TDK Fans IQ: 72

Being away from writing articles for this blog site for a few days, I mostly just perused comments and had the system alert me to approve comments containing swears.  That’s how I’ve had it for a while and what I noticed is pretty consistent.

Although some fans of the movie who disagree with this site have enough intelligence to write complete sentences, make sense, and carry a reasonable debate, the majority seems to maintain a maximum capacity to: fling poo, swear, insult, and contribute nothing of value.

Truly a good chunk of these fans are headed for some prime Darwin awards.  I don’t have to put any effort into proving this, they are doing it all on their own.

110 Responses to “TDK Fans IQ: 72”

  1. Yeeeeeeeeeeahh… I noticed the same thing… I don’t think its fair to label all fans of TDK to be like that, but I see many people who do type like retards and it makes me upset. I think its because TDK is generally loved by most people, and most people, well, type retarded, and most of the smart fans probably just don’t see the point in arguing, haha…
    The smart ones who didn’t like the movie take the time to post here because they’re happy someone agrees with them.

  2. Yeah you really shouldnt try to say the majority of fans of the movie are stupid compared to people that liked it. Especially when you have such perfect counter examples such as this one on your site:

    The voice sucks! the custome is like a swat custome sucks!
    WHERE IS GOTH CITY!!!!?????????? are you nolan stupid?
    THE car! ho my god!!!! its a war ship!
    ANd please, classic is jack nicholson in the shine, heath was god, but please thats no fucking classic, his voice seems goofy the dog´s voice.

    Spoken from one of your mentally superior supporters.

  3. typo actually on my part in that last comment, *”compared to people that disliked it”

  4. Just went to check and see if anyone replied to my comment on the superman/batman film topic and found this:

    “The Dark Knight is overrated, and maybe even worse than Halo. FUCK THIS FILM IT SUCKS MY DICK BATMAN IS GAY FUCK YOU COMIC NERDS”

    Another comment from one of your many soft spoken, and better educated supporters. Im aware this is only my second one, but my point is, I didnt have to go far to find such a great counter example against your claim.

  5. Yeah, funny how those “DUMB” responses mostly seem to have come in after I joked about the out the IQ level. I knew that would happen, and was just waiting for someone to jump in and say “But it’s the same on the other side.” Not really. Especially if I were to publish all the mail I’ve gotten, all the positive mail tends to be intelligent comments, while all the negative mail calling me stupid or a fag (or some other attempt at insults) without any counter-debate. There WERE some intelligent people who disagreed but most who disagreed just flung poo and swears at me. LOL.

  6. Well from seeing pretty much this entire site, I would say the comments are pretty much equal, I’ve seen plenty of “intelligent” arguments against you, and I’ve seen plenty of “intelligent” arguments against those people. Then theres the guys that show up and string cuss words at you all in capitals and it just makes everyone roll their eyes, but I have also found haters of the dark knight doing the same thing, I think the only way its a clear majority is if you add in all the messages in your “hate mail” section.

  7. jac
    reckon you didn’t see ‘pretty much the entire site,’ because he said, many times, he didn’t let the amazingly dumb super insulting posts through. so that would be a duh which adds to his claim or mini-thesis.

  8. roger
    reckon I did, i’ve been posting here since hes had it up, and yea, he doesnt let the comments through where people are blatantly insulting each other, REGARDLESS of any side

  9. jac
    reckon that’s not true and not what he says
    and you posting since it started doesn’t mean anything
    so you’ve been wrong about this from the beginning?
    it’s a dumb pointless soulless movie designed to make money
    it is an amusement and it IS mildly amusing
    as is the transformers or the terminator or war of the world or any big budget blockbuster
    but barely
    it is not a good movie
    it is a decent virtual ride at an amusement park
    and as the lone semi-insulting negative post points out
    it isn’t as good as many video games (i.e. halo)
    and that is sad
    a film can embody most every art form
    but this amusement barely embodies the craft of each art

  10. Roger,
    learn how to
    a sentance and
    use punctuation
    please for
    the love of

  11. sentence

  12. Roger, I know you like to type as if your writing a poem, but please, save it for someone else. Me posting here since the site has been around does mean something, it means I’ve been around the place and I’ve seen alot of comments. Im sorry that you only know how to compare it to something like Halo, but maybe that is what your mind is restricted to so I wont make fun of you for that. By the way Halo is a video game and The Dark Knight is a movie in case you didnt notice. And you say its just blunt amusement, but last time I checked blunt amusement does not have symbolism or themes to it. This movie was made to impress the fans, and that it did. Maybe you happen to be in the poetic, halo-geek, roller coaster ride junkie crowd that it didnt exactly aim to impress.

  13. Lol you are such a giant counter example to the point you were trying to defend. Glad to see your true colors roger. Maybe what the joker was saying wasnt so far fetched, seeing as apparently immaturity is like gravity, all it needs is a little push.

  14. stop trying to be maddox. you aren’t funny, you aren’t different, and you aren’t cool. tdk was a fantastic movie which i fully plan on seeing at least three more times to infuriate the incompetent lot (such as yourself) eagerly trying to distance themselves from people who enjoy movies for being movies. yes, i like accuracy in relation to the comic books(i am a much larger nerd than you could ever hope to be), but give it a rest. if everything was always the same it would be boring.

    also, superman is the most boring character ever. who cares if him and batman team up? he’s had enough crap to his name for no reason.

    lastly, kudos on having to use the adjective “retarded” in lieu of a better description. you’re obviously very well read and apt to manage this sort of project.

  15. you have hurt heathus

  16. removing fun, playful, insightful comments is offensive and denotes the actions of a totalitarian mindset. if you can’t grasp the meaning you remove them? do you burn books too? paintings? you’re dumbing down content just like the movie you hate. in fact, your site has revealed itself to be no different than the stupid movie it protests, except for that it doesn’t entertain. it is increasing stale and uncreative, and has continued to exhibit everything it argues against, revealing its’ own hypocrisy and stupidity at every turn while remaining so caught up in the tedious details of nothing that it can’t reveal anything of actual value, much like all the blind fanboys on the other, ‘popular’ side. you’re simply the other side of the same silly coin. oh well. and, ironically, you, as site creator and manager, have shown the same feeble i.q. of the fans stated above in this puny rant. stuck in a land of worthless rules. not art. the end

  17. Flash Gorman, just because superman not rich and gay like batman does not mean he boring

  18. Pet Shop Boys – “I’m With Stupid”!!!

    Don’t forget that most of the “DARK KNITE OWNZ, IF UR MARVEL ITS WAR” insults seem to come from batwagon fans that belong in an age group between 13-16.

    Teenage boys base a lot of their personality upon things they like, movies, music, bands, and whatever shit the corporations spurn for us to consume and forget about the chores of life, at the same time funding their Scrooge McDuck money bins.

    If a teenager’s “reason for existing” is attacked, s/he resorts to name calling (it’s a “he” more often).

    Older “fans” in 20-25 or above usually don’t bother, because they don’t feel “hurt” if something they like is attacked, life is more serious than caring about if some guy you’ll never meet dislikes a film you like and writes about it. If that was the case, I would bomb BOF hahahahah. Teenagers, however, don’t act and think this way.

    Where one must draw a line is where an outlet for criticism resorts to weak arguments or things that are not even THERE, like the Brokebat Mountain comment (shame on you, lol) or totally POV posts (like the Batman/BlueTights article) and not a factual criticism of the film based on some nit picks and plot holes.

    I think you mostly nitpick on a finely crafted film that has the usual movie mistakes – where did he get the bombs, why half his face is burned and the eye is still there, why Gary Oldman has such a finely trimmed mustache etc. etc.

    Its only flaw you pick out is that it shouldn’t strive to APPEAR so realistic, since Batman isn’t realistic anyway, no matter how you film him.

  19. Lol. I’m gonna have to say i’m surprised here. My IQ is 72? it’s kinda unfair to label every one of us as lower median intelligence, especially considering theres just as much poo flinging coming in from your side of the baricade.

