51 comments

• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Imaginarium?
  reply
• 

  Jenny

  11 months ago

  The problem with video is that it's faster for the person making the comment and slower for everyone else. You can't "skim" a video, so I bet you'll find people don't listen rather than waste 30 precious seconds of their ever dwindling life.
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  hmmm...while i'm tempted to respond in video form i'll use old fashioned 'text' instead. so ya think the video's a flash in the pan / a gimmick / only useful to people who want to show off their pajama fashion sense? ;)
  reply
• 

  Jenny

  11 months ago

  video doesn't suck
  reply
• 

  Jenny

  11 months ago

  Oh I forgot - another big reason video comments aren't picking up online is they are hard to fake. Photoshopping your picture to look better or having another identity entirely are much harder with a camera on your face. :)
  reply
• 

  Phil

  11 months ago

  What are you implying?
  
  That some of us are not who we purport ourselves to be??
  reply
• 

  Phil

  11 months ago

  Video comments rock!
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  Imaginarium is also the name of a toy shop in Barcelona, with a kid-sized door as well as the normal one, so that kids have a door that their parents can't use. Very cool. :)
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  ...And here's a pic:
  
  http://www.stealthisbrand.blogspot.com/
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  cool!
  reply
• 

  TimHeaney

  11 months ago

  Had a look at some Tom Waits on Youtube and I have to admit the resemblance is uncanny. Did you know that Ledger and Waits are both in 'The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus'?
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Imaginarium is my new favorite word!
  reply
• 

  TimHeaney

  11 months ago

  You're welcome.
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Re: our talk about 'extraordinary rendition' and as Dr. Prof. has it "George Bush's favorite movie" = check out this quote from the following Salon article:
  
  "Dark night
  There are other surreal aspects to what happens at Guantánamo Bay. As the first week of proceedings for Hamdan came to an end, trial observers went to see "The Dark Knight" at the military base's outdoor cinema.
  
  The evening was all-American: families with lawn chairs and coolers with beer; public service announcements encouraging the crowd to honor American democracy by mailing in their absentee ballots; the playing of the national anthem; and then the movie.
  
  Needless to say, it was weird to see "The Dark Knight" here. The movie is not a simple "good guys vs. bad guys" tale, but a rumination on the nature of good and evil, every person's capacity for corruption and redemption, and the triumph of basic humanity over self-interest. But the Guantánamo Bay detention facility is itself marred by the rendition, torture and ill-treatment of many of its occupants, and the deeply flawed trials that have commenced here. It is precisely these types of indecencies, committed by those with unrestrained power, that "The Dark Knight" disavows.
  
  Allred was also in attendance at the movie, so I introduced myself to him as an observer for Human Rights Watch. The judge, who clearly takes his responsibilities seriously and is mindful of the historical moment at hand, seemed pleased.
  
  "It's very important that you're here," he said to me.
  
  Yes, that's true, I thought to myself -- better to be here than to let the trial go on without anybody from civil society witnessing it.
  
  But I was not glad that either of us was there. A much better place to be would have been on the U.S. mainland, in a federal court, observing a trial that at its essence would be fair, impartial and just. What is unfolding at Guantánamo Bay is something very far from that."
  reply
• 

  Phil

  11 months ago

  Thank you for going through all of Tommy "Tiny" Lister's aliases....I could not pinpoint where I knew this actor from....until you said "Zeus".
  
  Lister was formerly a professional wrestler who went by the name "Zeus".
  
  Still listening to the podcast......
  
  (update 12:56pm EST) ....finished listening. Had to stop and start a few times....great show, guys.
  
  I went into the movie trying to guess who Jett was suggesting Heath Ledger's performance was based on -- I was wrong, but was glad to hear that the Good Prof. Dr. saw his performance initially as I did. I immediately thought Nicholson, but not Nicholson-doing-Joker-doing-Nicholson, but specifically his performance in The Shining. Good call, Prof. Dr.
  
  But having heard the clip at the end of the show, I cannot argue with Jett's assessment as well.
  
  Again, well done gentlemen.
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Dude - I'm tellin' ya = he's Tom Waits! ;)
  
  + would love to get Mr. Lister on the show, (am hoping the Prof. Dr.'s big-time show-biz connections will facilitate this!).
  reply
• 

  Matt

  11 months ago

  Another great show; love how you contextualized the film within the series (or perhaps micro-genre). Havent yet seen it myself though -- Ill follow up once I do see it and figure out how our opinions mesh.
  
