Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
What's funny is that Nolan's Batman movies still retain a certain goofiness in specific scenes. Plans that make no logical sense. Hammy supporting actors. Shoehorned comic relief.
That might be a part of the reason these movies get some of that backlash. It's sometimes a very affected seriousness that at times tries too hard to make you forget that these are big silly superhero movies.
You're like the Nolan Batman of the Chud boards, Creepy Thin Man.
I tend to roll my eyes at the seriousness of the Nolan Batman movies, but I do like the idea of Batman getting the absolute shit kicked out of him, and facing psychological and physical ramifications from it. I don't think we've seen anything like that before in a superhero movie.
I know I'll always be in serious danger of getting shit on for committing that cardinal internet fanboy sin of daring to in any way, shape, or form, throwing any remote microscopic ounce of credit whatsoever to a comic book storyline that came out of the 90's, but what you just said right there kinda perfectly sums up the basic-most primal appeal of both Bane and the original Knighfall storyline in which he first debuted (and which this movie seems to be HEAVILY riffing on to one degree or another) back in the early 90's.
It was the fun dichotomy of Bane being simultaneously both a musclebound steroid freak who could easily crumple Batman in physical combat like he was made of toothpicks, as well as a super-intelligent, well-read chessmaster of a criminal genius who could outhink and outsmart circles around the world's greatest detective (to the point of getting inside his head and playing psychological head games with him in ways that few other villains ever had prior), and plot out huge Machiavellian schemes of dominating the Gotham underworld to boot, that made him such a fun new, and instantly iconic villain at the time.
Generally speaking Batman villains tended to come in two basic flavors: psychological threats who posed little to no immediate physical harm (Scarecrow, The Joker, The Mad Hatter, The Riddler, Hugo Strange etc.) or more physical brutes who may not always necessarily be "dumb" per se, but were certainly either of very average intellect, or otherwise weren't either exactly the sharpest intellectual pencils in the Bat's rogues gallery (Killer Croc, Clayface, Deadshot, Firefly, Man-Bat, Solomon Grundy etc.) Others might fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes (Ra's Al Ghul, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Catwoman depending on who's writing her at the time and how, and so on).
But Bane, in his first appearance, was something else ALTOGETHER and represented the absolute best (or worst depending on how you look at it) pinnacles of the two polar opposite extreme worlds of Bat villains combined into one nightmarish mixture. All the genius intellect and psychological head-game playing of a Ra's al Ghul or a Scarecrow along with all the pure brutish physical destructive force of a Croc or Grundy all wrapped up into one neat little steroid-overdosed, Lucha Libre-masked package. No matter which angle Batman came at Bane from, mental or physical, he was fucked and outclassed. And that made Bane (for a minute there at least) genuinely scary.
Both the later comics after that stellar debut themselves, as well as pretty much all other outside media incarnations of him (even right down to the otherwise beloved and classic 90's animated series) had made a concerted effort to piss all of that potential and initial awesomeness away, and when combined with the (sometimes, let's be honest here) totally irrational, knee-jerk loathing that very literally every. Single. Last. Solitary. Idea. Or concept. That EVER had the audacity to come out of a 90's comic book has grown to get just about automatically from comics fans of the last decade and change... pretty much all that combined contributed to sullying and tarnishing the reputation and popular conscious memory of the character and ensure that pretty much everyone (except evidently Chris Nolan for whatever bizarre reason) would totally forget (or retroactively refuse to acknowledge) that for one brief, shining hot minute (that's been long-since buried to time and ever increasingly shittier adaptations and revisions) this character DID in fact USED to be a pretty damned awesome one-time adversary for the Batman.
Seriously. That Batplane flipping through the air was a bit much.
Yeah! It's not like the other Nolan films featured vehicular acrobatics.
It's more of a misdirected backlash against all the arbitrary 'seriousness' that too many genre movies have adopted in the wake of the success of movies like Nolan's Batman movies, I'd say.
Yup.