    Particularily amusing is rodger. Not only has he completely failed to post thoughtful responses to debate on this site, but his standard reply is always the same in each forum (souless, mindless, money grabbing. capitalism=evil) but hes now lost the plot completely, has labeled YOU of a totalitarian mindset, your site stale and uncreative and has claimed your iq to be apparently as low as mine.

    I’m sorry, but are we as fans expected to take this mockery while your supporters fling poo and chuck hissy fits? now, i do disagree with rodger (as per usual). the sites not uncreative or stale, and you dont appear to be of a totalitarian mindset. but it’s a bit much to call fans morons on the basis of a few neanderthals, whereas your exalted supporters can get away with rehashing old arguements with zero relevance or creativity.

  20. Yeah, the calculation of this particular number, 72, is the puzzling thing. Can’t some others have an Intelligence Quotient of, say, 66, or 82? What IQ calculating device you have? Now that I think of it, I wish I was born in 72 so I could have lived through the 80s as a teenager and not a baby. In the 80s people had more fun living with their real bodies (because internet didn’t exist), better movies (with enjoyably cheesy SFX) and better music compared to our clean, cold, technocratic age.

  21. I much rather prefer the number 42 (randomly and often) as being one of the fans of Douglas Adams. Oh wait, weren’t we talking about Batman? What a confusing site- I don’t see how the readers’ IQ correlate with the Batman movie ’sucking’ as you say. Not to stray off topic, because god knows a movie is the most important thing to be discussing and debating- especially a movie such as the Dark Knight. XD Much love, your Serious Anon <3

  22. Roger, you are mad because tdksucks deleted your pointless immature attention grabbing “fun” comments? Thats not having a totalitarian mindset, thats called good moderating. You have to admit this site is very well put together, even if some of his “reasons” for the dark knight being a terrible movie are very out there and ridiculous(what someone above said, the brokeback topic and the superman topic, and even this one). And silenig just for the record, I just turned 16 a couple months ago, and I think i’ve provided pretty good arguments on this site, but I would agree the majority of the people spewing insults instead of debating on this site are most likely just young and immature.

  23. hi jac

    never presume to state how and what another thinks or feels or is.
    that is immature. you didn’t grasp one bit of anything i said, and neither did this tdksucks dude.

    this site is set up for the average american male teenage mind, and the levels of meaning and comprehension are therefore edited for that basic mindset. it is certainly not a site for revolutionary artistic expression among various individuals, as the internet can be, nor is it a site for aficionados to discuss the nature of film.

    jac off

  24. Ok, so, posting separate letters of one word across multiple comments and then asking me to tag along(this was deleted by tdksucks because it was a waste of commenting space in case any of you are wondering what im talking about). And you were quite supportive and contributed your opinion(although the same exact pre-set one over and over again despite the topic) to this site many times, but as soon as you got your stupid immature comments deleted, then you got your feelings hurt and tried to fight back, and it isnt working.

  25. Correction, I must have lost my train of thought:

    //Ok, so, posting separate letters of one word across multiple comments and then asking me to tag along(this was deleted by tdksucks in case any of you are wondering what im talking about)is mature, but its immature to come to the conclusion that your mad over your comments getting deleted?(considering you immediately attacked the owner of this site when it happened.)//

  26. to rodger

    “this site is set up for the average american male teenage mind, and the levels of meaning and comprehension are therefore edited for that basic mindset.”

    Mate, I’m sixteen. Jac has already stated he’s sixteen. So according to you we fit the demographic of average teenage mind (not the american part in my case. go aussie!) And yet we have repeatedly proven that we have higher comprehension than you because we can reply without using a freaking template, and we can post reply’s that are insightful and actually relevant to the topic.

    Oh, and as for “not a site for revolutionary artistic expression among various individuals” um…duh. It’s a site to argue about whether or not one movie sucks (I say it doesn’t, for the record). If you don’t think that its intellectual enough for you than why bother posting? It’s not like you’ve actually contributed anything meaningful to date.

    the irony is, you claim the movie is souless, when really its your replies. Always whining about how we can’t understand you, and we’re all so dumb, and how the movie is EVIL CAPITALIST WORSHIP!. Every reply, same old story.

  27. this is an action film born of a comic book. its’ only subversion is a fleeting glimpse of the dark brooding unknown in ledger’s joker. otherwise it’s a basic roller coaster of ever advancing visual hype. you react. fight or flight. that’s about it.

    it’s made a lot of money. a popular product with consumers. goodie.

    the details don’t matter. why argue them at all? it’s like talking about a football game afterward. and seeing it again would be like watching the game re-run. tiresome. the only glimmer, beyond it’s extravagant production, is ledger.

    american, aussie, 16… a trend!
    and this batman deal?, a film designed for emphatically for them!

  28. Rodger, you are one dumb cookie. and i mean DUMB. To say you have an IQ of 72 would be a compliment.

    Your reply is once again the same rehashed, cookie cutter trash. Always with the whole “it makes money so therefore it’s bad” and “consumers love it”. You’re nothing but an anti-capitalist cliche. correction, an unoriginal cliche. You’re the fanatastic four sequel, to use a relevant metaphor. Yeah, the movie did make money. has it occured to your desparately lacking intellect that maybe, just maybe, it’s making money because its MORE than just some “souless piece of hype” as you label it? that maybe this movie is successful because it’s excellent? because it is a superhero movie with heart and soul, with meaning? Of course it doesn’t. Because you’re just stuck in your anti-capitalist grumblings to appreciate this. People argue the details because we use them to back up our arguements, to prove a point, rather than rant endlessly like a broken propaganda record. And Jac and I might be teens, but at least we arent unoriginal.

    If you want to make a point, argue the details. come up with some fresh ideas. Because reusing post’s isn’t going to cut it. You’ll just become one of the souless, mindless, masses (the very people you mock) who can’t formulate an intelligent reply. One fool among many. a sheep.



  29. Are you kidding me? The same thing about the roller coaster? I may be 16 but at least I dont consider posting the same exact default response over and over again despite the topic at hand as an intelligent response. And still with the “its just making money” thing, well gee I wonder why, usually when something is pretty good, it tends to be popular. That is the absolute only pattern that tdk follows. “its like watching a football game, seeing it again would only be like seeing the game re-run” Wow that was intelligent, im pretty sure seeing anything in the world a second time is seeing it “re-run”. The thing is its good enough to still be enjoyable when viewed a second time. Yeah the film was designed for a bunch of american and australian 16 year olds, I guess that would make sense considering all of the critics that gave this movie an excellent review are 16 years of age…oh wait, none of them are.

  30. Jac, reckon odds are pretty good he won’t pay any attention to the content of our replies?

  31. Well, big movies like that are always the modern equivalent of Roman games. These were massive stage productions that depicted stories and myths from the Romans (and from the Greeks whose culture the Romans adopted) designed to entertain and thrill the populace. These “plays” included the infamous battles with gladiators. Melodrama, action, spectacle.

    The same parallel can be drawn between the hippodrome of the New Rome (Constantinople), c. 330-600 BC, and modern professional sports aimed at a mass audience, with coloured teams (greens, blues, whites) competing between them, and their supporters fighting.

    To the point…

    Modern blockbuster movies, for the most part, aim to the emotions and not the intellect of their audience, and are an escapist utility, like those “epic” games of the Arena 2000 thousand years ago. A “deliver to the masses what they want” kind of thing, featuring myths (or modern “myths”, be it the police drama stereotypes, the action man stereotypes, or comic books) that interest and thrill the modern populace.

    This doesn’t mean they are crap, I personally enjoy this kind of thing, but I like to see them for what they are. And they are indeed souless for the most part, even if they feature excellent storytelling, acting etc., They are designed to appeal and entertain a mass audience.

    This doesn’t mean they suck. They suck if they are badly done (see Batman & Robin, Battlefield Earth, Wild Wild West etc.) or worse, if they even include blatant propaganda (like Jerry Bruckheimer’s militaristic “epics”).

    The Dark Knight is simply a good comic book movie, like Raimi’s Spider-Man, Singer’s X-Men or Burton’s Batman, and nothing more (a “masterpiece”) or nothing less.

