Profile
Search
Register
Log in
New Batman
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
Z-0



Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Sydney
 Reply with quote  

i think when going into Nolan's films you're better off expecting him to at some point completely betray the laws of the film worlds he seems to painstakingly create. it's a horrible contradiction at times because of the effort he puts in to ground his films in some form of reality. i often feel he's overly self conscious about being taken seriously as a film maker, thus his films are overly serious with no real message apart from those that simply occur as part of the process and therefore end up being a mess.
Post Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7792
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
...and think that a Frank Miller screenplay is necessary or sufficient to address her concerns.




the reason i put that in there is because i have mentioned i'd like to see that and i believe she also stated that too


frank miller really does need to be included in the next batman movie

not only will it be good for batman but it will surely set in stone that there are different takes on batman and each take is great on their own(of course we get to choose which ones we like better than the other), think of batman as a medium, and different creative types applying their methods to it, in the future people will look back on the nolan trilogy as just that, its just another chapter, just another piece added to the collection, think of all the different batman comic books, or any super-hero in comics, theres so many different varieties for each, spider-man, x-men, its just there are not many movies out to give us that same notion, the movie-comics have just recently blown-up bigtime, and theres going to be many many many more, just because a new movie comes out doesnt mean THATS how that character is going to be for the rest of time, its only temporarily, respect that
Post Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
Fuck it, I'll put some of what I've gotten from these films so far on the table.

For me, these films are largely about the overarching concept of competing mythologies.

In the first film, Bruce Wayne and the League of Shadows both see Gotham City as having been corrupted by a mythology of fear; Wayne creates Batman to introduce a competing mythology, the League of Shadows backs Scarecrow to strengthen the existing mythology to the point where it destroys its host.

In the second film, Joker emerges as a direct challenge not just to the new Batman mythology that is emerging, but to the idea that crime itself can be reduced to greed, to self-interest, to fear. The Joker destroys Harvey Dent in an attack on two mythologies at once: the idea that Batman is Gotham's protector, and the idea that Harvey Dent is the true good man whose ideals should inspire Gotham.

The third film examines how Batman's decision to save Harvey Dent's mythology has corrupted Gotham and the larger world into believing too strongly in great men and external saviors. Bane and Talia attack the belief directly, by defaming neutralizing the external saviors and forcing the masses into direct attacks on that old order. Batman's apparent death at the end of the film, especially with Bruce Wayne retiring and "Robin" deciding to be his successor not in response to crime but in response to the failure of outside saviors, results in the unification of these two opposing viewpoints. "Robin" recognizing in Batman another orphan like himself echoes that Batman is not simply a myth, but rather just an ordinary person who realized that he had an opportunity to change things for the better. The opening acts of the third film showing the accumulated physical toll that years of building the mythology of Batman have taken on Bruce Wayne, the man, also echo this.

At the risk of reminding everyone that I've spent too many hours playing Fallout: New Vegas and not enough studying philosophy or film theory by introducing an oversimplified Hegelian dialectic argument...

Thesis: The people need a mythology to inspire them. Bruce Wayne offers one in the form of an anonymous, heroic benefactor.

Antithesis: The people need to be shown that they cannot depend on these mythological benefactors to save them from the evil in the world. Scarecrow, Ras' al'Ghul, Joker, Bane, and Talia all attempt this in their own ways.

Synthesis: The people need to save themselves, take an active hand in propagating the mythologies that protect them. Others (Catwoman, Robin, Gordon, Matthew Modine's compromised but ultimately redeemed character) realize that they all need to put their own skin in the game in the same way that Batman has been doing, not because the world needs more saviors, but because the world must save itself. Batman is a savior, but Bruce Wayne is just a guy who lives in Gotham City. Anyone could put on a mask and do what he did. Again, I realize that this is not the premise of the Batman comic books--I'm arguing that I think it's the premise of Nolan's Batman films.