What I'm waiting to see if all the people who have bitched about how "dour" and "joyless" the Nolan Batman films have been start up with Mendes' take on Bond. The parallels are really strong, WRT to where the current director will take the character versus what people are use to and what the best-known depiction showed.
My problem with Nolan's films isn't that they're too "serious", it's that they try to use their dull, po-faced tone and glossy pseudo-realist aesthetic to distract from their lack of emotional and thematic depth. Like, if you wanna make a movie about some boring bourgie asshole in a bat costume fighting a clown, like go ahead, maybe it will even turn out cool and funny and weird like Burton's version. But don't act like your simplistic and infantile white hat/black hat story is some kind of epoch-defining treatise on creepy neo-Sorelian social ethics okay!
Yeah! It's not like the other Nolan films featured vehicular acrobatics.
That's kind of missing the point. It's that the trailer up until the bat plane flipping was atmospheric, and a little vague, and foreboding... and then they crack a joke and get all vehicle flippy.
Why are Batman fans so goddamned defensive? Jesus Christ. Poor the Dark Knight Rises. Critics will be all over it, it'll make a bazillion dollars and you'll probably love it. Who gives a shit if people think it looks too serious or that the Bat-plane moment in the trailer looks dumb? I'm looking forward to the movie, but I don't need EVERYONE to join me in my excitement.
Who's getting defensive? Are you talking about the fans in general? 'Cause I think everyone here is mostly reasonable.
I can only take Batman so seriously.
These films are a pretty fair adaptation of a certain kind of late 80s comic book, and like all comic books, there's a huge variety to choose from. So, I'm pretty sure this has as much right to exist as something like The Avengers.
However, turning a dramatic Micheal Mann crime film into a Batman franchise, is fundamentally an utterly goofy and camp concept, it's just a different kind of goofy and camp to something like Batman & Robin. Same 11, different amp. I'm just not convinced, despite what the die hard fans crow on about, that the films/scripts are as clever as they seem to think they are. There's a definite idiot stink to it all though, which just puts me at a distance, with people taking them as some kind of legitimation that the things they're obsessed by aren't silly. But these films prove, like a goth teenager who tries too hard, that they are in fact that.
They're pretty though.
Anyone notice the shot of JGL looking extremely afraid while he puts his hands up? Wonder whats going on there, as well as the shot of the inmate in orange getting flipped over by someone in the prison cell?
I like the trailer a lot. Mainly what I expected. And I don't even mind the "This isn't a car" line at the end.
Oh yeah, there's some pretty goofy stuff and things that make no sense in these movies. It's just so much of a goddamn ride that I don't notice until after the fact or am willing to ignore it.
Can anybody tell me how that bullet reconstruction thing is even supposed to work in real life?
Opinions are opinions and all that, but I don't get these complaints at all.
There may be unnecessary explanation of the gadgets, a goofy bat-voice, a couple plot holes, and a lack of decent female characters, but "sloppy" and "shallow" aren't words that come to my mind when summing this franchise up (overall and up till now, as I haven't seen TDKR)).
Thanks for that Happy Gilmore clip Micheal M, that made my day haha.
I think these are legit films, and a lot of people who I respect are head-over heels about them.
And I can't fault the fact that Nolan's put his stamp on a comic book movie the way few other directors have. It's his story, his vision, his trilogy, and in comparison with most of the Marvel films which suffer from cheapness and oftentimes by the numbers direction it's got an entirely different feel.
At the same time I just can't manage superhero movies that aren't cartoons, I just can't. I don't know if this is a bias on my part, but I see this Ragnarok finale and I just can't warm to it at all.
These films are a pretty fair adaptation of a certain kind of late 80s comic book, and like all comic books, there's a huge variety to choose from. So, I'm pretty sure this has as much right to exist as something like The Avengers.
However, turning a dramatic Micheal Mann crime film into a Batman franchise, is fundamentally an utterly goofy and camp concept, it's just a different kind of goofy and camp to something like Batman & Robin. Same 11, different amp. I'm just not convinced, despite what the die hard fans crow on about, that the films/scripts are as clever as they seem to think they are. There's a definite idiot stink to it all though, which just puts me at a distance, with people taking them as some kind of legitimation that the things they're obsessed by aren't silly. But these films prove, like a goth teenager who tries to hard, that they are in fact that.