  Just a thought, you guys may want to consider pre(re)viewing movies with a bit more in advance of their release to get them on posters. I'd suggest Death Race for the show, though that would be only two weeks in advance. I also think the probability of the boilerplate review being an actual review of the film to be rather high.
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Death Race!
  reply
• 

  techsyslonghorn

  11 months ago

  You mentioned Christian Bale and Nestor Carbonell looking like brothers... a bit of irony Nestor played Batmanuel on "the Tick:. Great show again can't wait for the next installment.
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  I'm tellin' ya there's a 'Christian Bale / Nestor Carbonell' connection, i.e. they look alike, (even if Gareth can't see it)!.
  reply
• 

  Tom

  11 months ago

  Seesmic video reply from Disqus.
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Dark Knight not for Children
  reply
• 

  Phil

  11 months ago

  What separates the PG-13 rating from an R, I can only presume, is the lack of 'blood' in Dark Knight.
  
  For example, in the scene where Joker performs his "disappearing pencil" trick, you never see (spoilers ahoy!!!) the pencil go into the guy's head...it is only implied.
  
  In all the violence throughout this movie, you never see any "gore" or "blood".
  
  I'm totally in agreement with Tom that this is anything but a kid's picture - I'm just guessing that this is the reason it garnered the PG-13 rating (as I'm sure the studios wanted to ensure so parents would, in fact, bring their kids).
  reply
• 

  Jenny

  11 months ago

  Yeah, there's but a bit of uproar in Australia because Dark Knight toys are being given away with Kid's Meals. I agree with you Phil - the technicality of blood is much too simple a metric for determining what's ok for kids. When I saw the movie, as the title sequence played and one had mooing in the background, I heard a 5-year-old yell out "it's a COOOW" and couldn't believe she was there... hopefully she's not scarred for life, afraid of pencils.
  reply
• 

  Jenny

  11 months ago

  Hello from the top of the Vancouver Lookout. Another homage to DOA is an insane film called Crank, with Jason Statham. He's also poisoned and dying and in LA, but the movie's very tongue in cheek about it and doesn't pretend to be taken seriously. For a lunatic B-movie, I found it pretty entertaining. :)
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  The Stratham
  reply
• 

  Jenny

  11 months ago

  but is it actionpacked?
  reply
• 

  Tom

  11 months ago

  Am I the only one who is seeing these comments out of chronological order!! What's going on?
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Disqus seems to 'nest' the replies = this comment should be to right of your comment instead of at the very bottom - let me know if that isn't the case with what you're seeing Tom and maybe I can adjust some settings. :)
  reply
• 

  kiley

  11 months ago

  whoa..it did seem to put my vid comment above jesse's which apparently happen 19 hours ago at this point....at least according to what my browser is showing...
  reply
• 

  kiley

  11 months ago

  i just woke up....
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  Jett, you got me to switch over to @thefilmtalk and then didn't follow back - been talking to a brick (glass?) wall..! :)
  
  Don't want to comment here 'cos of spoilers..
  
  (@tracydempsey)
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  sorry - thought i was 'following' you in Twitter?? many apologies for any confusion! :)
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  Hmmm.. still getting 'thefilmtalk does not follow you' when I try to dm you!
  
  Feck it - since people are using spoiler alerts - spoiler alert!
  Tom Waits thing was spooky alright; watched some YouTube footage after listening - good call. As to China as new superpower - thought that was pretty overt (as were the Guantanamo references); glass buildings are a sign of great wealth - and make for great shatter-y visual affects in action movies. (And glass drawers allow for you seeing objects therein 'activate'. :) )
  
  Chicago architectural boat cruises/walking tours are great, btw!
  
  Gareth said if he was Bush he'd be pleased with the message, but I think it's anti-Bush. Ability to spy on people 'for own safety' was temporary to remove an immediate threat, then sabotaged so as not to be abused in the name of some vague, permanent threat ('war on terror'). Theme of redemption whole way through, and explicit 'who are you to stand as judge/executioner' message, of course, with the ferries. And of course the notion of a true hero sacrificing himself so others don't have to 'go to war' is complete antithesis of the armchair generals ramping up patriotism to get young soldiers to go instead... (And Bill O'Reilly's just popped into my head, dodging Moore's question about 'would he send his son to war'. SJIHBOR. :) )
  
  In short: I freakin' loved it! Twice.
  
  (And am hoping the suit reference 'it should be okay against cats' (however it was worded) - was a bit of foreshadowing for possible follow-up w/Catwoman, rather than just a nod...)
  reply
• 

  Phil

  11 months ago

  Good catch on the 'cat' reference...you could be right. Is Eartha Kitt still alive? :)
  
  And for the record, the "official" spoiler alert here at TFT is "spoilers ahoy!"...
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  She certainly is! Tho (spoilers ahoy!) heard that Ms Gyllenhaal's signed for 2 films.. not sure how in the divil they'd bring her back tho. There could be a prequel? Ah who knows. :)
  reply
• 

  Phil

  11 months ago

  Hmmmm...that's very interesting.
  