  32. Nah, probably just another “its just a blockbuster money making halo roller coaster” comment.

  33. what do you want?

    it’s a silly movie. a waste of time. and worse, you’re putting words in my mouth, things i didn’t say and/or changing the meaning! do you long to work for mccain’s campaign or maybe faux news?

    ignorance – a soft… easy… pillow – Michel de Montaigne
    ignorance – the common confounder of truth – Ben Johnson
    ignorance – the recipe is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge – Elbert Hubbard

    juvenile smugness sucks.

    i was attracted to the site for fun and play as i thought most would toy with the over-hyped movie, but too many, including the site’s creator, are hung up on the petty shit. who cares!? it’s inane.

    yes, the film has bad dialogue, wooden acting, a silly story and preposterous plot points, but more importantly, it contains nothing of lasting value so there’s no point talking about the details. i don’t like fast food either and i’m certainly not going to talk about a how a big mac or whatever is cooked, it just sucks.

    i’ve worked in the film industry for twice your lifetime and am fed up with the money and attention focused on trival crap like this. i worked my first feature in 1980 and after all this time i’ve yet to work on a film that will stand the test of time. most films seem like computer software/hardware that is soon outdated. however, a truly good film remains true forever. and i constantly search for those kind of films and have seen everything by renoir, godard, fellini, vigo, de sica, bunuel, antonioni, passolini, bergman, herzog, truffaut, resnais, bresson, cocteau, tati, welles, cassavetes, anger, mallick, murnau, dreyer, eisenstein, kubrick, tarkovsky, kurosawa, ozu, park, kar-wai, etc., and would venture to say most here have never even heard of renoir, or, if so, confuse him with his dad. so it’s almost pointless to try to carry on a meaningful discussion here.

    simply put – tdk is not a film one would thoughtfully study the artistic merits of now, much less in 20 years. can you honestly find anything meaningful in the top film of 1986? Top Gun. i just pray no one will be playing brittany spears for inspired insights in 2030.

    years of working in the ’system’ has shown me that bullshit rises to the top (music, film, etc) and that the good shit rarely gets the money that would grant it the massive attention the bullshit does. it’s the easy-cheesy way out. corporations are hardly in the business of art. pigs will eat anything, so they’re fed slop.

    i refuse to ‘discuss’ this anymore. grow up. go live life. in 30 years hence, if you’re still the same, you didn’t live. bye

  34. The only thing I remember deleting of that guy’s was he posted almost a dozen one-letter comments one after the other. It was childish and retarded. Anything else I delete is typically just if someone types something obscene, racial slurs, or does nothing other than insult someone using pretty foul language with nothing else to day.

  35. Lol, glad to know all of your life problems buddy. Whats ironic is one of our main points is that his posts are irrelevant to the topic, and he just did the same thing again. Whatever, theres no way to debate with someone when all they do is say the same thing over and over again(this time he didnt, but what he said was still completely irrelevant).

    He then tells me to grow up(something he hasnt even done yet, judging from his immature comments), and claims if im the same in 30 years(which im 1 million percent sure i wont be, time changes everybody) then I wont have “lived life”. Well im sure I wont be as childish as him by that point.

    On another note, tdksucks, you didnt delete anything else, he just got pissed off because you deleted his ignorant comments.

  36. Yes, I think, despite our disagreements upon the merits of this film, that we can all agree that roger is a spoilt hypocrite. And what’s worse, he writes bad poetry, far more offensive to an appreciator of the arts than any Summer blockbuster could ever be.

  37. ain’t dealing with the kids no more… pointless.
    but you now – spoilt?
    insane maybe, spoilt no.
    what? when? where?

    here’s a poem -


    I mean: Can you forgive yourself / all
    those crimes without victims?

    - like it?

  38. nope. hate it. more irrelevant carp. but it warns my heart that tdksucks, earlofthercs, Jac and myself can reach a common ground and agree that roger is a hypocrite, and alot of other things

    How, you may ask? Well, lets see: roger says that nothing in cinema (his chosen industry) is original, and everything is souless cookie cutter trash. he lables the site as “increasing stale and uncreative”. He then proceed to use the almost identical, unoriginal replies over and over and over.

    another example: He tells jac “never presume to state how and what another thinks or feels or is.
    that is immature.”
    Later, when Jac and I criticise him for his meaningless, irrelevant contirbutions, he comes up with this: “do you long to work for mccain’s campaign or maybe faux news?”

    roger criticises the site, saying “nor is it a site for aficionados to discuss the nature of film”. he then proceeds to make no analysis of the film whatsoever, discussing nothing, re using the same ideas and phrases in every post.

    Particularly amusing are your quotes on ignorance. Here’s the definition of ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, and information. Lack of knowledge and information…hmmm, gee who does THAT remind me of. Maybe the guy who lacks any information or knowledge to back up his repetitive “critique”? (and rest assured, I use that term very loosely)

    Not gonna deal with the kids no more, huh? why? what, because we’ve repeatedly exposed that you have nothing more than a skin deep anti-populist opinion to share, rather than a somewhat more analytical reply, the likes of which tdksucks,earlofthercs, Jac and myself post?

    “so it’s almost pointless to try to carry on a meaningful discussion here.” What, because you list a whole bunch of directors which any half-wit could have found through imdb? And therefore because we don’t know them, we’re inferior to you, the anti capitalist cliché? IMHO, I feel that some of Jean Renoir’s work was a tad overrated, but hey that’s just me. And if you want to bitch about how no one makes good movies anymore, either take it somewhere else or rent GoodFellas, The Departed, Sin City, V for Vendetta, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood and The Assassination of Jesse James. All superb, post 1980’s movies, the year that for you seems to respresent the decline of cinema.

    Accept it roger. Your posts are unoriginal, you have contributed nothing at all meaningful to this debate (and if you can’t realize that that’s what this is, you’re as intelligent as a park bench) and quite frankly, you’re annoying and pathetic. You “refuse to discuss this anymore”? Fine by me. Don’ think a single person here will have a problem with that (though the fact you’ve posted twice since your refusal to discuss this anymore would suggest more bs will flow). Juvenile smugness does suck. Especially when exhibited by some clichéd, unoriginal anti money anti populist sheep.

    Goodie (ooh, see what I did there?)

  39. Kudos to earlofthercs. glad to see that we can reach a common ground
    what? when? where? ok, then, seeing as you asked roger

    you tell Jac “never presume to state how and what another thinks or feels or is.
    that is immature.”
    then, when we criticise the fact that you fail to post original, relevant replies you come up with this: do you long to work for mccain’s campaign or maybe faux news?

    you immaturely post a series of letters one after the other when ppl make a comment about how you structure your sentences, then declare “juvenile smugness sucks”

    you declare “nor is it a site for aficionados to discuss the nature of film” with reference to this site, before failing to give any sort of in depth critique with regards to this or any movie

    finally, you have endlessly lamented that nothing in cinema is original, and how its all pointless, souless and dumb. And you repeatedly lament this in repetitive, unoriginal, cokkie cutter replies which dumbly ignore the topic of the debate at hand.

    not gonna deal with the kids no more, huh? why? because we can reply with in depth analysis and originality?

  40. ignore previous comment. thought the first one hadn’t posted correctly. sorry for error there…

  41. you guys are silly and blind and can’t understand anything. that was a brautigan poem btw. bye

  42. bye? oh please tell me he’s leaving. roger, we wont miss you. or your brautigan

    good life, good luck, but most of all, good riddance

  43. Ta jimmy boy,

    And roger, yeah, I did like that last poem actually, it was a pleasant surprise. Then I realised it wasn’t your own and it all made sense. Hack.