They're pretty though.
The entire bit with Gordon in the Batmobile/Tumbler at the end of Begins sorta lends credence to your point here for whatever that's worth.
It speaks to my inherently weird, fucked up relationship with superhero comics that I can simultaneously agree AND disagree with every word you just wrote in totally equal measures. I've come to the conclusion over the last 7 or 8 years that in spite of being really into and heavily following Marvel and (to a much lesser extent) DC comics growing up, what I got out of them and what attracted me to them at the time I was reading them (mid 80's through mid 90's) sorta makes me technically not a "real" superhero fan in the strictest, most technical sense. But that's a WHOLE other different topic.
I'm still burned out as burnd out can be on superhero films in general, but I have a sorta morbid curiosity to see this, if for at least NO other reason than the fact that I am (as I've demonstrated in this thread both just now and on at least one or two other occasions way back) a big fan of Bane (or at least I was during that first story arc of his god knows how many years ago) and feel like I'm "overdue" a properly done incarnation of the character outside that one comic book arc with what appears to be a more than fair degree of respect for what made him originally work in the first place finally and after 20 some-odd years. I doubt I'd muster up much more interest beyond that otherwise, especially as someone who thinks that Nolan has yet to make anything that even comes close to surpassing Memento and would much rather see him tackle something more on that level once more (and I did like Inception an awful lot, to be fair).
I get the feeling that the trilogy will turn out like the Uncharted series. Good first entry, even better second entry that expands things, and then a third entry that has a few more problems, but has highs that are some of the best of the series.
The primary flaw in the Nolan films is that they present themselves as heavy drama while needlessly succumbing to camp cliche. The series is loaded with questionable choices like Tom Wilkinson's Bugsy Malone turn as Falcone, Bale's laughable Bat-voice, how the natives in the Far East in BB all speak English, & all of Nolan's crap stabs at popcorn movie humor.
Also, the theatrical aspect of Batman's physical presence is totally lost on Nolan. Too often we see Bats standing around in his suit (like the revolving rooftop shot with Bats, Gordon, & Dent), thus muting the gothic mystique of the character. Nolan's Batman is ultimately just a "guy in a suit" - and that's silly as fuck.
That revolving rooftop shot is basically pulled straight from one of the comics. I think it was Long Halloween. I disagree in part, I think that his physical presence usually works. Like when he's literally shaking with rage when interrogating Flass in Batman Begins. Less so in Dark Knight though, there were definitely some goofy shots.
Batman's mystique is also not completely the same to everyone. He's more mysterious/magical to criminals, but he has a relationship with Gordon that grounds him in reality. Though he still does have the mystique as shown by his unnoticed exits. It's just different levels to different people.
The suit just looks better in Batman Begins.
And Tom Wilkinson is awesome in that film. Disagree and you're dead to me. Well, not dead. But I'll sulk and then get all internet angry and call you a 'fag' or something.
Hell, I'd even argue that that "Swear To ME!" shot was the best Bats has ever looked onscreen. It was a Brian Bolland splash page come to life. The Long Halloween rooftop shot? I don't care where it came from - it didn't work.
And Tom Wilkinson is awesome in that film. Disagree and you're dead to me. Well, not dead. But I'll sulk and then get all internet angry and call you a 'fag' or something.
"Bang! I'll kill your girlfriend at the DA's office, see? Your butler too, see? Wah!"
These Batman movies are like the adolescent, to The Avengers kid. Which is to say, they think they know a lot about the world, and there's a lot of posturing and looking pretty, but in the end, you're still young and immature, and actually, as much as you want to resist it, you still want to see Batman fly a plane.
To enjoy any kind of comic book film, you sort of need to revert a bit, to set your mind into the right place. They require the same nostalgia and suspension of belief, it's just that for a lot of fans of these films, being 16 isn't as long ago as being 6.
