[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

Yeah....dood severian. Its fucking Batman.

exactly

CASE CLOSED!

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

Even so, there's no denying Nolan has gone beyond the typical "superhero" approach most films in the genre have had.

yes, but the fact that he's a superhero means that the suspension of disbelief required of all fiction must be further exerted when watching this kind of stuff.

i don't think evolghost or anyone says the movie is not worth discussing, it's just that it needs to be done within reasonable parameters-- getting lost on minutia about logic and plausibility is Very Deeply Silly when you begin with the premise that *it's fucking batman* . it needs to be fun, compelling, exciting, thrilling, not fit an exacting timeline like in a police investigation.

apples to apples, oranges to oranges, etc.

this is not necessarily for you, but for those who are missing the point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

if people need batman to be a fucking documentary about the real man who saved the real gotham city then i'll have to concur with sway.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by DeadDiscoDildo

It's grounded realism, not pure realism.

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

maybe I need to get a life, who knows?!

i didn't mean you! your comments are thorough, but reasonable.

im in the middle of watching captain america btw.

BUT HEY IT'S GOTTA BE REAL, OR...!

(the chick speaks to him of his "genetic code" haaa haaa haaa)

[demonrail666]

I'm a big Godfather fan but would still say, as the conclusion to a saga, DKR absolutely pisses on Godfather III. Still, while I prefer the Godfather saga overall (and tend to see GIII more as a mistake than a conclusion) the comparison isn't ridiculous. The Godfather is an epic, more 'serious' version of the standard gangster film just as Nolan's Batman is an epic, more 'serious' version of the standard action/superhero film. I've heard more than one critic describe Nolan as making arthouse superhero films, just as they once said Coppola was making arthouse gangster movies. In that sense, rather than try to compare them, we could say that, with his Batman films, Nolan has done for the superhero film roughly what Coppola did for the gangster film with his first two Godfather films. Time will ultimately tell but I certainly think there's some potential truth in that.

[EVOLghost]

Fuck off

Alicia silverstone is batgirl....fuck yeah.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

Fuck off

Alicia silverstone is batgirl....fuck yeah.

was that in the 90s or are you talking bout a future pic?

i'm srsly asking

[EVOLghost]

 

[Severian]

Batman and robin now?

At 14, I knew Batman Forever was fucking horrible, and at 16 I took my cousins to B&R, expecting a flop. I was astonished by the reality of how awful it actually was. It was a real stab in the heart for someone who grew up with Burton's films, which though disappointing in retrospect, were pretty much my favorite movies as a kid. They relied too heavily on visual effects, and were pretty thin in story, but in 1989 it was a pretty goddamn cool thing to see such a dark depiction of Batman on screen. And Batman Returns still packs a punch. Devito was perfect as the Penguin. Way, way, way too menacing and horrific for any child under 15 (seriously, I remember feeling my spine tingle in the theatre a bit when DeVito was giving his little speech to his penguins) but still a great performance..... but even Returns had a crap plot. Watch it today and tell me you feel differently.

Needless to say, I had given up on the hope of ever seeing a serious, realistic, quality Batman film in 95. Even when previews for Begins were coming up I held onto my doubts. I knee Nolan was damn good, and it features 2 of my favorite actors, but I was not convinced that it wouldn't suck until the credits rolled.

Christopher Nolan, you saved Batman, and gave hope to a jaded pessimist who thought his favorite American hero was dead.

[demonrail666]

What a stupid interview. I don't see much difference between Nolan making a serious film about a guy in a cape and Cronenberg making a serious film about a guy who becomes a fly.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

What a stupid interview. I don't see much difference between Nolan making a serious film about a guy in a cape and Cronenberg making a serious film about a guy who becomes a fly.

really? you don't agree with this?

Christopher Nolan’s best movie is Memento, and that is an interesting movie. I don’t think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they’re 20 million times the expense… superhero movie, by definition, you know, it’s comic book. It’s for kids. It’s adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, Dark Knight Rises is, you know, “supreme cinema art,” I don’t think they know what the f— they’re talking about.


i do, i swear, and i don't mean it in a confrontational way. it's adolescent, hence the fun, and it's not supreme cinema art.

they fly was a million tons more psychological and a great horror movie the the psychological-not-gory sense of horror-- though i'm no horror movie expert, i loved the fly.

scanners!!!!!

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

really? you don't agree with this?

