Conquer Club

Batman rules over SpiderMan? How did that happen? Is this NEO-Batmanism really all that? Was that movie really as good as the first SpiderMan?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... topstories

All the Batman movies sucked! If it wasn't for Jack Nicholson (or is it Nicholaus, i always get those two confused) playing the over dramatic Joker, the first movie would have been a piece of roasted Bat Shit!

With you 100% on this DaGit
Spidey RULES!

Molecule Man was my fav prob cos he was a collosal loser, with an overdeveloped ego, not unlike myself.

Who ever voted Norse...what kind of super powers did that Hero have?

Make us laugh till we gave up?

I haven't seen Dark Knight yet - though I hear it's great.

The first one was quite good. Not sure if it's better than the first Spider-man (I'm a little biased about that one, considering it's the movie I use to explain where I live to the 99% of the world who have no clue where/what it is), but it's definitely better than the Spidey sequels.

Therefore I vote Batman.

They're my two favorite super-heros though.

dark knight was incredible....

heath ledger slamming someones face into a pencil!? priceless

It's true. I had high expectations after the enjoyable Batman Begins, but this went above and beyond. It's one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen, and that's coming from a guy who read Spiderman as a kid. Check it out if you want to see what I mean.

God dammit!

Stop building up the hype/excitement - I can't see it for another 3 weeks!!

I'm watching it today.

Hope it is awesome

InkL0sed wrote:I haven't seen Dark Knight yet - though I hear it's great.

The first one was quite good. Not sure if it's better than the first Spider-man (I'm a little biased about that one, considering it's the movie I use to explain where I live to the 99% of the world who have no clue where/what it is), but it's definitely better than the Spidey sequels.

Therefore I vote Batman.

They're my two favorite super-heros though.

I have to agree that the very first Batman was enjoyable, however, I will stick to my guns that that particular Batman would have been an absolute piece of crap if it wasn't for Jack Nicholson playing The Joker.


The first Spidey movie was the best, then it slowly fizzled until Spidey 3 totally ruined the image that McFarlane put into his story telling and artwork. Venom totally sucked! And then the Dark Peter Parker trying to dance in the Jazz club? That was very gay...Kirsten Dunst isn't all that good looking anyway, she always looks a bit trashy. Mary Jane Watson was way hotter in the Comic Book than Kirsten could ever dream of being.

I do hope the Dark Knight is everything some of you are saying it is, and could you please not give away any info on what to expect, please? Just simply tell us if it is worth going to or not, or if it is actually better than SpiderMan (something along those lines)...

It was a toss up between Spidy and Thor from the list you put up there. I was expecting you to say that Spidy turned out to be a skrull in the whole secret invasion thing..

Daredevil needs a remake like Hulk had. Not that the first one was bad, it was great, but Affleck won't make another.

Gilligan wrote:Daredevil needs a remake like Hulk had. Not that the first one was bad, it was great, but Affleck won't make another.

Yes, I agree. Daredevil was good. I especially liked the black King Pin concept...he was a good King Pin, I thought. Affleck doesn't have to play the Daredevil, you could get Brad Pitt or someone else.

whitestazn88 wrote:dark knight was incredible....

heath ledger slamming someones face into a pencil!? priceless

I hate you.

InkL0sed wrote:I haven't seen Dark Knight yet - though I hear it's great.

The first one was quite good. Not sure if it's better than the first Spider-man (I'm a little biased about that one, considering it's the movie I use to explain where I live to the 99% of the world who have no clue where/what it is), but it's definitely better than the Spidey sequels.

Therefore I vote Batman.

They're my two favorite super-heros though.

I live in Gotham City.

diddle wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:I haven't seen Dark Knight yet - though I hear it's great.

The first one was quite good. Not sure if it's better than the first Spider-man (I'm a little biased about that one, considering it's the movie I use to explain where I live to the 99% of the world who have no clue where/what it is), but it's definitely better than the Spidey sequels.

Therefore I vote Batman.

They're my two favorite super-heros though.

I live in Gotham City.

word?

Welp, the voting list sucked...... Yeah, I read comics... what of it?

And the ONLY thing good about the original BATMAN MOVIES, was Jack N.

Two things to add here.

First, look at what movie is currently #1 in the imdb top 250.

Secondly, there are a few scenes where the city in the background is clearly Chicago. In Batman Begins there were some backdrops that made it clear it was NYC. Perhaps this is a leitmotif of Christopher Nolan's vision for Batman, making Gotham City less of a fictional NYC and more of an "any major city in the US". However, he couldn't do LA, there simply aren't enough tall buildings. Hopefully in the next Batman, they will go back to using obvious NYC locales as the backdrops.

pimpdave wrote:Two things to add here.

First, look at what movie is currently #1 in the imdb top 250.

I'm confident it will drop in the charts after some time though.

Secondly, there are a few scenes where the city in the background is clearly Chicago. In Batman Begins there were some backdrops that made it clear it was NYC. Perhaps this is a leitmotif of Christopher Nolan's vision for Batman, making Gotham City less of a fictional NYC and more of an "any major city in the US". However, he couldn't do LA, there simply aren't enough tall buildings. Hopefully in the next Batman, they will go back to using obvious NYC locales as the backdrops.

But it shouldn't be NYC. I think "any major city" is a much better idea as it gives more freedom or something.

Gotham has also been a synonym for NYC. Sorry rest-of-America.

i voted Thor, because the Silver Surfer or Captain America(delusioned as a kid) was not there.

DAZMCFC wrote:i voted Thor, because the Silver Surfer or Captain America(delusioned as a kid) was not there.

captain america was every kids favorite hero in the 40s and 50s because he kicked the shit out of nazis

InkL0sed wrote:Gotham has also been a synonym for NYC. Sorry rest-of-America.

I agree. It has long been known that Gotham City in Batman and Metropolis in Superman were fictional doubles for NYC.

Snorri1234 wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Two things to add here.

First, look at what movie is currently #1 in the imdb top 250.

I'm confident it will drop in the charts after some time though.
[quote]

I too am confident that it will drop. Movies' star rating on imdb seem to need about 6 months from the date of release to settle into a realistic rating number. However, it begs the question: Is Dark Knight rated so highly because it's that good, or because a ton of fanboys mobbed the ratings? While the latter is possible, imdb is simply too high profile for a contingent of fanboys to run roughshod over all the other members.

pimpdave wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Gotham has also been a synonym for NYC. Sorry rest-of-America.

I agree. It has long been known that Gotham City in Batman and Metropolis in Superman were fictional doubles for NYC.

I'd say Metropolis is more obviously NYC than Gotham. Metropolis is basically New York, while Gotham is more of a gothic, dark take on it and has more influence from other things.

I mean, you could see any other city growing into Gotham in time, while Metropolis could really not be anything else than NYC. Gotham is more of a mix between various cities with a dark and gothic feel thrown in, taking New York as the basic, than actually a fictional representation of NYC. Gotham has at it's core NYC, but more freely takes influences from other cities and themes.