Again, they're not bad, but sometimes I find Batman Begins & The Dark Knight a bit like hanging out with my younger brother and his friends when they start talking politics after 1 beer.
See I've always really loved that revolving rooftop scene in TDK. How Gordan and Dent are having this fast-paced conversation and the Batman is this weirdo who just stands there like a gargoyle breathing heavily. Top it all off with the "Yeah, he does that" line.
I'm not really a fan of Nolan's take on Batman and can't wait for a reboot, but each film has had its moments. I've never warmed to Christian Bale's Batman, though. Kevin Conroy and even Michael Keaton were both infinitely better and neither of them had to resort to such heavy-handed tricks to differentiate their Batman from Bruce Wayne. Conroy's slight yet effective pitch modulation has the subtlety and richness that Nolan and Bale probably think that their Batman does.
Same.
See I've always really loved that revolving rooftop scene in TDK. How Gordan and Dent are having this fast-paced conversation and the Batman is this weirdo who just stands there like a gargoyle breathing heavily.
Yeah, that's what I always disliked about it. I like seeing Bats present himself as a mysterious & unknowable force of nature. In that shot, he looks like he's waiting for his Mom to come pick him up from the Sci-Fi Con.
I know its a well beyond beaten to death horse, but it can never be stated enough how embarrassingly awful the editing is in these films during (most of) their action segments. Coming from the viewpoint of a Hong Kong action fanboy from way back, I still can't get over what so much of the action editing and directing coming out of mainstream Hollywood blockbuster films has come down to recently, even in a post-Matrix world.
And yeah, I REALLY wish Nolan would just knock off the attempts at "mainstream summer blockbuster" quips. The guy's CLEARLY not that sort of director inherently to begin with ( I mean at all), and his attempts to pander to those aspects of these films reek of that kind of forced awkwardness you'd get from a stuffed shirt, Yale educated professor from a wealthy background trying desperately to "fit in" at a "blue collar" bar. "Didn't you get the memo" is about the only one I can think of offhand that doesn't make me cringe.
I LIKE these movies more than okay enough (the caliber of the vast bulk of the performances alone in them for the most part is beyond stellar and worth it all by themselves: insert obligatory "holy shit Ledger/Eckhart/Oldman/Caine/Freeman" rave here), but untouchable masterpieces they clearly ain't.
That being said, with this film being Nolan's first Bat film post-Inception (where he showed remarkably improved action directing chops in comparison) I'm wondering how much of that will rub off on this film and if maybe, just maybe we'll get some halfway coherent fight sequences out of this one. The brief blips of Batman fighting Bane that we've seen so far seem promising enough for whatever that's worth.
Bale's the only on-screen Batman where I can buy knowing Bruce Wayne, then having a conversation with Batman, and yet not realize they're the same person.
Bale's the only on-screen Batman where I can buy knowing Bruce Wayne, then having a conversation with Batman, and yet not realize they're the same person.
That never bothered me in Batman: TAS (which out-Nolans Nolan and does what he's tried to do better, IMO) and Burton's flicks, if I'm being completely honest. Their portrayals of Batman and Wayne were so spot-on otherwise and had a certain atmosphere where I didn't find myself asking those questions when I perceived plot holes, leaps in logic, etc.
Also, the theatrical aspect of Batman's physical presence is totally lost on Nolan.
Plus Nolan seems content for the characters to talk about these ideas as often as he actually takes the time to illustrate them.
However, the leap from Begins to TDK was pretty great, I thought; and if he manages a similar level of improvement from the second to the third, we will be in for a treat, I think.
That never bothered me in Batman: TAS (which out-Nolans Nolan and does what he's tried to do better, IMO) and Burton's flicks, if I'm being completely honest. Their portrayals of Batman and Wayne were so spot-on otherwise and had a certain atmosphere where I didn't find myself asking those questions when I perceived plot holes, leaps in logic, etc.