Christopher Nolan’s best movie is Memento, and that is an interesting movie. I don’t think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they’re 20 million times the expense… superhero movie, by definition, you know, it’s comic book. It’s for kids. It’s adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, Dark Knight Rises is, you know, “supreme cinema art,” I don’t think they know what the f— they’re talking about.


i do, i swear, and i don't mean it in a confrontational way. it's adolescent, hence the fun, and it's not supreme cinema art.

they fly was a million tons more psychological and a great horror movie the the psychological-not-gory sense of horror-- though i'm no horror movie expert, i loved the fly.

scanners!!!!!

Fair enough. I'm not that big a fan of The Fly but it still seems a bit disingenuous of him to sniff at a superhero movie when the premise of The Fly isn't that far removed from that of Spiderman.

I'd be the first to say that DKR isn't God's gift to cinema but then neither is anything that Cronenberg's ever done, and overall I'd say that Nolan is a far better director (while Cronenberg just seems to read more interesting books).

[E. Noisefield]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

really? you don't agree with this?



i do, i swear, and i don't mean it in a confrontational way. it's adolescent, hence the fun, and it's not supreme cinema art.

The Dark Knight is. It absolutely is. The only performance I've seen in the last ten years to rival Ledger's Joker is Daniel Day Lewis's excellent performance in There Will be Blood. But the Dark Knight (and possibly TDKR; I have to see it again to be sure) is one of the finest mainstream/high-budget films of the modern era. It is a crime opera and an absolute epic, and if the Godfather is supreme cinema art, so is The Dark Knight. It is flawless.




Cronenberg must forgetting that his Oscar nominated "A History of Violence" comes from a graphic novel origin.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by E. Noisefield

one of the finest mainstream/high-budget films of the modern era. It is a crime opera and an absolute epic

i just don't see it. i see a big expensive movie that was well made considering but it doesn't make my heart beat faster with delight or anything.

Originally Posted by E. Noisefield

Cronenberg must forgetting that his Oscar nominated "A History of Violence" comes from a graphic novel origin.

graphic novel doesn't necessarily equate superhero narratives. and regardless of what cronenberg may remember, history of violence was so much more profound and interesting than dark night rises that it bears no comparison.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I'd be the first to say that DKR isn't God's gift to cinema but then neither is anything that Cronenberg's ever done, and overall I'd say that Nolan is a far better director (while Cronenberg just seems to read more interesting books).

ah, see, the thing is im a huge cronenberg fan. i love his stuff-- crash, existenz, dead ringers, history of violence, eastern promises.... almost everything really. the only one i haven't liked much was spider.

but notice cronenberg's words-- he's not saying that nolan is a bad director. he says nolan is interesting and that his best movie is memento, and with this i agree. what he's criticizing is nolan's choice of projects and his working for big studios-- in other words, he's sorta calling him a sellout.

[SpaceCadetHayden]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

scanners!!!!!

scanners is fucking brilliant and so is the fly

[Derek]

Cronenberg's pretty right about what he's saying.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i just don't see it. i see a big expensive movie that was well made considering but it doesn't make my heart beat faster or anything.

graphic novel doesn't necessarily equate superhero narratives. and regardless of what cronenberg may remember, history of violence was so much more profound and interesting than dark night rises that it bears no compatrison

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully call bullshit here. There are many Batman stories that are just as high in literary merit as violence, and the two are fully comparable. The lack of a cape and cowl on a main character does not make the story higher in literary merit.

I just think his criticisms show a surprising lack of insight, and a very narrow view on hits part. Which is disappointing since the guy is such a great filmmaker. Not that anything he's done has shit on Inception or the Dark Knight trilogy.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully call bullshit here. There are many Batman stories that are just as high in literary merit as violence, and the two are fully comparable. The lack of a cape and cowl on a main character does not make the story higher in literary merit.

I wasn't comparing comic to comic, only movie to movie. Noisefield made a straw man argument that Cronenberg's criticism wasn't valid because of the source for his screenplay. I mistakenly bit with "Sandman" in mind (which has nothing to do with either, only with the potential beauty of the graphic novel).

Bottom line is that Cronenberg has made more and consistenly much more interesting movies than Nolan (except for the ones i haven't seen haa haa). Cronenberg just isn't as successful because his stuff is not dumb enough for a rollercoaster ride theme. I'm not blaming Nolan per se, he showed lots of promise at the start, but shit, you know how many movie executives have a hand in the sort of stuff he makes?