    Tdksucks, thanks for indulging us this side track. I’ll can return to our regularly scheduled disagreement from now on ;)

  44. Earloftheercs, no problem. it was, beleive me, my pleasure
    anyways, back to our regularily scheduled programming

  45. (I know my grammar and scentence structure are bad, but I just off work and its like 1AM soo.. yeah)

    I don’t get this website… I mean it’s just a movie. You guys try to tear down such small parts of the movie and say its “dumb” or “retarded”, whereas it wouldof taken alot longer to explain most of the stuff as it is (alot of the complaints about this movie are that its too long).
    But seriously, a movie doesnt have to be realistic to be art… isnt that a big point of art to be creative and not to think inside the box and/or not be realistic sometimes (I’m not saying all the time, but at least a good chunk of the time). Its like bashing star wars when it first came out, saying “lightsabers could never exist!” or “People who love star wars probably have an IQ of 72, since most of this stuff is incomprehensible and unrealistic.” Or looking at a picasso and saying “why is the nose there?! This is a sad excuse for a human face. Whoever made this obviously does not know what he’s doing.”(I’m not comparing Nolan to Pablo Picasso or anything of the sort, I’m just makin a point). It’s just not worth it getting up in arms over a good summer movie.

    I myself loved this movie and am thinking of seeing it again, after reading all these arguements.

  46. Also, I think *almost* everyone can agree that the TDK was one of the best if not best Batman movies out there.

  47. i’d like to be nice and converse but you guys keep acting like jerks with stupid name calling, cheesy cut-downs, etc.. and come on, “regular scheduled programming?” the site is about not liking the movie! the dark knight sucks dot com.

    also, he’s not ‘my brautigan,’ but simply brautigan. and earletc is full of shit. also, he insists upon a particular convention of grammar yet never displays it himself. that’s called hypocrisy.

    the subject here is, dumb people love this film, right? “TDK Fans IQ: 72″ right? title and contents. so it seems that continuing to get you guys to talk proves the point. quit proving it with bitter tripe.

    regarding your long post about me, not so much the about the film?! i’ll start with the first paragraph from your post and work through them till i get tired, happy?

    1.) you – “nope. hate it. more irrelevant carp. but it warns my heart that tdksucks, earlofthercs, Jac and myself can reach a common ground and agree that roger is a hypocrite, and alot of other things”

    brautigan is not irrelevant nor a carp or any sort of fish. the use of his poem in response was apparently not understood. it’s sad you didn’t get it because ‘it’ could hardly be more relevant. and then, this band wagon thing. are you kidding? if that’s what it takes to make you feel right and good about yourself, you need remember the masses who burnt books, christians, jews etc., etc., etc., while expressing a similar smug ‘we’re right’ ignorance. a majority of fools. which is the point once again, the topic, low iq fan base, and that most films/tv/music appeal to a low base (american idol, etc).


    2.) you – “How, you may ask? Well, lets see: roger says that nothing in cinema (his chosen industry) is original, and everything is souless cookie cutter trash. he lables the site as “increasing stale and uncreative”. He then proceed to use the almost identical, unoriginal replies over and over and over.”

    i did not say EVERYTHING or cookie cutter or that nothing was original. once again you’re using crooked fox news tactics, e.g. changing meaning, words used, etc. didn’t i just list 20 or 30 directors that i love? a few dozen directors who made way more than a hundred films. and if that was all of what i loved in all cinema (which it isn’t), it’d hardly be ‘everything.’ also, most of my replies include something worth looking into or at least thinking about. you know, conversation, information, fun, not debate if possible. yes i do repeat some points because no one addresses them. i say it’s like a roller coaster and you and others say, oh he’s saying that roller coaster stuff again. that’s not talking, discussing or debating. it’s dismissive. what you feel from me maybe. though i am trying to communicate. understand that. i have said, and say today, that this film goes nowhere like a roller coaster. that the plot does not matter so much like when riding a roller coaster. it is about the thrill. it feels like a ride. you ride it. get off. ride it again. it has little artistic merit but does have technical merit like a modern roller coaster.


    3.) you – “another example: He tells jac “never presume to state how and what another thinks or feels or is.
    that is immature.”
    Later, when Jac and I criticise him for his meaningless, irrelevant contirbutions, he comes up with this: “do you long to work for mccain’s campaign or maybe faux news?””

    i didn’t presume to state what you feel. I brought your poor logic and dishonest tactics into question by ASKING, “do you long to work for…” i didn’t even say ‘you must want to.’ also, you’re doing the fox news thing again as you bring it up. that’s crazy, blind and dumb.


    4.) you – “roger criticises the site, saying “nor is it a site for aficionados to discuss the nature of film”. he then proceeds to make no analysis of the film whatsoever, discussing nothing, re using the same ideas and phrases in every post.”

    i said it wasn’t a site to discuss etc., so, according to you, by not discussing it, i did what i said? ok then. and who sez you can’t take the conversation elsewhere, particularly if progressive. and what’s your idea of discussing film anyway? if it is art or not, it can and should be discussed on that level, as i would like to. i don’t care to discuss the mere details of it. the paint strokes, good or bad. i want more than technique and craft. i want to discuss the phenomenon of mass appeal, that’s the topic after all… who likes this movie? dummies? seems like it.


    5.) you – Particularly amusing are your quotes on ignorance. Here’s the definition of ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, and information. Lack of knowledge and information…hmmm, gee who does THAT remind me of. Maybe the guy who lacks any information or knowledge to back up his repetitive “critique”? (and rest assured, I use that term very loosely)

    this is absurd, you’re referencing the dictionary for a definition of ignorance while showing no knowledge of cinema or even of what i actually said. i’ve stated over and over that i would like to talk about something more, while also giving you many things to check out for real. not spewing ego pew like you but telling you about some stuff to discover, ‘out there’ and within yourself. i’ve also stated that i work in the film industry now and have for decades, so obviously i have experienced much on set. and have continued to search high and low for films that actually feel like something. certainly i have a tremendous affinity with and for film.


    6.) you – “Not gonna deal with the kids no more, huh? why? what, because we’ve repeatedly exposed that you have nothing more than a skin deep anti-populist opinion to share, rather than a somewhat more analytical reply, the likes of which tdksucks,earlofthercs, Jac and myself post?”

    yes it’s tiresome. i’m doing it now because i’m bored and mad after just seeing some asshole throw a ton of shit out of his car while driving and it made me think, that’s one selfish fool. then i thought of the garbage you spew. so here i am. once again, as i say in most posts – i do not care to discuss the trivial details of this film, but want to discuss its’ mass appeal, and its’ nature beyond that of a blockbuster, if any. the opposite of ’skin deep’ btw.


    7.) you – “so it’s almost pointless to try to carry on a meaningful discussion here.” What, because you list a whole bunch of directors which any half-wit could have found through imdb? And therefore because we don’t know them, we’re inferior to you, the anti capitalist cliché? IMHO, I feel that some of Jean Renoir’s work was a tad overrated, but hey that’s just me. And if you want to bitch about how no one makes good movies anymore, either take it somewhere else or rent GoodFellas, The Departed, Sin City, V for Vendetta, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood and The Assassination of Jesse James. All superb, post 1980’s movies, the year that for you seems to respresent the decline of cinema.”

    take it somewhere else?! this is a site entitled, THE DARK KNIGHT SUCKS. this IS the place to speak out about why this big-budget blockbuster phenom SUCKS. you say “Renoir’s work was a tad overrated,” ok what work? which film and why. i’ve stated over and over why tdk is over-hyped, etc., do the same. however, to really appreciate and understand renoir you must be ready to digest something other than fast food. chew. don’t just inhale. also, having lived helps. so whatever. i also said i’ve searched for years, and it took years to even find those films on vhs, dvd or see what i could at art houses in la. those director’s were not culled from a list. furthermore, half of those movies you list are just bad, but if you want to see some really good new movies in that same vein, check out the korean new wave, in particular, chan-woo park. i’ve mentioned him several times because he is prefect for a batman film. you will LOVE his Vengeance Trilogy, start with ‘Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance,’ then, ‘Oldboy,’ then ‘Sympathy For Lady Vengeance.’ smart, scary, troubling, good. it would be grand to see what he would do with the batman, but warner is so stupid, look what their doing to spike jonze.