Oh, I'd agree -- especially in TAS. But as Nolan's universe is played as more realistic, I think it's something important to the interpretation. And as much as this thread is sort of ragging on Bale a bit, I like his Bruce Wayne a lot. (I also don't think his 'Bat-voice' is inherently bad; it just sounds silly when he's having a casual conversation.)
There's a lot of mewling quims in this thread.
Bale's the only on-screen Batman where I can buy knowing Bruce Wayne, then having a conversation with Batman, and yet not realize they're the same person.
That's because you'd be spending so much time deciphering what Batman is actually saying to pay attention to anything else.
There's a lot of mewling quims in this thread.
I suddenly want to have sex with Tom Hiddleston.
Oh, I'd agree -- especially in TAS. But as Nolan's universe is played as more realistic, I think it's something important to the interpretation. And as much as this thread is sort of ragging on Bale a bit, I like his Bruce Wayne a lot. (I also don't think his 'Bat-voice' is inherently bad; it just sounds silly when he's having a casual conversation.)
I like his Bruce Wayne too, just not his Batman (which isn't entirely his fault, as portraying the more difficult aspects of that character is as much the director's duty as it is the actor's). Bale is third for me in the rank after Conroy and Keaton (who does intensity much better without devolving so heavily into camp), though.
There's a lot of mewling quims in this thread.
I don't know what that means. Is that how Batman would say "delinquents"?
Who's getting defensive? Are you talking about the fans in general? 'Cause I think everyone here is mostly reasonable.
You must read a different internet than I do.
You must read a different internet than I do.
This seems to be more of a case with TDK than Begins, but I think the larger issue is the knee-jerk personal offense when you attack certain sacred cows in fandom.
I think some of the defensiveness surrounding The Dark Knight in particular comes from certain genre fans feeling that the film itself validated their interests in the public eye. It's taking them seriously, damnit.
Bale is third for me in the rank after Conroy and Keaton (who does intensity much better without devolving so heavily into camp), though.
Pretty much this for me. Conroy everyone knows is pretty definitive, but Keaton in particular never gets enough credit in my view for nailing the "Bruce Wayne/Batman voice" thing without the latter coming off in any way remotely all that embarrassing. Guy's got a great, edgy, intimidating voice in general that comes natural and without sounding anywhere near as forced as Bale's can and does much of the time.
Keaton just doesn't receive enough credit in general, but he did some wonderful things with Batman and especially Bruce Wayne. Not everyone loves those films, but Burton's style - when it was still at its peak - just lent itself so much better to the simple, iconic nature of the character. No need for wide IMAX shots.
Just saw the new trailer.
I don't know why, but I can't get that excited. I'll see it, but Nolan's Batman universe just rubs me the wrong way...and I'm glad this is his last bat film.
The Batplane flips in the air. It's a fucking action movie. Hell, not even that, it's a trailer for an action movie. Is it supposed to match the previous two minutes by solemnly surveying the destruction below and then respectfully lowering itself to the ground where it turns into a Meals on Hovercraft?
I honestly don't even consider the two Burton Batman films to be "proper" Batman films. For all their flaws, the Nolan films have WAY more to do with the modern, post-crisis comics incarnation of the character than either of the two Burton films do. The first Burton film came out when we were only a mere few years past the huge "rebooting" of the entire DCU and Batman along with it, so as a result so very much of all that we associate with more recent takes on the character were still very rough and still being hammered out at the time in the actual source material.
The first Burton film has a VERY 80's actiony feel to it, and the second one... well that one has even LESS to do with Batman than the first did, and at the end of the day I come at it (as I do to a somewhat lesser extent with the first) more as a really cool early 90's Tim Burton film that makes weird use of disparate elements of the Batman license than as an actual, out-and-out Batman film. Its my early-era Tim Burton fanboy that gets WAY more out of those two films than anything regarding my love and fandom for the Batman franchise.
For whatever issues I may have with them, the Nolan films are in my eyes ultimately better Batman films (from an adaptation standpoint) than the Burton films, which mainly only do better than the Nolan films on the Batman end of things purely in terms of visuals and atmosphere (let it always be said that on a PURELY visual and atmospheric level, Burton's films fucking TROUNCE Nolan's effortlessly). Which of the two series are better film-films in and of themselves, license usage be damned, is an ENTIRELY separate matter and honestly, probably not all that warranting of a comparison at all in general due to the apples and oranges nature of the two sets of films.