Originally Posted by Severian

I just think his criticisms show a surprising lack of insight, and a very narrow view on hits part. Which is disappointing since the guy is such a great filmmaker. Not that anything he's done has shit on Inception or the Dark Knight trilogy.

the dark night trilogy is a series of above-average summer blockbusters that only blow the minds of the highly impressionable. it can be great fun, but it's not "great art," and wanting to hype it as some sort of supreme achievement of the human spirit just makes me want to tear it apart (translation: fanbois are ruining my fun).

i know i often come across as a patronizing cunt (i don't try to, i'm just wired that way), but i'm not saying this out of snobbery-- i love trashy stuff, but i love trashy stuff that doesn't pretend to be something else. e.g.-- spartacus blood and sand is about sex and gore and i gave it 5 netflix stars because it does what it promises very well. it doesn't provide you with the meaning of life or questions about what it means to be human, and it doesn't provide you with complex moral dilemmas-- it gives you tits, ass, and chopped-off heads, plus some cheesy effects that make you go "yeaaah!!". the same way for example a pb&j is yummy but it's not a french pastry, and calling it "classic American cuisine" isn't going to add subtle layers of exquisite flavor to it.

for my money, avengers was better than batman this summer, and then 3 summers ago or whenever that was, iron man was better than the joker movie. if the joker guy hadn't ODed before his movie i don't think the hype would have been so huge. hype loves a tragedy.

okay, to be fair, i haven't seen inception, but netflix predicts i'll only give it 3 stars, and that shit knows me so well it's usually pretty accurate within 1/2 star. so i'll watch it, but i'm not expecting anything great, and the trailer stinks and it stank when it came out which is why i didn't see it in the first place. do you think it will be better or more revolutionary than "Videodrome"? i'll find out i suppose. on the other hand, netflix expects i'll give "13 assassins" and "the black power of mixtape" 5 stars each.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

I wasn't comparing comic to comic, only movie to movie. Noisefield made a straw man argument that Cronenberg's criticism wasn't valid because of the source for his screenplay. I mistakenly bit with "Sandman" in mind (which has nothing to do with either, only with the potential beauty of the graphic novel).

Bottom line is that Cronenberg has made more and consistenly much more interesting movies than Nolan (except for the ones i haven't seen haa haa). Cronenberg just isn't as successful because his stuff is not dumb enough for a rollercoaster ride theme. I'm not blaming Nolan per se, he showed lots of promise at the start, but shit, you know how many movie executives have a hand in the sort of stuff he makes?


the dark night trilogy is a series of above-average summer blockbusters that only blow the minds of the highly impressionable. it can be great fun, but it's not "great art," and wanting to hype it as some sort of supreme achievement of the human spirit just makes me want to tear it apart (translation: fanbois are ruining my fun).

i know i often come across as a patronizing cunt (i don't try to, i'm just wired that way), but i'm not saying this out of snobbery-- i love trashy stuff, but i love trashy stuff that doesn't pretend to be something else. e.g.-- spartacus blood and sand is about sex and gore and i gave it 5 netflix stars because it does what it promises very well. it doesn't provide you with the meaning of life or questions about what it means to be human, and it doesn't provide you with complex moral dilemmas-- it gives you tits, ass, and chopped-off heads, plus some cheesy effects that make you go "yeaaah!!". the same way for example a pb&j is yummy but it's not a french pastry, and calling it "classic American cuisine" isn't going to add subtle layers of exquisite flavor to it.

for my money, avengers was better than batman this summer, and then 3 summers ago or whenever that was, iron man was better than the joker movie. if the joker guy hadn't ODed before his movie i don't think the hype would have been so huge. hype loves a tragedy.

okay, to be fair, i haven't seen inception, but netflix predicts i'll only give it 3 stars, and that shit knows me so well it's usually pretty accurate within 1/2 star. so i'll watch it, but i'm not expecting anything great, and the trailer stinks and it stank when it came out which is why i didn't see it in the first place. do you think it will be better or more revolutionary than "Videodrome"? i'll find out i suppose. on the other hand, netflix
expects i'll give "13 assassins" and "the black power of mixtape" 5 stars each.

See Inception. If you haven't, you really can't make an argument. No offense.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

See Inception. If you haven't, you really can't make an argument. No offense.

even if inception was some great fucking masterpiece the likes of which humanity has never seen before, the batmans remain nothing more than three above-average summer blockbusters that take themselves too seriously without actually delivering the goods in the serious department, so inception couldn't save you even if i watched it 100 times.