  You know, we never actually (spoilers ahoy) *saw* Rachel die....and if she
  perceives that she was slighted by The Batman (who went to save Harvey, even
  tho' Joker had switched the addresses and BM actually meant to save
  Rachel)....then could be the makings of a future cat-lady?
  
  (correction/edit): Looks like Angelina Jolie may have already signed on for a future Catwoman role...so that nixes my Maggie G. theory.
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  Well yes, did think we just saw an explosion behind her, didn't see how big it was - thought it would be too much of a stretch for people to swallow but perhaps not...
  
  Jolie rumour was nixed in a few places - she's said she'd like the part, but someone involved in film itself pooh-poohed it I think..
  reply
• 

  Phil

  11 months ago

  Ahh - thanx for the Jolie clarification.
  
  Perhaps Maggie's character will appear to Batman like Marlon Brando/Jor-El
  to Superman -- speaking to him as a phantom in the Batcave, with just the
  giant head of Maggie/Rachel appearing before him?
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  Perhaps.. or perhaps Leviathan Pit would be used. :) But Nolan so far's eschewing the supernatural thing...
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  (Spoiler alert) Hold on a sec.. wasn't aware 'til now of the address switch theory - I thought Batman deliberately went to save Harvey and that was part of the whole sacrifice thing; that he had to act for what was best for Gotham even tho' it meant effectively killing Rachel. I know he said he was going for her, and wasn't sure what was going on there.. but didn't the 250 whatever-it-was-address tally; where Gordon sent the other team, and where Dent asked to meet Gordon? Feck, going to have to watch it a 3rd time! forgot to look out for that scene (and take notes!) on 2nd viewing..
  reply
• 

  Phil

  11 months ago

  I caught this the second viewing - Joker gives Batman the wrong addresses
  for each - then Gordon asks Batman who he's going after..he says "Rachel"...
  
  I think Dent mentions to his driver where he is going -- which I believe is
  Rachel's address...? ...because he says he's going to see his girlfriend.
  reply
• 

  TracyDempsey

  11 months ago

  Didn't hear address Dent gave driver (who clearly wasn't to be trusted anyway), just that he was late seeing his girlfriend.. But yes, Batman did clearly say he was going for Rachel, but thought that was a deliberate misleading of Gordon. But couldn't figure out why - so am prepared to believe the switch, which was in keeping with Joker's personality. But am disappointed at idea Batman had gone for Rachel - thought it was a powerful scene 'cos of the sacrifice. And why was switch never told to Harvey? Although of course, Harvey's rage was at Gordon trusting bent cops in the first place... I'm guessing the whole thing was slightly less ambiguous pre-cutting room...
  
  Also, now that I think about it, both times I thought it was strange Bruce said 'did I bring this upon her' as opposed to 'I let her die'. Former makes more sense if he had at least tried to save her, so regret was only in having putting her (and everyone else) at risk by pushing mob to point where they brought in the Joker.
  
  Also, by referring to Dent as 'the best of us', and saying the Joker knew that, after Dent's charged them as responsible for Rachel's death, he could be referring to him going to save Rachel (selfishly) rather than Dent (selflessly) and the Joker having known that's what he'd do.
  
  Hmm. So thought the scene was powerful for his sacrifice; but if he didn't, it was powerful for his humanity/flaws...
  
  So opinion of film unchanged, happily. ;)
  
  P.s. Re. Gyllenhall - her acting at the moment the (two-sided) penny dropped was great. But other than that was disappointed. Don't rate Holmes at all - still see Dawson's Creek every time she does that lopsided-smile-hair-tuck combo, so was delighted to hear Gyllenhaal was replacing her (loved her in Secretary). But too frothy in this. Shame...
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Yep!
  reply
• 

  studionashvegas

  11 months ago

  I haven't seen TDK yet. I guess I'm one of the few, so I'll have to tread these carefully so I don't end up seeing spoilers. Can't wait, though.
  reply
• 

  Affordable SEO Services

  7 months ago

  I love all the movies very much. I like to read all the previews. Thanks for sharing with us.
  reply
• 

  CDMastering

  4 months ago

  How many weeks would it take to film a typical drama? Not including the pre- and post-production. Just the principle photography.
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  4 months ago

  depends ;)
  reply
• 

  learn.hypnosis

  3 months ago

  Jet Loe and Phil are not different persons.both are same guy.am I correct Jenny?what do you think?
  reply
• 

  Jesse

  11 months ago

  Great discussion guys. I'll give it a second lesson for sure. I recall reading somewhere that Nolan decided to go back and edit The Joker's ending when Ledger died.
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  11 months ago

  Hmm...would like to see the original ending!
  reply