I agree with futuristxen that Batman was a bit of a cipher in these films, but where she seems to be arguing that this was an editorial oversight and using the character's history in the comic books to point out ways in which the character could have been something bigger and more human than it was in Nolan's films, I suppose I believe that this was an intentional structural decision by Nolan, and that to expand the character in the ways futuristxen is arguing the character should have been expanded, the films would have ended up saying something very different than what I think they were trying to say.

But, again, I feel like I need to watch the films at least one more time before I'm prepared to defend this viewpoint at length.


I agree with you up until your conclusion that making Batman less of a cipher would have corrupted these points. I know this because I read Grant Morrison's Batman run, which is about all of the things you just said about competing mythos. It did all of those things, and still gave cool character moments. This was because Morrison has a tighter handle on what Batman is as a mythos than Nolan does. Nolan got the architectural of how the bat mythos works within gotham and the universe as a whole--but he did not understand the mythos itself. And to that end, I would say that in fact he hurt his overall intention, because the competing mythos story architecture falls down when the mythos that keeps winning out is the least interesting, and least explained one.

I enjoyed all three films, and they are definitely some of the best superhero films ever done--but my one critique of them--the one thing that really bothered me in them was that I've read so many great Batman comics, even bad ones--and they were all better and more exciting in their depiction of Batman/Bruce Wayne himself than Nolan/Bale's Batman. It's weird, but I liked all of the movies--but not because of batman. So I think there's definitely room for someone to come in and one up Nolan by digging their teeth into the character.

If Batman is an idea--he's a very poorly formed one in these films.
Post Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Neuro wrote:
Mark in Minnesota wrote:
...and think that a Frank Miller screenplay is necessary or sufficient to address her concerns.




the reason i put that in there is because i have mentioned i'd like to see that and i believe she also stated that too


frank miller really does need to be included in the next batman movie



Frank Miller 30 years ago-yeah. His notion of batman these days is a little crazy pants. It would be fun to watch, but I think I would be like one of five people who would like it.

There's plenty of people who get Batman. They could easily cobble together a staff of Scott Snyder, Grant Morrison, Geoff Johns and bang out a good Batman movie.

I think probably more important is geetting a director that is more character driven and more visceral. Like I said, Wiending-Refn would be my choice. he knows how to do Character driven brutality in his sleep. He'd translate well to doing a really brutal tortured Batman that would give us what we missed in this trilogy.
Post Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2022
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

Both of your last two points:
- That Batman is a poorly formed idea in these films.
- That the movies are good for reasons other than Batman.
... fit directly into what I'm trying to say about the films.

(at the small risk of repeating myself...)
One thing I would note is that I don't think the "bat mythos" does keep winning throughout the films. It wins at the end of Batman Begins, but Batman and Gordon ultimately allow Joker to defeat it at the end of The Dark Knight in order to preserve the Harvey Dent mythos; the mythos is rehabilitated and defeated at various points in the third film, but is literally killed at its climax; even though Bruce Wayne himself survives, this is a very closely held secret; in Nolan's world, if Batman survives at all, it is as a new martyr figure to replace the discredited Harvey Dent, reminding people that they must save themselves. This is a Batman mythos, but it's not the Batman mythos which emerged during the first film and which I imagine is so thoroughly developed by the history of the comic books.

The film asks essential questions about the relationships between hope and despair, fear and defiance. Batman is the mechanism by which the films let us watch these questions being asked, but it's really usually others doing the asking and the answering. The League of Shadows is an argument that hope and fear are both simply weapons of control, and that people who wish to be prime movers must banish both of them from their own minds in favor of fanatical, amoral resolve. Batman gets to the very end of their course catalog and then decides that he'd like to have his cake and eat it too, and proceeds to keep trying to do exactly that throughout the remainder of the trilogy.

The stronger moral center of the trilogy is Harvey Dent's fraudulent martyrdom, because it's the linchpin around which so many of those questions turn. We get so much of the essential conflict at the heart of Nolan's story from watching Dent break; arguably more than in watching Batman overcome any of his own obstacles.

Maybe a different storyteller could have kept that moment as the center of the film without discrediting the myth of Batman the way Nolan ended up doing. I'm having a hard time seeing how, but that may be largely because I don't have a problem with the fact that it happened the way it did.

