HOME | DD

ErikVonLehmann In reply to IHeartCreepypastas [2014-05-03 12:01:25 +0000 UTC]

thanks so much

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bluebiirdys In reply to EnvyMachinery [2010-02-01 05:24:54 +0000 UTC]

same, but he still scared the shit outta me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EnvyMachinery In reply to RazielXavier [2009-12-14 16:48:40 +0000 UTC]

The new Batman movies obviously portray a much more realistic and believable Batman. Hence, no one has supernatural powers or a scarecrow costume. Crane's appearance as a doctor and psychiatrist who uses a mask to avoid succumbing to his own poison is far more natural than an inexplicable monster.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RazielXavier In reply to EnvyMachinery [2009-12-20 18:47:44 +0000 UTC]

Not at all what I meant.

It's the nature in the way they created him. His original look was the monsterous Scarecrow. They should have never shown his true form. only the drug induced vision of him.

And on that note, the monsterous form should have look more similar to the picture above, and not a supposed scarey burlap-sack-man.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EnvyMachinery In reply to RazielXavier [2009-12-21 20:02:21 +0000 UTC]

Your contention of his portrayal is comparable to that of the Joker. It would be like saying it wasn't right for them to make him in any way unlike his comic version; he would have to have fallen into an unknown toxin that somehow bleached his skin, gave him green hair, a permanent smile, and a sudden love for the criminal lifestyle. Instead, they created him as a psychopath whose only joy was found in crime and murder, who embraced theatrics in order to isolate his character.

There was nothing wrong with the movie's portrayal of the Scarecrow. He was perfectly logical in every way and never once pushed the bounds of reality. How could he possibly have ever made public appearances in the movie if he was constantly in the form of a demon? Crane wasn't always a monstrous phantasm without a face, you know. He did have to look and act just like a common person for some portion of his life. To suggest that he should look like a nightmare at all, let alone 100% of the time, is completely absurd.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RazielXavier In reply to EnvyMachinery [2009-12-22 21:58:12 +0000 UTC]

Logical as opposed to a comic fans preference, and that's all I'm saying. It's my personal preference of Scarecrow. Not trying to start an argument.

Just stating my preference. I'm sure, as a fan of Batman, you can see my point. Not saying your wrong, nor am I saying I'm right. Just making my preference known.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EnvyMachinery In reply to RazielXavier [2009-12-25 01:34:27 +0000 UTC]

The Scarecrow is one of my favorite Batman villains, perhaps even my most favorite. But I can't see your point of view on the movie's representation. I think Cillian Murphy did a fantastic job, and I really don't see how the Scarecrow could have been integrated into the film by any other means. His appearance worked just fine in the comics and animated series, where there was still plenty of mysticism and occasional science fiction present. However, you must see the array of changes Christopher Nolan made.

For instance, Bruce Wayne is no longer the perfect human being; he retains the incredible, yet sometimes a bit unrealistic, fighting prowess he possessed in all prior media, along with his financial status and so forth. What he no longer retains is his genius level intellect and hyper-advanced medical and scientific knowledge. Lucius Fox has instead inherited these traits and functions as an outside ally for Wayne. Maybe these examples will help you understand my point of view better. Personally, I rather enjoy the contemporary portrayals of some of the recent big-name action movies like Batman and James Bond because they offer new representations on the characters and help to bring them more into the modern age. Even the Spider-Man movies seemed to at least be aiming more towards realism, but honestly I think Marvel is really slacking lately, and their buyout by Disney didn't exactly help matters. DC, on the other hand, is really stepping up their game.

There's nothing wrong with arguing. Debate is extremely common, especially in these times. I pity the fact that the term argue has been skewn to represent anger and malice, whereas arguing does not always have to be on such negative terms. I actually wrote a few papers on the very subject last year in college. You should read some of Deborah Tannen's essays if you are the intellectual type She's very insightful.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RazielXavier In reply to EnvyMachinery [2009-12-30 20:02:22 +0000 UTC]

I'm just gonna leave it at this, a classic use of boredom with a conversation; Or not.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EnvyMachinery In reply to RazielXavier [2009-12-30 20:51:41 +0000 UTC]

I honestly have no idea what you were just trying to say.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RazielXavier In reply to EnvyMachinery [2009-12-30 21:34:21 +0000 UTC]

done with the conversation. said "Or not" as if to say the opposite of your debating point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EnvyMachinery In reply to RazielXavier [2009-12-31 19:30:24 +0000 UTC]

Suit yourself, then.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bluebiirdys In reply to sfnvweoighsli [2010-02-01 05:23:18 +0000 UTC]

*does same* ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0