    “no country for old men” is a pretty good film and an example of a film that has something of the suspense and thrill of batman but with heart. it’s a film that could last a while and be viewed years from now. the cohen’s best work. and they are a joy to work and that somehow that shows up on film. they’re inclusive and respectful of the crew who help them make it. using the same people again and again, to the point it becomes family. so more care and feeling are put into every aspect. the same is true of fellini btw. and it’s something you can feel, in every detail, the details that matter. love of work. love of the people you work with. love of the creation itself.

    a good film feels like a haunting.

    a bad film feels manufactured, like a product.

    a good film has a half-life slowly radiating all that was put in it.

    a bad film feels empty and lifeless.

    ok i’m tired.

  48. Roger

    Nice way to sit there and call out Jimmyboy and call him a hypocrite for not strictly sticking to the original topic by arguing with you, while you’ve been doing the exact same thing. The big difference between you and him: His posts-Intelligent 100% of the time. Your posts-Intelligent about 30% of the time. And getting us to talk proves the point that were all unintelligent? How much do you want to bet, that if anybody on this site were to gather up all of the comments that me, Jimmyboy, or Earlofthercs have posted, and compared them to the ones you have posted, that they would say we post the more intelligent and relevant comments? And you do NOT post intelligent comments to “check out” like you think you do. On most of the topics here, you can pretty much be guaranteed to find that “its like a roller coaster, no feeling, made to make money” comment from you in a poem-like format. And I have replied to that post before, stating that if it had no feeling, that it wouldnt have any themes or complexity to it. To sit there and compare us to Nazis and then say that were “fools” with a smug feeling of being right, is the stupidest thing I have heard on this site. That one REALLY irritates me. If I remember correctly, we are the ones debating on why we think it is a good film, not saying “were right and your just an idiot sheep.” YOU think you are right, when you have no possible way to be. You could try for a million years to prove that your OPINION is right and that we are SHEEP and never prove it. Ever. They would invent a time machine before you would prove it. You are the one sitting there with your smug feeling of being right, and it makes you feel better about yourself to make us sound inferior to you, but it does not work. The point of debating is to enforce your point, but you do not know how to do that, all you know how to do is attempt to demean us and prove that your opinion is right, which is idiotic. We’ve seen your true colors many times on this site buddy. Have a nice day.

    P.S. “yes i do repeat some points because no one addresses them”

    Insanity: Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Hmm, sound familiar?

  49. chan-woo park’s Vengeance Trilogy, is awesome. But they’re never gona make a batman film with a stronger rating that DarkKnight (what was it in the states, PG13?) and I’m not so show chan-woo park could tone things down enough!

    And roger, you need to go back and re-read some of your old posts man. You’ve changed; your entire style into something much more communicative. This isn’t an insult- as a friend of mine has it and Im being serious- but you dont have Dissociative Identity Disorder do you? It’s like a different alter wrote your old posts.

    As for your actualy post, I’ll let jimmyboy take you to task, because your reading comprehension skills are obviously as bad as your poems.

    Except for one point, and it relates to your last 5 phrases. You still seam to think stating your opinion is the same as making an argument. Maybe you should think about that approach some more.

  50. new url!

  51. never say never
    (about chan-woo or anything)

    also, it’s not an opinion that the site is called – the dark knight sucks -
    and that that is what i’m suggesting.

    so, you aren’t debating that it’s good… or what?

    if you are… what supports your argument? opinion? popularity?

    quit falling into hypocrisy again and again.

    and please stop slinging merde. bad poems? my reading skills? you are blaming. check your writing skills. that might explain it.

    i, for the most part, have attempted to critique a corporate product, while you, for the most part, have continued to judge a single person. it’s not cool and wasn’t a couple thousand years ago. it is not debate, discussion or conversation. it’s shitty. and that is not an opinion but simply what is.


  52. The fact of the matter is anything successful is going to have stupid people somewhere in its fanbase. Purely because the film/band/television show has reached a wide audience. It’s unfair to say every fan is stupid. Perhaps it is that the majority of fans of the film who do comment on this site are the ones who have no self-control and rant and rave for the sake of it. Plenty of calmer, more intelligent fans may also read the entries on this site and consider themselves above it or feel they don’t need to defend something that they enjoy. You do seem to forget that TDK is just a piece of entertainment and not in fact something that will change the world as we know it.
    Also as a few other people further up have pointed out, you don’t exactly have some Nobel prize winners on your side either. Certainly calling your site ‘The Dark Knight Sucks’ isn’t really helping matters.

  53. hathaway did you even read or comprehend the site intro -

    “If you haven’t already figured out, this site is focused on explaining why the movie “The Dark Knight” (2008) sucks. Part of the reason for putting this site together was to counter the seemingly unquestionable hype surrounding the movie. The viral marketing campaigns, the massive buildup, the fanboys… all leading so many movie-goers to pause critical reasoning and tout the movie as some kind of masterpiece. Further, whenever a dissenting voice is heard to even question such blind praise, it’s as if a blasphemy has been uttered.”

  54. roger, you’re right my posts have decended into attacking you, but your old posts just pissed me off so much! But I appologise for not getting over it and getting on with defending the movie.

    Although it kind of seams that we’ve reached an understanding anyway.

    I like the movie, Jimmy likes the movie, but neither of us thinks its an unassailable masterpeice of art and cinema. You’re right that many of `the masses’ have taken their appreciation of the film too far, but I think this site, particularly many of the early posts, too the opposite view to too great and extreme as well (the rubber band effect of criticism I suppose).

    Anyways, if we’re amnicable now, I’m probably done.
    My early posts did actually argue against tdksucks points (mainly his lack of fact checking re balistics, armour, sonar, but then again the movie wasn’t flawless in its fact checking either.) but it’s been a while since Ive contributed that way, I concede.


  55. I meant to add that in your early posts you weren’t critiquing a corporate product, you were merely calling the film a corporate product, and assuming that automatically meant critiquing it. It seamed, and I could be wrong here, as inferring meaning is often tricky on the internet, that your view starts with the assumption that “corporate” equals “bad”. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case, and indeed think, as jimmy does, that having a film-such as TDK, be a little bit of both; a product and a work of art, actually strengthens film. I believe you conceded to that possibility elsewhere. Also: note recent trends removing the artificial separation between fine art and graphics, including sculpture, design & architecture as examples supporting this view.

    But don’t you dare tell me or anyone else to evolve again. That’s both ruder and more arogant than anything I, or anyone else, has said of this site.


    And Jac? Hell yeahs.

  56. Jac and Earl….super mega high five

    “you guys keep acting like jerks with stupid name calling”
    evolve? we want to work for fox? we want to burn books and people? we’re hypocrites? you said all of that in your more recent posts. THAT is stupid name calling. debating your opinion is not nazism. or a desire to work for fox. and if you really think we twist your words, re-read your posts (the older ones). we don;t twist your words. i assure you, i derive enough amusement from shutting down your arguements without use of untruths.

    you seem to be operting under the opinion that critiquing means totally ignoring the details.

    “i’ve stated over and over why tdk is over-hyped, etc.”

    Erm, no you haven’t.

    “the opposite of ’skin deep’ btw.”

    You have yet to go into explicit detail about what makes it over hyped. theres been some points about money on other posts, and the fact it was a thrill ride, but not in the kind of detail neccesary to be called a critique. If i worked for empire magazine or any newspaper or tv show anywhere in the world, and tried to pass that of as critiquing, i would be fired. and never do that job again.

    “also, it’s not an opinion that the site is called – the dark knight sucks -
    and that that is what i’m suggesting.”

    you have an OPINION that tdk sucks. no one here is debating what the sites called. no one bar you have touched on the topic.

    “so, you aren’t debating that it’s good… or what?
    if you are… what supports your argument? opinion? popularity?”