I think it might have been the combination of the flipping and the banter between Catwoman and Batman.
The Batplane flips in the air. It's a fucking action movie. Hell, not even that, it's a trailer for an action movie. Is it supposed to match the previous two minutes by solemnly surveying the destruction below and then respectfully lowering itself to the ground where it turns into a Meals on Hovercraft?
Hear hear. Loved the first two, looking forward to seeing this, but yeah, a this is getting a little, um, intense. I think these movies could use a few more genuine superhero moments. Maybe Nolan could pull a Lucas and bring in someone to direct the action scenes. Soderbergh, I'm looking in your direction...
Thank you, I forgot that A) this is a trailer and B) this is an action movie. Now I love the oddly placed plane/line.
Is it okay that a few of us don't like that shot/line? I'm not calling the movie (or even the trailer) a failure. Some of us just don't love everything. This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of defensiveness, by the way.
The primary flaw in the Nolan films is that they present themselves as heavy drama while needlessly succumbing to camp cliche. The series is loaded with questionable choices like Tom Wilkinson's Bugsy Malone turn as Falcone, Bale's laughable Bat-voice, how the natives in the Far East in BB all speak English, & all of Nolan's crap stabs at popcorn movie humor.
Also, the theatrical aspect of Batman's physical presence is totally lost on Nolan. Too often we see Bats standing around in his suit (like the revolving rooftop shot with Bats, Gordon, & Dent), thus muting the gothic mystique of the character. Nolan's Batman is ultimately just a "guy in a suit" - and that's silly as fuck.
Yup. While his bat films are flawed, one of the things Burton did really well was sell the Batman mystique and archetype. It's fundamental to the character, and Nolan never cracked it, which to me is a fairly epic failure. The films themselves are certainly not bad, but he doesn't seem to "get" the Batman character, and like most of his other films, is much too cerebral in his approach.
I don't give a fuck how you feel about it or whether you think I'm being defensive or not. The trailer is relatively down beat and lest people think this is Batman's List or something (which, frankly, is kind of what a few shots brought to mind), it ends on a stinger showing off the new vehicle. It doesn't strike me as particularly unusual. I think it's an odd thing to complain about irrespective of it being a Batman movie.
As far as those bitching about the car line/Bat flip: do you not remember that Batman is huge among kids? Things like this, the Gordon moments in BB, the kids shooting the cars that blow up in TDK... It doesn't really belong but I think Nolan recognizes that kids will still flock to these movies regardless of how adult they are in nature, so he throws a little something their way every now and then.
Quote:
The suit just looks better in Batman Begins.
Ha ha ha ha NO. Whenever I re-watch TDK the awfulness of the rubbery BB suit sticks out like a sore thumb in the beginning and really shows how refined the new one is later on.
I don't give a fuck how you feel about it or whether you think I'm being defensive or not. The trailer is relatively down beat and lest people think this is Batman's List or something, it ends on a stinger showing off the new vehicle. It doesn't strike me as particularly unusual. I think it's an odd thing to complain about irrespective of it being a Batman movie.
"These movies are so fucking dour! Nolan doesn't get Batman at all!" ... "What's up with that fun little line and action shot? It disrupts the dark tone!"
I don't give a fuck how you feel about it or whether you think I'm being defensive or not. The trailer is relatively down beat and ends on a stinger showing off the new vehicle. It doesn't strike me as particularly unusual.
All I'm saying is that for someone who doesn't give a fuck about how people think or claims to not be defensive, you (and others) are doing an awful lot of arguing that those of us who do find that shot/line weird and oddly placed are wrong.
All I'm saying is that for someone who doesn't give a fuck about how people think or claims to not be defensive, you (and others) are doing an awful lot of arguing that those of us who do find that shot/line weird and oddly placed are wrong.
I know. I love it!
