So many comic-book movie franchises have started off so promisingly only to be scuppered by successive movies in their franchise (it's no surprise that so few comic-book movie franchises get beyond two or three films before they're put to bed). However, so far the Marvel Cinematic Universe has not put a single step wrong, and I think it's fair to treat each film in that franchise as a sequel of sorts since they exist in the same continuity. From 'Iron Man' through to the latest entry in the franchise, 'Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier' each movie has been of a minimum high standard (even my least favourite entries, the two 'Thor' films, are good films, just not great ones). In fact, the worst thing I can say about the franchise as far as hiccups go is the jarring change from Terrance Howard to Don Cheadle as 'War Machine' and Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo as 'Hulk' simply because casting-changes annoy me as far as maintaining my suspension of disbelief and investment in the films as part of a 'real world' (that said, Cheadle and Ruffalo are arguably improvements on their respective predecessors).
Anyway, to address my point let's look at previous CBM franchises (i.e. a comic-book movie that saw at least one sequel):
Superman - This started off great with a brilliant set-up for the sequel (thanks to the early introduction of Zod and his cohorts at the start of the 'Superman: The Movie') but the Salkinds screwed their trump card by firing and replacing Richard Donner before he got to finish the second film, and thus, there are some jarring shifts in style and tone (as well as the mysterious absence of key-players - i.e. Gene Hackman) between scenes. And although I like 'Superman 3' and 'The Quest for Peace' more than most I think we can safely say they were big disappointments that understandably brought the series to an ignominious end. 'Superman Returns' probably counts as an attempt to continue the franchise from 'Superman II' but the po-faced tone and miscasting of Kate Bosworth and Brandon Routh, who looked a bit like Christopher Reeve but sadly lacked any of his charisma in the part, also ended in failure (despite relatively healthy returns at the box-office).
Batman - Most of us here love at least two of the four Batman films but Burton in his own words made a conscious attempt to distance 'Batman' from 'Batman Returns' from in at least a stylistic and tonal sense meaning that they almost feel like too distinct takes on Batman as opposed to part of the same continuity. Many of us here have got some time for 'Batman Forever', but as many of us were disappointed that Burton wasn't allowed to continue with the franchise, and by the time the campy and OTT 'Batman & Robin' emerged the writing was on the wall for the franchise.
Blade - This franchise started promisingly with the first two films (although Whistler's revival from turning into a vampire at the end of the first film to returning as a human for the second film is rather contrived and annoyingly brushed-over). However, 'Blade: Trinity' is generally regarded as a travesty and thus the series came to a close.
X-Men - These films are still (unaccountably) popular and may probably continue for at least another fourteen years. However, that doesn't detract from the fact that Fox has already annoyed various fans with the franchise's marginalisation of various characters, over-concentration on others (*cough* Wolverine *cough*), over-complicated time-lines, and variable quality between films, and from my own personal perspective I can't help wishing this franchise was brought to a quick end and rebooted, preferably by concentrating on the original 1960s X-Men 'First Class' (i.e. Cyclops, Jean Grey, the poorly-served Angel, Beast and Ice-Man) and an attempt to capture the joyful spirit of the early Kirby and Lee comic-books that has thus far eluded the dour Bryan Singer movies. I won't hold my breath however as I suspect the upcoming 'Days of Future Past' will be another mega-hit for Fox.
Spider-Man - One can quibble about Sam Raimi's decision to omit Parker's original girl-friend, Gwen Stacy, and go straight to Mary-Jane Watson (which is made even more egregious by replicating the 'Death of Gwen Stacy' bridge scene without the tragic and powerful outcome of the comic-books, and early use of one of Spidey's most formidable foes (the Green Goblin) but for the most part, the first two films were a real joy that captured the look and feel of the comic-books and build a fascinating and emotional dynamic between Peter, Gwen, Harry and Peter's aunt and uncle. It's thus a shame that 'Spider-Man 3' ruined things by shoehorning a the symbiote storyline and a complex character like Venom (who Raimi purportedly didn't care for) into an already overstuffed movie that had to deal with both Sandman, and his alter-ego's part in Uncle Ben's death, as well as the emergence of Harry as the Green Goblin #2. Perhaps as had initially been proposed, Sandman's smarter and more deadlier accomplice had turned out to be the compelling but less complex Vulture, we'd still be watching further instalments of Raimis's 'Spiderman' franchise, by which point we may also have ended up with a decent version of Eddie Brock/Venom. Still, none of this explains why Sony decided to sack Raimi and reboot the franchise bearing in mind that 'Spider-Man 3' was the biggest hit of 2007 (if that's a failure...).
