• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CBM: X-Men '97; Deadpool and Wolverine trailer

First, the device was created as an energy source and then converted into a bomb so it is logical that it would have already been "neutered" when compared to a bomb built with the initial intention of being a bomb. There's a chance that the casing could have also provided very minimal insulation.

Second, neutron bombs are designed to destroy by radiation, not by explosion. A four megaton bomb would have a blast radius (as far as destroying buildings) of less than 2 miles. Initial radiation would have been around 4 miles. Most of the initial barrage is due to ionized radiation, which can be dissipated by using depleted uranium armor plates. Those have been proven to protect humans against such detonations when used on tanks during the Cold War, so what's to say that such armor wasn't on the technologically superior Bat.

Third, it isn't any different than other logical inconsistencies because it's still just a fucking movie. Wayne recovered from a broken back in a couple of months and made his way from the Pit all the way back to Gotham in a day, with no money and no knowledge of exactly where he was. I can accept that because it's a movie. I can accept that he survived the neutron bomb because it's a Nolan movie and he has a history of leaving the audience going "Wait... how did...?"
 
PhilliesDeacs said:
Agreed on Magneto.

Sure, at the time, Nicholson's performance was lauded (though he wasn't nominated). Just like, at the time, the effects in the original Star Wars trilogy were state of the art. But you guys need to go back and rewatch that film. Nicholson is good, no doubt, but a) its a horrible movie and b) the only Nolan villain that Nicholson would probably beat out is Murphy's Scarecrow. Neeson, Ledger, Eckhart, Hardy, and Hathaway are all much more compelling.

Agree to disagree I suppose.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't consider Selina Kyle a villain in TDKR, and she shouldn't be considered one in the larger canon.

I just think context is important. BTAS, Frank Miller, and 1989 are the Giants whose shoulders hold up Nolan. I have a really high esteem for TDK, and the whole trilogy. 20 years from now, it will all still hold up.
 
For the record, I don't consider Tim Burton's Batman a horrible movie either. Nor do I hate the second one. I actually really like Batman Returns. Granted, I will admit I have not actually watched either in a while. Now if you want to bash Batman and Robin, we can talk. That is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. No lie.
 
RaleighDeacon said:
For the record, I don't consider Tim Burton's Batman a horrible movie either. Nor do I hate the second one. I actually really like Batman Returns. Granted, I will admit I have not actually watched either in a while. Now if you want to bash Batman and Robin, we can talk. That is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. No lie.
Click to expand...
I watched both of them last year and still enjoyed them. Certainly a more campy and comic-ish than Nolan's, but still well made movies. Ignoring the dated special effects (which really aren't terrible, but they are noticable) 1989 Batman is a great movie visually. But I agree B&R is just garbage.
 
Tim Burton > Schumaker

Burton gave us Gotham on screen. Every iteration of Batman since is indebted to 1989 for that.

Not to mention that Kim Basinger was a bombshell.
 
I think a lot of the love for Bane is really just love for Tom Hardy. He and Nolan made a pretty terrible character from the comics relevant, but to me he almost felt more like a backdrop or plot device than the force of nature that Joker was, the fallen white Knight of Dent, or the geopolitical puppeteer of R'as. Bane, I feel, was just too one dimensional.
 
Deadbolt said:
I think a lot of the love for Bane is really just love for Tom Hardy. He and Nolan made a pretty terrible character from the comics relevant, but to me he almost felt more like a backdrop or plot device than the force of nature that Joker was, the fallen white Knight of Dent, or the geopolitical puppeteer of R'as. Bane, I feel, was just too one dimensional.
Click to expand...

Like the character.
 
I'll agree with the people who say Burton's Batman's are really good movies. Batman Returns is a pretty fucked up movie.
 
The Stig said:
First, the device was created as an energy source and then converted into a bomb so it is logical that it would have already been "neutered" when compared to a bomb built with the initial intention of being a bomb. There's a chance that the casing could have also provided very minimal insulation.

Second, neutron bombs are designed to destroy by radiation, not by explosion. A four megaton bomb would have a blast radius (as far as destroying buildings) of less than 2 miles. Initial radiation would have been around 4 miles. Most of the initial barrage is due to ionized radiation, which can be dissipated by using depleted uranium armor plates. Those have been proven to protect humans against such detonations when used on tanks during the Cold War, so what's to say that such armor wasn't on the technologically superior Bat.

Third, it isn't any different than other logical inconsistencies because it's still just a fucking movie. Wayne recovered from a broken back in a couple of months and made his way from the Pit all the way back to Gotham in a day, with no money and no knowledge of exactly where he was. I can accept that because it's a movie. I can accept that he survived the neutron bomb because it's a Nolan movie and he has a history of leaving the audience going "Wait... how did...?"
Click to expand...

Ionizing radiation, EMP pulse and an explosion(There would still be a large explosion with a 4megaton bomb) would still have occurred within a mile of the weapon's detonation. Even if you say that the bat had special shielding, he still wasn't 2 miles away when the thing went off. I just have a hard time accepting the whole thing in an otherwise mostly believable Batman universe, especially with such an important plot point.
 
I hated Harvey Dent. Or rather, I hated Two-Face, the CGI face was just stupid. I hated that whole plot line. You could have taken the last 2 movies and easily made 3-4 movies out of them. Instead they wasted a decent plot line with two-face.
 
WakeFanatic said:
Batman Returns is a pretty fucked up movie.
Click to expand...
8951_1a89.gif
 
DeaconCav06 said:
I hated Harvey Dent. Or rather, I hated Two-Face, the CGI face was just stupid. I hated that whole plot line. You could have taken the last 2 movies and easily made 3-4 movies out of them. Instead they wasted a decent plot line with two-face.
Click to expand...

The plot line was basically the central theme of the whole trilogy, gave it symmetry and depth that most serials lack. Other than that, yeah pointless.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
The plot line was basically the central theme of the whole trilogy, gave it symmetry and depth that most serials lack. Other than that, yeah pointless.
Click to expand...

It was woefully underdeveloped and poorly done. I agree that it was the central theme of the series though.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
It was woefully underdeveloped and poorly done. I agree that it was the central theme of the series though.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree I guess. The closing scene with Gordon's family was so powerful the first time I saw it. Every character is a funhouse mirror for Wayne, representing what he could be. Dent represents the two paths that Wayne could have taken in response to grief. Ultimately the trilogy is about responsibility and making a choice. Dent is the embodiment of that more than any other character.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Agree to disagree I guess. The closing scene with Gordon's family was so powerful the first time I saw it. Every character is a funhouse mirror for Wayne, representing what he could be. Dent represents the two paths that Wayne could have taken in response to grief. Ultimately the trilogy is about responsibility and making a choice. Dent is the embodiment of that more than any other character.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you about this. I think the scene with Dent and Gordon's family is the most heartbreaking scene in the whole trilogy. The speech that Dent gives sends chills up my spine every time I hear it.
 
WakeFanatic said:
I'll agree with you about this. I think the scene with Dent and Gordon's family is the most heartbreaking scene in the whole trilogy. The speech that Dent gives sends chills up my spine every time I hear it.
Click to expand...

Such a powerful ending to a film.
 
Why does DC believe that Judge Dredd is a good character to make a movie about? Seems like the same kind of thinking that put Jonah Hex up on the big screen.
 
Dredd isn't a DC property and I doubt the powers that be there had anything to do with this movie. Warner Brothers and DC Entertainment had nothing to do with its production.

That said, the early reviews are... good??? 100% on RT at this moment in time. Of course it won't stay at that level, but neither will it drop to the 15% of the Stallone movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top