    Jac, Earl and myself are debating that its good. duh. should have been an easy one to figure out. what supports our arguement? our posts. there’s lots of them. lots. and in a number of articles. the majority of which are in-depth, intelligent and detailed. becaue we actually do argue the details extensively. And if your looking for a response to your arguement of “its fast food for the masses”, i reply to you to read my post on how to be omniscent about why i like this movie so damn much. (not gonna retype it here.)

    and im not the one who diverted from topic here. i said that your repetitive psting exemplifies why its unfair to generalise all tdk fans as being of low intelligence when so many it sucks supporters fling poo as well (actually, the kind of generalisation that you and tdksucks are proposing is much more of a fox news tactic than anything i or jac or earl have used) you went of on a tangent and said everyone who posted here was of a typical teen mindset (more generalisations). and i responded saying it wasn’t.

    “this is absurd, you’re referencing the dictionary for a definition of ignorance while showing no knowledge of cinema or even of what i actually said.”

    i understand what you said. you were saying we were all ignorant and smug juvenilles. which we aren’t. (more generalisations from you though) i referenced a dictionary to prove a point that you were being ignorant. it worked. deal with it.

    “however, to really appreciate and understand renoir you must be ready to digest something other than fast food.” another generalisation. the films i felt were overated were “Partie de campagne” “La Chienne” “The Woman on the Beach”. they were fine, sure, i just felt that they weren’t as brilliant as some make them out to be. I can appreciate cinema that isn’t fast food. by saying i can’t you once again fling poo and generalise (a la fox).

    “THE DARK KNIGHT SUCKS. this IS the place to speak out about why this big-budget blockbuster phenom SUCKS” no, its a place to discuss why THE DARK KINGHT SUCKS. LEARN TO COMPREHEND THE WORDS YOU SEE AND TYPE. And this was an exceptional exception to summer blockbusters, so that “critique” doesn’t apply here. (i refer back to posts on how to be omniscent)

    “that’s not talking, discussing or debating. it’s dismissive.” dismissive is you ignoring the fact that detials are important and saying we are fools for bothering. and did i or did i not reply to your new material about the directors? you wanted me to say which of renoirs work i refered to. i did. now you tell me which of those movies i listed sucks and why. in detail please. blockbuster replies wont cut it as those movies aren’t conventional summer blockbuster types.

    i know its not your brautigan. duh again. i was calling it that because you were posting it. it was a way of demeaning you and that fact it wasn’t relevant to the post. and i know its not a fish or carp. that was my way of saying a swear word ending in p and begining in c without waiting for moderation.

    “it is not debate, discussion or conversation. it’s shitty. and that is not an opinion but simply what is.”

    uh-huh. see, that last sentence is an excellent demonstration of your mindset. stating your opinion and assuming thats how it is. this was a discussion and debate, and still is. the topic just shifted from iq to your poo flinging and hypocrisy. which we are still conversing and debating.

    im not a hypocrite. im a guy who calls it like it is. if you don’t want to accept that, tough. and im not ignorant either. if i were ignorant, id use multiple swear words and make ridiculous generalisations while demeaning those who disagree with ego inflated attempts at critique.


  57. i can’t remember because it’s all so silly but i do remember being called a moron etc., evolve seems much more positive and encouraging actually

  58. smart way to bring visits to a blog.

    How’s adsense going?

  59. Fail.

    OMG I h8 dis moveie. da peepel who lik dis movieieie are dum an hav da iq of 0 LOLOLLOLOLOOLL

    pepeepel hoo like da film r soooooooooooo sttooopid!!!

  60. lol

  61. timothy, u clearly slipped into the gene pool while the lifeguard was on lunch break. and omfg, the irony,as you would have to be the stupidest inbred moron to post on this site.(and he thinks the movie sucks! more proof that tdksucks is WRONG about fans IQ)

    a few pointers

    1. People has 2 syllables, not three. (though you wouldn’t know what a syllable is)
    2. movie has 2 syllables, not 4.
    3. repeated use of LOL and holding down the “o” key impress no one. Except monkeys, but that doesn’t count, because they’re laughing AT you.

    U fail epic hardcore, bud. Hope that cardboard box is cosy.

  62. jb

    what the hell?

    that dude (timothy) you mock is obviously being sarcastic and is certainly a fanboy, like you, who loves tdk and is, oddly, coming to its’ defense (which is the only thing that might be mocked).

    you’re lack of understanding is awesome. what’s the topic?

  63. the topic: tdk fans iq=72 (your reading comprehension clearly sucks to levels of awesomeness)

    timothy, if you where being sarcastic, i sincerely apologise. If not, see above post.

    and roger, coming to a good movies defense isn’t really something to be mocked. specially when most of the criticisms are pathetic.

  64. Coming to the defense of something you like is “odd?” Do you know what the word “odd” means roger? Defending something you DON’T like would be odd.

  65. roger,

    If you search through the old posts you’ll find that you were called a moron in response to a post of yours, after being asked why you wouldn’t debate finer details, that said, `arguing with morons is moronic’. So, at the risk of sounding juvenile (albeit accurate) you started that particular one.

    And no, telling someone to evolve isn’t encouraging and positive, it’s egotistical & condescending. Especially when stated in such a way to imply that you already consider yourself more evolved (in thought) than those your addressing.

    And clearly, that is not the case.

    And Jimmyboy can certainly be forgiven for his possible misinterpretation of Timothy’s post, given other posts that have been made around this site and others; it is often difficult to register sarcasm, especially in the heat of the moment.

    Anyways, as to `tdk fans IQ: 72′ well, weather you agree with jimmyboy, jac and I or not, the mere fact that we can be this awesome would indicate average IQs of at least 116. :p

  66. earl, ok then, 73. you’re being too kind to yourself. you’ve been a rude ass-wipe more than a civil humanoid. moron is the only thing i could vaguely remember. of course i may have you confused with the others who talk like you. if so then sorry. sorry anyway. i don’t like this aside. i was mainly being flippant about the movie, of course. some that were shaken turned to personal attacks, as if.

    jb, i’m worried about you. reading skills? topic? what the fuck? where’s your brain??? and yes, coming to the defense of a 200 million dollar movie is odd. it is. defend something that needs defending. something worth fighting for. something actually in danger. something fragile, helpless, in need of aid (i.e. the rain forest, polar bears, human rights), not a big-ass hollywood poo-poo.

  67. rodger

    “where’s your brain???”
    in my skull, above the spinal cord, between my ears and behind my eyes. As it is with every other human being. anatomy 101, my friend

    you said in one of your above posts, your lack of understanding is awesome, whats the topic?

    i responded:tdk fans iq=72 (your reading comprehension clearly sucks to levels of awesomeness).
    which was a reference to this articles TITLE being tdk fans iq=72, which could be easily figured out (hence the reading comprehension gag). which was an insult of your reading skills in retaliation to the whole timothy incident. (and its hard to pick up sarcasm in posts, specially since that kinda post is common.)

    onwards, earl is a civil humanoid the whole time. and he hasn’t yet said anyhting to justify the title of rude a** wipe. as opposed to a certain person who has called large numbers of ppl book burning morons. and totalitarians. and nazis.

    Moving forwards, so you think i should go defend something worth fighting for, hmmm? something “fragile, helpless, in need of aid”?

    Question #1: How do you know that i don’t? how do you know what i do with the rest of my day? Are you psychic? are you piggybacking CIA spy satellites? are you stalking me? are you santa claus? are you some all-knowing all-wise demigod?

    You’re none of them. you’re just generalising. again. i don’t spend my entire day here, bud. you have severe ego issues if you think i spend my life at a monitor pondering replies to your posts. i do plenty of work in my community, which is a heck of a lot more than most 16 year olds can say about don’t tell me to go save the world. i do my bit already.

    Question #2: You’ve said that this movie is not worth defending. that i should be out there doing bigger better things. Now, im sorry, but is there some reason why defending a movie is inherently less worthy than attacking it? We defend a movie, which is apparently an “odd” thing to do, and therefore we’re fighting for something not worth fighting for, but its fine for you to attack it? what, is God on your side? is your cause of attacking tdk some divine crusade?

    you can’t take some moral high ground just because you attack tdk. its not like yours is a more righteous cause than ours. i won’t tell you to go out and save the world rather than waste your time (im not that egotistical nor presumptuous) but it outright hypocritical to say that defending this movie is a wate of time when attacking it isn’t in any way more productive. what, are your posts going to save the whales & forests? does your critique feed starving ethiopians? please.

