You can do both at the same time. It's not necessarily an either/or dichotomy. Everyone will have their own answer, but for me, I wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't enjoyable.

Some people play tennis for fun, some people make fan films for fun.

Oh. And the massive paychecks. That's another reason to make fan films.

My brother and I were waiting around and we had an idea for a game. More fun than you'd think.

Hey, that's shaping up well. How much clay have you used so far?

This is interesting. I've been trying to understand why Nolan plot holes bother me more than, say, Michael Bay plot holes. I'm not trying to nit-pick. It just happens. It's as if Nolan is in some uncanny valley of Intelligent Movie. No one cares when something stupid happens in a stupid movie. But when stupid creeps into a smart movie (or in TDKR's case, series) it's amplified. For me, amplified to the point of ruination.

Spoilers.

For example, I cannot. Can. Not. accept that the Gubbmint would concede Gotham. Just hand the entire city over to terrorists. Wouldn't happen. Not in any world that even remotely resembles our own. "Well, New York, we had a good run but..." Part of the appeal of Nolan's Batman movies is the basis in our-ish reality. I was with the movie 'til that point. And once it lost me, oh man, did it lose me. But if this were to have happened in basically any other summer blockbuster it'd roll right off. In fact, I think Chicago was taken hostage in Transformers 3. Didn't bother me.

Anyway. Anyone have theories on this?

On the what makes Die Hard with a Vengeance better than Die Hard 2 has everything to do with coincidence and plausibility. In Die Hard 2, it's John at the center of a terrorist plot. Again. A ridiculous one. One that had no hope of working in the real world. And his wife is in one of the airplanes. And Carl Winslow, an LA cop, is also in DC. The lantern hanging of "how can the same shit happen to the same guy twice" line doesn't come close to covering it. The filmmakers banked on the hope that audience would just accept the replay of senario and enjoy the action and set pieces. Which I don't. Actually, I can't even tell you what the villain's goal was and I've seen that movie at least three times. I do remember naked kung fu though. Die Hard 4 basically has the same problems. The first one is about an average cop who is thrown into extreme circumstances. 2 and 4 just step over the line from what's an acceptable coincidence to the contrived. And now he's anything but an average Joe. He's an experienced badass by 4. Boring.

With a Vengeance, on the other hand, is far more plausible. John is targeted. He didn't stumble into a cab with Sam Jackson. He was forced into it. I'd also argue that it's the best entertainment of all the films. The action, puzzles, and comedy are top shelf. I like that Simon's mission to kill John is more of an aside. I always got the impression he did it to prove that he was better than his brother. He was a well developed villain. But that's me reading into the movie.

My dog met the real-McCoy Target dog (flown in from California for a Chicago store opening). He sniffed her butt and everything.

http://f.cl.ly/items/2V0v0e3F3r1G2j2T3K … rticle.pdf

For your edification, a line-by-line legal analysis of verse 2 of Jay-Z's 99 Problems, published in the law review of St. Louis University.

So I caved and finally listened to it.

"If we all get hit by a bus tomorrow, the Down in Front forum is what I'm most proud of."

On the show it was suggested that perhaps Godfather owes its reputation more to context than to what it is. But it's about the only film in my experience that is referenced across every generational and cultural subset I can think of. Even more than Star Wars. My grandfather, who never watched or talked about movies, would drop GF quotes. At-risk kids I tutored quoted GF. I quote GF. It's not just because it sold a bunch of tickets and did something new. Like Star Wars, I think it's because it touches on very universal ideas about family, loyalty, vengeance, and power.

First, on a technical level, it's really hard to think of a movie that gets as many facets of filmmaking so nearly perfect all at once. It doesn't matter what your bag is here. From acting, lighting, set-dec, music, editing, sound... each department had a lot to say about each scene. This is because they had a layered story to start with.

...you know what? This was about to become a tldr essay. Just go watch it again. I didn't like it the first time either. I think because of its reputation. "Oh. Really? This is the greatest film of all time?" It became one of my favorite movies after the second go.

Space Jam