Picture disc's are typically more expensive. The site has it marked down to $11.99, but it will definitely be cheaper on amazon or other online stores if and when it is released to them.

I can understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion "The Dark Knight" will have a far greater influence on cinema then any other film from 2008. And I that is after putting aside all of the box office glory it had.

And before anyone else comments, I am not saying "The Dark Knight" is the greatest film of all time, or even one of the greatest films of all time. All I am saying is that some films, whether the Academy honors them or not (think "Heat") have a greater influence on future filmmakers. "The Dark Knight" will be one of those films.

Well I guess we agree to disagree.

And I still believe that the film matters when honoring it's actor, especially for a comedy film.

But to clarify, I am not "one of those people that only know Robert Downey Jr. for his revival of his career in iron man". I've seen a varied selection of his filmography. I think it should be understood that 99% of slashfilm readers are well versed in films. I only used "Iron Man" as an example, because it is one of his more recent films, and IN MY OPINION his better film of 2008. If anything, he should have been nominated for "Zodiac" in 2008. I think his performance in that film was far superior to his performances in both "Tropic Thunder" and "Iron Man".

Actually it does matter, because the lines he was given were completely unfunny. He delivered them completely unfunny. The only thing remotely funny thing was the black face gimmick, but even that was beaten to death before the movie even came out.

A comedy film is supposed to be funny. To be funny, the actors must deliver funny performances. If the actor doesn't give a funny performance, is he really doing his job? Is he deserving of an award (or nomination) if he failed to achieve what he set out to do?

When you say it doesn't matter, that's simply not true. A comedy film like "Tropic Thunder" has to rely heavily on its actors to deliver a funny performance. In my opinion, Downey Jr. failed. There for I believe we shouldn't applaud his performance.

Keep in my these are only my opinions on "Tropic Thunder". A nomination for Downey Jr. will only tarnish what little respect I had for the Academy Awards.

I believe Downey Jr. is in fact a tremendous actor, who has given us countless amazing performances, including 2008's "Iron Man". But he failed miserably in "Tropic Thunder".

Yes

First of, Robert Downey Jr. does not deserve a nomination for his performance in Tropic Thunder. The film was pure rubbish.

Second, Dev Patel shouldn't be nominated at all, but if he is, why is he considered a supporting actor. He was clearly the main actor. The film wasn't an ensemble piece, it was about his character.

Slumdog Millionaire was a fun movie, but one that will not stand the test of time. I know some here at Slashfilm think Slumdog Millionaire is like the second coming (Chen), but at it's core, it's all recycled material (story wise and stylistically) done in a competent manner. It's neither breaking new ground nor reinventing the wheel.

I think that if Nolan felt he was completely done with Dent he would have made his death a whole lot clearer. I mean there was no body in a coffin (nor a coffin either). There was what looked like a memorial service, but then again it could be a cover up (they had one for Gordon to trick the Joker).

I'm not saying that Dent is for sure coming back or even that he is indeed alive. This will be ultimately decided when the third story is created. Nolan is very clever in that he's bringing the audience closure without screwing himself if he has a great idea for the sequel.

And for all those who say Dent's story arc is complete, I would say they are only half correct. If anyone is familiar with "The Long Halloween" (which I believe Nolan was heavily influence by, more so in style than story), Dent becomes somewhat of the unofficial head of the "freaks" and ushers Gotham City into a new era. Making mob rule a thing of the past, while allowing the "freaks" and lunatics to run wild. I know some will say Nolan utilized the Joker to accomplish this, but I think the Joker only pushed things to the edge. There is definitely potential to bring Dent back to push things over the edge and into complete chaos. I could definitely see the third film showing the whole city falling into disarray, while Dent takes control of the city's underground under every ones nose and Batman watching his back from both the criminals and the cops. Or something of that nature. Maybe even have a serial killer on the loose to tie things together, like "The Long Halloween".

Anyway I'm rambling, but you see my point. Nothing is certain, until it is.

Agreed. It was a good movie. Clint was great as usual. But casting non-actors really only works if you are confident you can get a believable performance out of them. I felt at times, some of the non-actors really struggled giving the correct emotions to their lines. I found this especially true with the girl who played Sue, considering her role was a crucial one.

This film was outstanding. A tad bit conventional for Aronofsky, but he managed to add his own unique touch. He and the actors took what could have been an average film and made it something much more personal, especially for Rourke. A must see.

I will be so disappointed it if HBO ends up doing this instead working to conclude Deadwood or Carnivale. I was so pissed when Deadwood got canceled and even more so when Carnivale got canned with such a huge cliffhanger right at the end.