    And im sure that above paragraph will no doubt ellicit some drawn out response about the evils of “200 million dollar hollywood trash” (yes thats not an exact quote, but id rather not sit through moderation). so ill take a pre-emptive strike. what budget do YOU, oh great one, propose tdk should have been made on, hmmm? because according to you big=bad. so i guess that to your perverse logic, less=better?

    i could make a movie of a man throwing up into a megaphone and yelling at a lightbulb for 45 mins for next to nothing. that doesn’t make it a better movie. if batman had been made on a shoestring budget, it wouldn’t have worked. stunts? none (aside from cost to set up, the insurance would have been a b****) locations? not the ones they had (hospital explosion was FOR REAL folks. no fx involved) batsuit and cars and bike? possibly adam west equivalents, but not the ones we saw. sure, some movies can be made great on the cheap. but its not like every good movie was cheap. and its not like every bad movie was expensive. Batman movies require an inherently large budget. its about a man with hi-tech gadgets who fights crime in a tank/car and a tank/bike. who takes on a terrorist. who blows up alot. not easily done on a shoestring budget.

    But look at what it did with the 200 mil. Best comic book movie made so far, excellent movie in its own right and the one really original, deep, blockbuster movie this season. so i AM defending something worth fighting for. im defending the best thing in the blockbuster season in a loooong time, and hopefully an example for movies to come.

    and your hell-bent on attacking the movie that acheived this. so whos really the dumb one here?

  68. Honestly, just another good example roger has given us as to why he is a hypocrite. “coming to the defense of a 200 million dollar movie is odd” while he has spent a ton of time providing this site with comments on the “reasons” why this movie sucks.

    Roger Logic=Its ok to attack a movie, but to defend it is just stupid and way less productive.

    I would say more, but Jimmyboy has pretty much done a great job of covering everything.

  69. dude(s) this is too dumb

  70. at last, we’ve broken him!

    (although this is now the 3rd time hes said he’s leaving cos we’re too dumb. funny how he always came back)

    and hes said that “this is too dumb” at least 3 times as well. a pattern appears.

    Well, in the event that that well-worded response was your last post,
    Goodbye, goodluck, good riddance and GTFO

  71. i’m glad you do good stuff jimmy! that’s admirable. however i wasn’t generalizing and i am far from broken, just bored and no longer interested in continuing this unproductive exchange. i have merely spoken out against this movie because few do and this site is a place to do so, although it seems to be over anyway. that is all.

  72. Man roger, you do more encores than Pavarotti.

    And I love the way you use the `I vaguely remember’ or `I intended to be flippant’ or `I think its actually encouraging’ excuses to avoid taking responsibility for starting the insult hurling. I stated directed that I merely reacted to your trend.

    I admit that I insulted you in a much more direct manner, and I have apologised repeatedly for being rude, and I meant it. (Though I am rather a fan of the great tradition of witty putdowns exchanged by public figures-and I’ll cite Shaw vs. Churchill and Hemmingway vs. Faulkner as plum examples).

    You, on the other hand never have- sincerely at least- to anyone, but rather have relied on the aforementioned rather weak excuses.

    You’re a classy guy. I mean `ass-wipe’? Brautigan would be proud. (And yes, just in case there’s any lingering confusion -since you proven time and again your poor comprehensions skills- that was sarcasm).

  73. i didn’t start insulting people, i insulted the movie for a long while. i think the first harsh spew not directed at the movie was actually indirect when i said to the site dude – “responding to morons is moronic” which i’ve done (so people say) and therefore i’m a hypocrite, which i guess means i was right?

    however, you are right about my encores and not taking responsibility for my words. but they are your words too and your responsibility as well. for my part, i will use them better.

    you decide

    i’d love to hear a hemmy/faulkner show-down. if you know or where to read let me know?

    oh and (encore), back on topic… the movie. smell of the herd put me off. the ‘film’ has no aesthetic ambition, does not bring a change in the understanding of man or in cinematic form, and is, like the rest (blockbusters et al), completely consumable in the morning and completely discardable in the afternoon. novel.

  74. Alright!

    I can’t find a site where it details their exchange verbatim, but the gist is that papa was a fan of Fs. (“I wish I could write well enough to write about aircraft. Faulkner did it very well in Pylon but you cannot do something someone else has done though you might have done it if they hadn’t)

    Then Faulkner was asked by students at a guest speaker’s engagement what he thought of Hemmingway, and he replied that `he lacks courage, has never gone out on a limb or used a word that might send his reader to the dictionary.’ When Ernie heard this he publicly replied `Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use ‘ (win, right?) but apparently in private Ernie was actually hurt by the `lacks courage’ part, and had a friend send Faulkner copies of his war record (they were both soldiers during world war I).

    In the meantime, when Faulkner found out his words had been published, but before he had heard Ernie’s cutting reply he wrote this letter:

    To Ernest Hemingway
    28 June 1947

    Dear Hemingway:

    I’m sorry of this damn stupid thing. I was just making $250.00, I thought informally, not for publication, or I would have insisted on looking at the stuff before it was released. I have believed for years that the human voice has caused all human ills and I thought I had broken myself of talking. Maybe this will be my valedictory lesson.

    I hope it won’t matter a damn to you. But if or when or whever [sic] it does, please accept another squirm from your truly.

    William Faulkner

    Also for his part, Faulkner later said this, responding to some praise he’d received for a work: “If I had not existed, someone else would have written me, Hemingway, Dostoevsky, all of us” alluding to a respect for papa of some sorts.

    But apparently from there on in they never exchanged words directly, but did occasionally say snarky things about each other in letters, though not often and no where near as much as they both said nasty things about other people (Hemingway in particular. Damn, he makes you and I look positively genteel, you worthless prick)!

    You can buy letters collections from both writers if you want to wade through, by the way.

    Yes, I’m a fan. (But I still like the Dark Knight too). What’s that say about my IQ then? ;)

  75. well it says nothing of course, you’re no dummy. and i liked the movie too as novel entertainment just not as art. and that was my only reason to speak out. this site attacking the details is rather silly but it is a place to respond to some who say it is great art.

    i love those papa/fau quotes! coolio!

    papa is perfect with the limited vocab and it was somewhat daft of fauky to mock his approach, both are great in and of their own.


  76. omg da reel gud mooVs r da rundown nd da jumpa dood LOLOLOLL

    i cant undersdant Y da peeople like da mooovee. only da dum peeple of eq 0 kan like it lolololll!!!!

    i fink dat dat da reel gud moooVs are da mummE and da reel moviez nut da dume dark nite moveee. its sooo dummm. ppelpe only lieke da mooovvV cuz da hateh legedre wuz da ded lolol he wuz soooo bad wen sum1 diez da pelepe r like omg hes soo gud, but NO he’z not. i fink dat maybze da will smith wud b da gud joker

  77. see

  78. exactly, roger. “see” is right.

    Timothy, i attacked you before. I was mocked for this by roger. wrongly, it seems. You’re a moron. And evidently not one of the mentally superior supporters to tdksucks cause (once again, proving that this entire thread was unjustified because there as many morons on both sides)

    The mummy was okay, sure. but it was positively dumb when compared to the dark knight. Jumper (or jumpa as you call it) was a lifeless, boring and overlong piece of junk which relied on FX and its high concept (oh, im a brooding superpowered teen! with a high school sweetheart!) rather than acting and plot. and people don’t just like the movie cos heath ledger died. they like it because its a) a batman movie and b) very entertaining, well acted and actually has themes and morals rather than an FX cream-fest.

    And ledger wasn’t bad. at all. he was sublime. the mannerisms, the voice, the look. he was as close to the perfect joker as has been seen on screens since…well, ever. and will smith couldn’t pull off the joker. im not doubting this acting ability (hes actually, IMO, quite a good actor), but theres certain issues with skin colour and his general “all round good guy hero” image that would make it hard for audiences to accept him as joker.

    Oh, and one other thing. the leet speak doesn’t make you seem hip or happening. it makes you seem…moronic.

