• jagoan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Unpopular opinion: Bale happened to be the Batman of the best Batman movie, his Batman is kinda meh. And I wish Afflect was in better Batman movies.

      • Codex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Now that you call it out, I agree! Bale gets a lot of praise for his ability to morph his body for different roles, but is otherwise only alright as an actor. But he happens to be in many great movies with other iconic figures which really elevates his cachet.

        Affleck is pretty good. I also really liked Pattenson’s emo sad-Bruce version quite a bit more than I expected to. For me, nothing will ever be as nostalgic and iconic as the Tim/Conroy animated portrayal.

      • edric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Batfleck definitely has the look and is more comic “accurate”. I’m sure he would’ve killed it in a better film and not directed by Snyder.

      • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Shame they aren’t still using him. He makes a good, grizzled Batman that just doesn’t play around anymore.

  • DarkGamer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Hi, I see in the modlog that dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 's post was removed for “violating rule 1,” which is, “be civil and nice.”

    Israel is discriminating non-citizens like every other state while e. g. Arabic citizens have full civil rights. As much as you might hate Israel, this is not Apartheit.

    What isn’t nice or civil about this post? They shared their opinion, one I consider reasonable, in a way that was inoffensive. Can the mods please elaborate on your mod policy here, are only anti-Israel opinions allowed?

    (original comments still visible on kbin, though site is unstable atm)

  • Random_user@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Ben’s version of batman was best batman. Not much who was playing him, but how batman acted and handled himself.

  • rifugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Disregarding acting ability, I don’t think Pattinson had the physicality for it; he didn’t look big enough to me to be believable. You could really tell the Batman costume had a lot of padding when you saw him as Bruce Wayne. I think he’s just too lithe, for the lack of a better descriptor, for the character, you know?

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve heard that the Batman was supposed to show a younger, less-experienced Batman. So maybe he’ll bulk up more for the next one, idk

  • Chemical Wonka@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Let’s make one thing clear: This “country” that proclaims itself as Israel is not the same Israel as described in Bible but a Zionist State where its ideological pillars were forged, in a Europe still at the time submerged in colonialist ideology. This is just to say the basics

    • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      What is your point?

      Like why I care about whether or not it is the one in the bible?

      What are you trying to get at?

      It seems a bit “fun fact that is kinda related to the post but not really at the same time”. I mean obviously Israel is a Zionist state. It is literally the movement that made the state. How does it relate to apartheid? Now colonistic idealogy has a link to apartheid. But then again, Jews didn’t had the best experience with colonism within Europe which is what Hilter did. So you could easily argue against the sentiment, while I personally won’t argue either way as I don’t believe that I know or understand enough.

      In short, I might agree with you if I would understand what you want to tell us. But I don’t, care to help me?

    • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s funny how you claim Israel is “winning this war on terror,” yet everything after that in your comment sounds like something a terrorist would say.

      • VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Nevermind mind the fact the war on terror was something the US came up with and then badly fucked that up. Dude’s not even a competent troll.

        • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          From the POV of the US, I’d argue that the war on terror was a rousing success. They got the surveillance state they wanted.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            War on Drugs caused drugs to become more available, more potent, and cheaper.

            War on Terror has created entirely new terrorist organizations.

            Could we have a War on Wealth?

            • Carlo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              I mean, based on these other examples, it seems like a real monkey’s paw situation. We’d probably just get a few more asshat billionaires out of it.

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        What they meant to say is: “Israel is winning the war on terror on the side of terror”

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Palestinians are not All Arabic nor Muslim. (saying Arabic/Muslim shows how little people understand the difference. It’s as dumb as saying Caucasian/Christian. You can be one, both, or none.) Palestinian genetically are a mix of all Mediterranean peoples. And that includes Greek, European, and Arabs. Also, the Palestinian people are more secular than the surrounding Muslim countries… Second, there is no winning a war on terror. Not in the way you are thinking anyways. Every innocent person killed by Israel spawns new terrorists. It’s unwinnable through violence.

        • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          And sorry for the double response but what in the actual fuck is 99% Arabic? For starters, minus un-contacted tribes on islands and forests, there are no 99% ethnic people on earth! If someone is 33% Caucasian, 33% Arabic, and 33% Asian what are they to you? Because your words indicates it matters. Your words implies the 1% rule used by racist to justify atrocities. (1% rule is if someone has 1% of blood outside of “white” means they are the other race.) All I see is humans being killed in Gaza.

          TLDR: there are no large population of people that are 99% of anything. Even more so in the fucking Mediterranean.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Israel are terrorists, and invaders in the West Bank deserve to be shot