The Fantastic Four - Although these films were pretty faithful from a story and characterisation perspective the miscast second-string actors and the lazy direction meant that these films never became firm favourites amongst the comic-book reading fanboys, far less the critical community at large. Neither film did badly at the box-office but for once Fox saw the light and put this heart-hearted franchise to rest, probably sensing that there wasn't any particular enthusiasm for a second sequel.
Hellboy - These are two utterly wonderful imaginative films that get the tone and look of the comic-books just right, and feature perfect chemistry between Hellboy and his BPRD colleagues, especially the obnoxious, bureaucratic yet rather likeable Tom Manning played by Jeffrey Tambor. However, it's now been six years since the release of 'Hellboy 2' and there's still no concrete word of another sequel and so I get the distinct impression this franchise will end up simply as a two-film deal...which is a shame (but better to go out on a high).
The Dark Knight - There are various detractors on this site but I for one count myself as a fan of the trilogy and apart from the current 'Avengers' set of films this surely constitutes as the only unequivocally successful CMB franchise in terms of consistency. The reason why I don't personally rate it as high as the 'Avengers' is that although I consider the 'Dark Knight' films to be excellent movies on their own terms they arguably fail to capture the spirit of a comic-book world in the way the current spate of Marvel films (and the two Burton Batman films) were able to do. They're more like thrilling, intelligent techno-thrillers but they don't spirit me away to another world and lack a fine balance between humour and earnestness (coming out far in favour of the latter), something that the latest 'Captain America' film gets perfectly right.
Other CBM franchises I haven't considered in more detail are 'The Punisher' films because there has so far been three movies but none of them appear to be directly related, 'Daredevil' and 'Elektra' since Ben Affleck ended any speculation on a sequel to the former quite early on, and the latter is the only spin-off from that movie, and 'Ghost Rider' since I haven't seen the sequel but can merely comment that having seen half of the first film I'm surprised the potential franchise got as far as that. I also haven't commented on 'The Amazing Spider-Man' since the review for that film are just coming in now, but as much as I liked the first film I am slightly concerned that Sony are taking the wrong lessons from the success of the 'MCU' and rushing to stuff as many characters and make as many spin-offs as possible in order to maximise revenue, instead of concentrating on making a series of carefully crafted, credibly dramatic 'Spider-Man' films featuring slow-burning storylines that will pay in dividends over time. Am I the only one who'd rather see the Sinister Six emerge as a fully-fledged group of Spider-Man antagonists over time than a 'Sinister Six' spin-off film a mere two or three years down the line?
Anyway, what do other posters think? Have I got it wrong? Are there other great CBM franchises, including the ones I've mentioned, apart from the 'Avengers'? Am I wrong about the 'Avengers'?
I think Marvel seems to get it right as far as which changes to make from the comics. It's a touchy issue, comic fans do tend to complain any time a change is made.
The green lantern and fantasic four were both faithful to the comics but all 3 combined films had flat scripts.
Burton and Nolans Bat-films are both popular yet both heavily deviate from the comics. Schumachers plot points and characters were overall fairly similar to the comics but the tone and the delivery were not. A perfect bat film would likely contain elements from all 3 directors.
spider-man is probably the second best. Even it's weakest film (the 2007 one) was a cash cow and fairly entertaining. So far it has no flops to the extent of superman 4 or Batman and RObin.