If what you were saying is that a film with different objectives could have portrayed a much more cohesive and vibrant Batman than the one Nolan achieved, I would pretty much agree and move on. I'll even concede the hopeful possibility that the end result would be better films overall than these were.

If what you're saying is that Nolan set out to achieve more with that character than I think, but missed... These films reconstruct the idea of the comic book villain at least as thoroughly as Unbreakable deconstructed it. I just don't see that same kind of ambition around Batman himself. Not a question of missed marks, rather evidence of a certain degree of indifference.

But this is just where I'm coming from having already said that I really need to watch the films again to firm up my opinion of them.
Post Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:43 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7792
 Reply with quote  

oh great.............


http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/29/rebooted-batman-to-debut-in-justice-league-movie


Rumor has it that the live-action Justice League of America movie will also ostensibly serve as the reboot of Batman on the big screen.

Batman-on-Film reports that a "solid as they come" source tells them the Batman "reboot will come after the JL film, not before. Therefore, the new cinematic Batman will be introduced in the JL film as opposed to a solo film. This would ... assure the new Batman film series will be part of a 'DC Cinematic Universe.'"

The site cautions, however, that while their source is legit, they still advise readers to take the rumor "with a grain of salt" for now.

Next summer's Man of Steel is expected to be the final DC Comics movie until at least 2015, when scuttlebutt suggests the JLA film will be released.

JLA is being scripted by Will Beall. No director is currently involved, although recent reports claims the Wachowskis are high up on Warner Bros.' wish list to helm it.
Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:49 am
 View user's profile Send private message
JohnSchwan



Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 667
Location: Baton Rouge, LA/MA
 Reply with quote  

That's a horrible idea, but hey they did a good job introducing a million characters X-Men First Class so there's still hope.
Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jesse Custer



Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 1258
Location: London
 Reply with quote  

DC are on the backfoot a bit since Marvel got there first. They're clearly trying to do what they can to get the Justice League film to come along as soon as possible.

Given that, making Batman one of the characters that doesn't get his own film before makes sense - everyone knows the character, and this version of Batman has only just finished.

Better to not invite comparisons to a series that has a very fanatical following, no?

The Spiderman reboot was cirticised for coming so soon after the Raimi films and even though it was much better didn't do so great as a result...
Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

If we get a third batman origin movie in my lifetime, I will kill things. It's bad enough with Superman. How many times do you have to tell the same exact story! Everyone knows who Batman and Superman are.

Anyways, that JLA movie will most likely blow. It will be on par with the Green Lantern movie. It's cool they are trying, but there are so many red flags with it.
Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Sarcastro



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3281
 Reply with quote  

I don't read the comic books but DC hero's blow compared to Marvel when it comes to the movies, Batman being the obvious exception.

I would put any money down that a Justice League movie would be god awful.
Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2022
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

You know that making threats to kill things as a reaction to Batman films is Serious Business, right? Please rethink your wording.
Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jesse Custer



Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 1258
Location: London
 Reply with quote  

The movie will most likely suck, but I roll say that the jla and Batman animated movies that DC have done are rather good.

Also, on a similar topic but slight tangent - you guys read about the
SHIELD spinoff TV show that Joss Whedon is working on now? Will also most likely be terrible, but I hope it's not (jeph Loeb is a producer; let's hope that's where any similarities to Heroes ends)
Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:32 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7792
 Reply with quote  

yeah i agree JL is not for me either, even if its good, i just don't care
Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Prontoid



Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 1609
Location: Melbourne, Australia
 Reply with quote  

I feel like there's only really been one live action Batman origin film ever? Not that I want another one but it's not like it's been done a bunch of times...
Post Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:55 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7792
 Reply with quote  

its just too soon for another is all we are saying, and spider-man is proof of that even though it was a good/better movie overall


i think we are all tired of all these origin films in general, we have been flooded with them, they just need to make good films with the characters we love in way that doesnt need an "origin"
Post Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2014 11:37 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon