doesn't hold right with me,although it has its moments.
TDKR,as you say,was silly but it was knowingly,to a degree.

So is Brooker doing a Screenwipe or Newswipe.....or Gameswipe?

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 230
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 6:13:01 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012
I know the films are of fantasy (albeit with a more realistic approach) so it comes with some ridiculous aspects but Brooker's criticism of the films was as i've mentioned many times ill informed. He had an image of how Batman should be and because it didn't try to be that image then he mocked it. It wasn't criticism he was just hating to make a joke. I used to like Brooker because he rightfully critiqued things for a reason, not just because he saw something that was current and thought oh i'll slate that.
And I was pulling up the fact that when given a film which had none of those criticisms (Avengers) he mocked that film aswell.

And I can take criticism, i've had many conversations with people about things they liked and didn't like and i've not said stuff like "fuck you" if i disagreed with them. As i've said before I don't think they're high art, I think they're very good in terms of blockbuster films and they rank up near the top. If he slated Raiders of the Lost Ark for a reason that was ill informed then everyone else would be saying stuff like 'why'd he say that?'.

And i'm sorry Olaf but I disagree with you, I think they're entirely successful at what they do. They capture the spirit of the comics and character while at the same time given a new interpretation not seen on film before. I don't see it as contemptuous. I just see it as out of all of the batman villains The Joker is the easiest to make him seem grounded. Okay, he didn't have his laughing gas but he is essentially a serial killer dressed up as a clown. If you look at other parts of the film before two face section then you will see that Bruce saving Rachel in mid air and not crashing to his death or Bruce going to Hong Kong to capture Lau and picked up by a plane while hes in a skyscraper are all equally ridiculous and are on the same Bond film level or realism. It's just the the tone and the influence (Heat) may have made it seem like they were trying to distance themselves from the comic books but really they're are completely trying to be like the comics (the joker dressing up in disguises was taken straight from his first appearance in a batman comic)

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 231
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 6:13:44 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

My problem isn't that they tried to make serious and realistic Batman movies, but because they failed fairly miserably. Batman Begins is the most successful film in the series for me because tonally it's much more consistent than what came later. It might have the ostensibly 'realistic' gadgets and stuff, but it's no more grounded in reality than your average Bond movie, and the fantastical elements (the ninjas, the psychotropic gas etc) are introduced early and handled respectfully. on the other hand, The Dark Knight is the worst for this because it has its cake and eats it - personally, the tone it's aiming for (ie the riffing on Heat in an attempt to *not* be a superhero movie) just comes off as contemptuous towards its source material, and the use of concepts that don't work in a non-superhero movie just work counter to the film's overall tone. The most obvious example is the whole Two-Face plot in the final third, which leaves the film stuck between the apparently 'realistic' film they wanted to make and the hyperreal source material (that BB actually gets right). A successful realistic Batman movie would have to be something like a straight remake of Miller's Year One, or that planned Aronofsky version. I actually prefer TDKR to TDK because while it's regularly quite silly, it's tonally more coherent than TDK is on a fundamental level.

All of this isn't to say that I hate the movies or anything - I could probably watch all of them again and enjoy them - but they're the least satisfying films of Nolan's career for me (BB excluded, it'd be about fourth/fifth in my rankings).


Yeah,TDK still doesn't hold right with me,although it has its moments.
TDKR,as you say,was silly but it was knowingly,to a degree.

So is Brooker doing a Screenwipe or Newswipe.....or Gameswipe?


I think it's newswipe.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 232
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 6:17:58 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4259
Joined: 5/2/2012
I prefer Newswipe to be honest.
Screenwipe maybe more entertaining but Newswipe gets Brooker more wound-up

Is he ever going to do another gameswipe?
C'mon Brooker.

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 233
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 6:18:18 PM   
Rhubarb


Posts: 24507
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home
quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I know the films are of fantasy (albeit with a more realistic approach) so it comes with some ridiculous aspects but Brooker's criticism of the films was as i've mentioned many times ill informed. He had an image of how Batman should be and because it didn't try to be that image then he mocked it. It wasn't criticism he was just hating to make a joke. I used to like Brooker because he rightfully critiqued things for a reason, not just because he saw something that was current and thought oh i'll slate that.


Again though he wasn't critisising the films so much as the general attitude that they should be taken more seriously than they are (which you are proving is worth sending up). He even said it wasn't bad, and was as entertaining (So not saying one was significantly better than the other) as the 66 Batman. Just because you disagree with his target doesn't make it an illegitimate target

_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.



(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 234
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 6:25:08 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I know the films are of fantasy (albeit with a more realistic approach) so it comes with some ridiculous aspects but Brooker's criticism of the films was as i've mentioned many times ill informed. He had an image of how Batman should be and because it didn't try to be that image then he mocked it. It wasn't criticism he was just hating to make a joke. I used to like Brooker because he rightfully critiqued things for a reason, not just because he saw something that was current and thought oh i'll slate that.


