Red Mosquito

wease wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Batman has murdered people. Also, whether the movie's characterization is consistent with the comics has no bearing on the quality of the movie.

It should. Otherwise, why call him Batman? If you're adapting a property from one medium, shouldn't you try and represent that property as best you can?

My god, these are the (arguably) two best known superheroes in the world, and I can't even take my daughter to see the movie that bears their names.

Because maybe that's not what the filmmaker wanted to do. Is The Shining a shitty movie because it isn't faithful to King's novel?

Furthermore, from what I understand about the comics, there have been countless, disparate characterizations of both Batman and Superman over the years. Who's to say what's "correct?" And why does it matter? These characters, as you indicated, are cultural icons at this point. They've become part of our collective mythology. Which means they are RIPE for recharacterizing.

Guys

Spoiler: show

quit

Spoiler: show

talking

Spoiler: show

about

Spoiler: show

FUCKING BATMAN

in this thread

I like Present Tense pretty good. Bad lyrics or not, it's an ok tune.

I like Present Tense.

Now carry on with this ridiculous "objectively good/bad" discussion for the bazillionth time.

*Leaves room quietly*

I like Present Tense too.

Batman v Superman is better than Present Tense

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Batman v Superman is better than Present Tense

Pfft. Batman can't check his hands and study the lines because he wears stupid gloves.

Good popcorn reading, guys

But do you guys agree the studio version is disappointing after hearing a live version? This song live is just SO good and the ending is like twice as energetic.

mikejasond wrote:But do you guys agree the studio version is disappointing after hearing a live version? This song live is just SO good and the ending is like twice as energetic.

Well, it's played a lot faster live, which usually translates into more energetic. But, I don't know if that makes it better. I think I actually prefer the studio version more nowadays, as I usually skip it when it comes up on boots.

wease wrote:

mikejasond wrote:But do you guys agree the studio version is disappointing after hearing a live version? This song live is just SO good and the ending is like twice as energetic.

Well, it's played a lot faster live, which usually translates into more energetic. But, I don't know if that makes it better. I think I actually prefer the studio version more nowadays, as I usually skip it when it comes up on boots.

Its not just that its faster, its louder and more intense, that ending section becomes something truly special

It was probably good live in 96 but not since

Top Pearl Jam track

This band really knows how to do an outro.

evenslow wrote:This band really knows how to do an outro.

Raleigh, NC post

mikejasond wrote:But do you guys agree the studio version is disappointing after hearing a live version? This song live is just SO good and the ending is like twice as energetic.

I actually much prefer the studio cut to live versions. Ed always messes up the lyrics live and it drives me crazy (I'm not just referring to how he needlessly adds "fuck", he never sings the second verse correctly). And I love that the studio version's outro is powerful and yet very delicate, it's a beautiful dynamic.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

evenslow wrote:This band really knows how to do an outro.

Raleigh, NC post

Why oh why must you sing the first chorus an octave higher lately, EdVed?

Eh?

Because it ruins an otherwise powerful yet subtle song.

Of this all en-fucking trip

mikejasond wrote:But do you guys agree the studio version is disappointing after hearing a live version? This song live is just SO good and the ending is like twice as energetic.

Agreed. Katowice 2000 is my favorite version by far.

Studio version is best.