My only issue with the Marvel Universe was the initial planning; 2009 was a light year for comic films while 2008 was very heavy. The incredible hulk should have been pushed back a year especially when there'd been a poorly received hulk film 5 years earlier. One or both of Captain america and thor should have been in 2010 with Iron man 2 as the final film before the avengers as some would call it an extended trailer for the avengers anyhow. Though I guess it was hard to predict. I mean I think Iron Man far exceed anyones expectations, Marvel was probably expecting the incredible hulk to be its cash cow. If one or both of the 2008 films flopped, perhaps the remaining films either don't happen or get a smaller budget. I do agree with the casting, they were planning a multiverse, they should have signed all their actors on for multiple deals. Even Samuel L Jacksons participation in the later films was in doubt prior to his signing onto the 2nd iron man film.
I agree with your assessment on the films; while I do consider the 2 thor films as the weak links, they're still decent. I don't think they failed, they just didn't inspire or excite me the way the other ones do.
DC's main problem had been lack of planning. They never seem to know what they want to do and they'd gotten greedy; superman they first became afraid to relinquish creative control and later tried to succeed on a shoe string budget. Batman of course the soccer moms protested the content and it went too silly. I guess the Nolan films were handled properly, they let him do his own thing. But the common issue there and man of steel is that it's obvious that they were uneasy about bringing comic books to life and clearly shunned their existing audience in the hopes of attracting a new one.
Spidey has the best representation out of all the heroes via Raimi, for my money. Iron Man has a coherent, quality trilogy considering the other films it is competing against.
Superman's cinematic history is sketchy. The first film is a classic and the others haven't managed to reach that peak. Batman has been pretty good. Burton's two, and Nolan's first two, are pass marks.
Captain America has been fantastic, I've liked all his appearances. I have no time for The Punisher. X-Men has been good for the most part with X2 and First Class.
Overall, the Marvel Universe has been good so far. The only step wrong I would note is The Hulk's recasting, after Norton left. But even then, I'm glad he did. Ruffallo is brilliant, and that version of the character was fun.
The Webb Spider-Man reboot hasn't reached the heights of Raimi for me, but it is a respectable offering. The majority of reviews coming out of TASM2 cite an overstuffed film with a thin plot. Criticisms which are no longer exclusive to Spider-Man 3, but we'll see how that plays out.
It's a shame that 'TASM2' ironically seems to be repeating all the mistakes of 'Spider-Man 3' that ultimately led to Sam Raimi being kicked-off the franchise.
By the way, The Dark Knight, you say the Burton Batman films are 'pass marks'. That seems like rather lukewarm praise to me. Does that mean they're not your favourite comic-book movies?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 01:33
It's a shame that 'TASM2' ironically seems to be repeating all the mistakes of 'Spider-Man 3' that ultimately led to Sam Raimi being kicked-off the franchise.
I won't go into it all again, but indeed. It will be interesting to see if TASM2 gets a free pass or not in this regard.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 01:33
By the way, The Dark Knight, you say the Burton Batman films are 'pass marks'. That seems like rather lukewarm praise to me. Does that mean they're not your favourite comic-book movies?
Sorry. Perhaps my language should have been stronger. Pass mark meaning they're good, selecting the main ones I like from the 89-2012 canon.
I have the same concerns over amazing spider-man 2 having a lot of characters and plotlines. Where I have hope is that the first film did upgrade every single character they put in over the previous series. No Ben or captain stacey here so that frees up more screen time as does the fact that they wont have to tell as much as Peter's story.
I wholeheartedly say yes.
The Marvel Studios films (sans Incredible Hulk haha) are the best comic book movies for me, bar none. The only films outside of Marvel Studios that rise to that level of quality for me are BATMAN, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Superman: The Movie, The Wolverine, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Crow and The Amazing Spider-Man.
Marvel Studios can do no wrong for me. I didn't have a single problem with Iron Man 2 or Thor: The Dark World, unlike a lot of other people.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 16:54
Marvel Studios can do no wrong for me. I didn't have a single problem with Iron Man 2 or Thor: The Dark World, unlike a lot of other people.
Same here. I even like 'The Incredible Hulk'. ;)
I hope Marvel Studios can keep this remarkably consistent high standard up. I suspect they will.
I think Gobbs' analysis is pretty much spot on. As far as individual superhero/comic book films go, I'd say Donner's Superman films and Raimi's first two Spider-Man films are the best. The first RoboCop film also deserves a mention, although it's not adapted from a comic.