Again though he wasn't critisising the films so much as the general attitude that they should be taken more seriously than they are (which you are proving is worth sending up). He even said it wasn't bad, and was as entertaining (So not saying one was significantly better than the other) as the 66 Batman. Just because you disagree with his target doesn't make it an illegitimate target


How am I proving it, i've only in my last post said they contain ridiculous elements and are not high art. My beef is not with if he likes the films but the fact that he's saying something which wasn't based on a valid criticism but just something popular he decided to take the piss out of. Olaf said the films weren't all that great, What did I say to him? Did I say that they're amazing pieces of art and they should be taken seriously? No, I simply wrote a reply in which i said i disagreed with him, i wasn't pissed at him and then gave my reasons like we do on this forum,
I know they're are comic book films and I said earlier that I believe he's making fun of the actual films itself. Not the audience.

And he said that they were no less intellectually stimulating than the 66 film whereas I would disagree because they have better written characters and better stories, ergo more intellectually stimulating.

< Message edited by giggity -- 6/1/2013 6:26:32 PM >

(in reply to Rhubarb)
Post #: 235
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 6:55:15 PM   
Rhubarb


Posts: 24507
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home
I think it is a valid critisim to say that they take themselves too seriously and so do some fans, though.

_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.



(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 236
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 7:11:50 PM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4258
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

How am I proving it, i've only in my last post said they contain ridiculous elements and are not high art. My beef is not with if he likes the films but the fact that he's saying something which wasn't based on a valid criticism but just something popular he decided to take the piss out of. Olaf said the films weren't all that great, What did I say to him? Did I say that they're amazing pieces of art and they should be taken seriously? No, I simply wrote a reply in which i said i disagreed with him, i wasn't pissed at him and then gave my reasons like we do on this forum,
I know they're are comic book films and I said earlier that I believe he's making fun of the actual films itself. Not the audience.

And he said that they were no less intellectually stimulating than the 66 film whereas I would disagree because they have better written characters and better stories, ergo more intellectually stimulating.



You say it yourself. Brooker was taking the piss - nothing more that that. Nothing to get worked up or upset about, why so serious?

< Message edited by Scruffybobby -- 6/1/2013 7:14:39 PM >


_____________________________

I want to taste you like yogurt.

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 237
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 7:12:53 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

I think it is a valid critisim to say that they take themselves too seriously and so do some fans, though.


I meant the 'it's only for kids' and that Batman in the past has been serious and brooding aswell as camp and goofy and someone like Brooker must know that but I believe he chose to ignore that just to make a joke to the general viewing audience who didn't care or he's just ignorant of what he's actually critiquing. That was the part which was not valid.

(in reply to Rhubarb)
Post #: 238
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 7:18:57 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby


quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

How am I proving it, i've only in my last post said they contain ridiculous elements and are not high art. My beef is not with if he likes the films but the fact that he's saying something which wasn't based on a valid criticism but just something popular he decided to take the piss out of. Olaf said the films weren't all that great, What did I say to him? Did I say that they're amazing pieces of art and they should be taken seriously? No, I simply wrote a reply in which i said i disagreed with him, i wasn't pissed at him and then gave my reasons like we do on this forum,
I know they're are comic book films and I said earlier that I believe he's making fun of the actual films itself. Not the audience.

And he said that they were no less intellectually stimulating than the 66 film whereas I would disagree because they have better written characters and better stories, ergo more intellectually stimulating.



You say it yourself. He was taking the piss - nothing more that that. Nothing to get worked up or upset about, why so serious?


It just annoyed me cos I saw Brooker as a guy who was on tele who genuinely talked about the things which bothered him and were wrong with Media today and have opinions which were well researched and informative but also humorous. And then he says stuff about this years comic book movies which was just to take the piss and to make a joke out of something current. With that, he's just an above average comedian who has a tv show and is just a part of the media machine that he so frequently criticises. I just thought he was above that and it made me a bit disappointed in him as a fan.

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 239
RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead - 6/1/2013 7:23:24 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby


quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

How am I proving it, i've only in my last post said they contain ridiculous elements and are not high art. My beef is not with if he likes the films but the fact that he's saying something which wasn't based on a valid criticism but just something popular he decided to take the piss out of. Olaf said the films weren't all that great, What did I say to him? Did I say that they're amazing pieces of art and they should be taken seriously? No, I simply wrote a reply in which i said i disagreed with him, i wasn't pissed at him and then gave my reasons like we do on this forum,
I know they're are comic book films and I said earlier that I believe he's making fun of the actual films itself. Not the audience.

And he said that they were no less intellectually stimulating than the 66 film whereas I would disagree because they have better written characters and better stories, ergo more intellectually stimulating.



You say it yourself. He was taking the piss - nothing more that that. Nothing to get worked up or upset about, why so serious?


It just annoyed me cos I saw Brooker as a guy who was on tele who genuinely talked about the things which bothered him and were wrong with Media today and have opinions which were well researched and informative but also humorous. And then he says stuff about this years comic book movies which was just to take the piss and to make a joke out of something current. With that, he's just an above average comedian who has a tv show and is just a part of the media machine that he so frequently criticises. I just thought he was above that and it made me a bit disappointed in him as a fan.


Why are you so sure that he's not genuinely bothered by all the superhero films? Maybe he does think that comic book adaptations are part of what's wrong with the media today.

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> Small Screen >> RE: Charlie Brookers Screen Wipe Appreciation Thead Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156