  79. Man, you guys wouldn’t know satire if it hit you in the face…

  80. see! jb you keep proving yourself to be what you call others (moronic). he IS one of you. yet you still try to refute him when it’s obviously satire (as he finally has to state since you don’t understand). he supports the silly film. this senselessly repeating friendly fire by you is unbelievable.

  81. I’m not “one” of anyone.

  82. good one… sort of. actually, in the big picture, you could be said to be part of one, part of the whole. “…our conception of ourself as an “ego in a bag of skin” is a myth; the entities we call the separate “things” are merely processes of the whole.” however, it is true you have repeatedly defended said film in this low iq topic via satire and are therefore on the fanboy side of the ‘debate,’ and though you may loathe the thought, jimmyboy is then, your comrade.

  83. Timothy, while I recognised what you were doing as satire in the first place (see above) I also went a little deeper than that and recognised it as poor shoddy and useless satire. Those you were parodying had long since departed from this site, and only those interested in actual discussion had remained.

    Unfortunately Jimmyboy mistook you for one of those unfortunate troglodytes that actually type/think like you presented. Again, as stated above, it is hard to recognise sarcasm in type (when it is so close to the `real thing’) because all the normal giveaways (facial expression/tone of voice) are absent.

    roger, I don’t think you’re being fair. For someone (timothy) to come back and basically repeat himself just to get a reaction (serious Tim, are you just trolling or did your `satire’ really have a point? If it’s `why bother arguing about a movie’ then, why bother satirising arguing about a movie?) It is just as easy to take him on face value, and that’s the only thing Jimmyboy is guilty of. Is it a crime to believe people are sometimes still guanine on the internet?

    As for him `supporting the silly film’ I still think your supposing something that there is insufficient evidence for. I’d propose that he is more neutral in his opinion on the actual film, and it’s this site alone that caught his ire.

    And Timothy, you are most certainly `one’ of something, but I’m too much the gentleman to type it.


    PS Nolan should totally cast me as the Riddler in the next movie. I think this post shows why I’d absolutely nail it.

  84. Yeah, I meant `genuine’. `Guanine’ is a nucleobase used in the construction of RNA/DNA.

    Curses; the dastardly duo (dyslexia and spell check) foil me again!


  85. …So is this site done, or what?

  86. Whoa, earl is quite witty. Your intelligence surpasses even that of roger.

  87. Ok, that sarcasm was much easier to recognise! Nice one (two insults in one). See, I bet you enjoyed that. Isn’t it much more fun to be understood? Now I’m sure your endevours to piss people off on the itnernet will go much smooter in the future. You’re welcome. I’m glad I could help.

  88. hmmm… Alright all sarcasm aside, this film was overpraised by some, without a doubt. but to say that it sucks? really, it is a better movie than at least 75 percent of films released recently. It al least makes an attempt at some sort of a plot, and the acting was good for the most part, with the exception of maybe Gyllenhall. But she is still an improvement over Holmes. To say that this movie is overrated by many a internet forum-goer is one thing, but to say that it sucked is blatantly false. Think about it, superman returns. There’s a film that really didn’t deliver what the hype promised. Spider-man 3. Elektra. Hancock. This movie truly is a cut above your action/ supermovies in general. But ill admit it is fun to go againt the crowd and what not, and to screw the band wagon. In that respect, i can somewhat come to terms with the harsh bitching about. And just for the record i enjoyed watching, but do not consider it a favorite movie ofmine, by any stretch.

  89. hmmm i posted a swear-free response about two or three paragraphs long and it was either deleted or not accepted at all.

  90. Yeah, sometimes posts just dont work around here, unfortunately. Yry again whenever you can be bothered typing out whatever you said out again. I’ll check back regularly for it (fairs fair afterall).

  91. Meh it might have been something to the effect of why do i keep coming back here. I’ve come to the conclusion it’s because I like the idea of conflict, without any actual risk.

    Anyways, the movie doesn’t suck. It is overhyped, but is far from suckdom. I can’t really think of any movie this year i enjoyed more, although “In Bruges” came close.

  92. I think you are being a little too harsh in your IQ rating of 72.

    Although I do admit I thought a similar thing while I was watching the film. I was thinking, more or less- “This type of pretentious tripe is basically created for viewers of average intelligence, with IQ levels in the 90-110 range.”

    Which of course, is one hundred percent fine, and 95% of Hollywood “blockbuster films” fit into this same category of juvenile, mindless, tripe.

    What I found disturbing though, it that this director, the cast, and tone of the film itself, actually believed it was serious, high-art, cinema. And the idiots who pose as film critics these days, almost all bought into it! I have the utmost respect for any critic who called this film out for the disjointed mess that it is.

  93. Yeah, I thought as much. We’re in the same boat then Tim. Although, I sometimes enjoy conflict with risk too (beer is usually involved. Or scabble). And yep, we agree on the `didn’t suck, but was overhyped, quite liked it actually.’ as well. And, so you know, Jimmyboy’s a top bloke and didn’t deserve to get trolled, but Im sure he’s cool with the above clarification. E.

  94. May he rest in peace. Quite liked the scrabble touch. What is RCS?

  95. The dark night sucked balls. Heath Ledger was boring and cant act. The only reason it is considered to be “The greatest film ever” by the uneducated dick wads is because Heath Ledger died, so his next role had to be inspiring. Batman was gay screw Christian Bale and bring back George Clooney. What happened to attractive lead females because Rachele what ever her last name is, is ugly. And the fucking director tried using Hitchcock effects of not showing any direct violence which really didn’t work.

    If i hear one more person say “Why so serious” i will go on a mass murder of batman fans.

    Suck balls Batman

  96. RCS are my two bands, The Rye Catchers & the Red Cents (although the Red cents are on an `extended break’ at the monet). Check us out: &

  97. TDK fans aren’t dumb. Look at me. I’m intelligent! Satire? Nonsense, you’re obviously dumb. You misspelling all those words on purpose? That’s bull.

    Now, anybody who disagrees with me, GTFO. Because being intelligent means agreeing as one that TDK rules. Makes sense to me!

  98. Dear Sylas,


  99. well it was a nice site while it lasted, let me thought a lot about how I didn’t like the movie, when i felt uneasy when I was unsure. Hope you find some more stuff to make fun of, and other movies!

  100. to the guy who is posing as me,

    Wow, you must be so jealous of the fact that i actually can form an intelligent post that you decided (due to your clearly low self esteem) to use my name!

    Either that or you are so utterly unintelligent that you can’t spell your own name and just use someone else’s. Or a combination of both.

    If you’re going to insult me, have the stones to do it with your own identity.

  101. to the guy who’s posing as me above,

    I am your id, trying to take those Dark Knight balls out of your mouth before you get throat cancer,

    Loves and kisses,

  102. LOL at the multiple Jimmboys.

  103. Yeah, it is amusing i have an identity theif

    Personally i think its a symptom of abandonment issues. He just needs his mummy to give him a cookie and tell him he’s special. which he is. special needs to be precise.

    Oh, and just a question for tdksucks here. isn’t the point of moderation to prevent this sort of thing?

  104. …You know, so that I can counter all arguments of TDK sucks with TDK rules because that’s what this forum is for? Right, guys? Guys?

  105. Yeah, but you’re still going to get owned again and again.

  106. I think it’s pretty even on both sides. You’re just biased.

  107. Roxxi, Bwarg69 means the insult trade between the real and fake jimmyboy not the weather or not TDK sucks or not argument. I think the real jimmyboy has been a bit funnyier and less repetitive in their trade offs. But, yeah, it is hard to seperate bias from that opinion. So do you mean that you think their trade off has been even or just the argument?

  108. Look at me i like men and live in my mother’s basement eating pizza bagels all day claiming there are no jobs available playing runescape and trolling tdksucks’ forums all day/night. WHOO HOO!

  109. what’s up sexy men out there i just wanted to let everyone know i’m such a hoochie mama that my *naughtynameforagirlsprivate* is fallin out like roast beef curtains or whatever!

  110. nigguh pleeeze

Leave a Reply