In terms of a complete series of films, the best would be Nolan's Batman trilogy IMO. Sure, TDKR had its flaws, but ultimately they were outweighed by its merits. I thought all three films were good.
But the best ongoing series has got to be the Disney Marvel cinematic universe. So far none of those films has been rated 'ROTTEN' on Rotten Tomatoes. In fact most of them are rated in the 70s, 80s and 90s. They've all done well at the box office and have generally been well received by the fans. No other superhero franchise has yielded such consistently good results. I'm not mad on the Thor films myself, but I dig the Iron Man and Captain America movies. And I'm looking forward to seeing Guardians of the Galaxy, Age of Ultron, Ant-Man and whatever else they're cooking up for us.
I'm particularly looking forward to what Marvel Studios have got coming up next, based on the hilarious 'Guardians of the Galaxy' trailer, the fact Edgar Wright is directing Ant-Man (who also happened to be one of my favourite Marvel characters), and my love for the first 'Avengers' film.
But I'm curious Silver Nemesis, are you not a fan of the Burton Batman films? I asked The Dark Knight the same question. But I notice that you don't even refer to them in your post.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 20:02But I'm curious Silver Nemesis, are you not a fan of the Burton Batman films? I asked The Dark Knight the same question. But I notice that you don't even refer to them in your post.
I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains. But even so, I think Batman Returns is one of the most unique, textured, beautiful and sadly misunderstood interpretations of the Batman mythos. It's kind of like 'The White Album' of Batman movies. Which would make Batman and Robin the 'Smell the Glove' of Batman movies. :-[
Objectively speaking, I think The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date. It's not my personal favourite, and it isn't the most faithful to the comics. But it's the tightest overall and the one which comes closest to being perfect. Of course it's
not perfect, but then none of the Batman films are. Subjectively speaking, my personal favourite Batman films are Batman: The Movie, Batman 89 and Mask of the Phantasm.
QuoteI love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains.
This right here pretty much explains my feelings for the burton films as well nice to know i wasn't the only one silver.
:)
I think Marvel has done a terrific job of not only combining different franchises together as one cohesive universe, but they consistently continue to make entertaining movies. The only movie of theirs I really didn't like at all was Iron Man 2, because it barely had a plot and nothing was at stake, but otherwise I've admired all of their films. So yeah, I think they are the premiere comic book film franchise.
The Spider-Man films I'd have to say would come second. Even though I thought Spider-Man 3 was mediocre because of too many subplots and villains, I thought the films have been good and none of them came close to being terrible.
Of course, I'll always have a soft spot for the Batman films - specifically Burton's take. Not perfect, but I admire the acting, the Art Deco cinematography, and its influence for The Animated Series in the 1990s - which is the best media adaptation of Batman.
Superman, apart from Donner's first film and yes even Man of Steel, I'm sadly become indifferent or grown to dislike all the films that came in-between those two. I love Reeve's portrayal, but unfortunately none of the sequels come close to matching his first film. Including Superman II.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 22:17
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 20:02But I'm curious Silver Nemesis, are you not a fan of the Burton Batman films? I asked The Dark Knight the same question. But I notice that you don't even refer to them in your post.
I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains. But even so, I think Batman Returns is one of the most unique, textured, beautiful and sadly misunderstood interpretations of the Batman mythos. It's kind of like 'The White Album' of Batman movies. Which would make Batman and Robin the 'Smell the Glove' of Batman movies. :-[
I disagree about Sam Hamm's original Batman II script. I thought it was completely rubbish that dragged on, it had an anticlimactic ending and would've had even LESS Batman screentime than he had for Returns. For what it's worth, I didn't think Bruce Wayne was that developed either; I felt the script emphasized to much on the Penguin's treasure hunt if anything. The second film we ended up getting maybe imperfect, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish to see more of Batman, but I thought it was a far better alternative to Hamm's script. At least it had characters that relate to the character. I mean, Hamm's take on Catwoman was just an evil cat-burglar who slashed people to death and, unlike Burton/Waters' take, wasn't even a reflection to Batman at all. I didn't like the Robin subplot either.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 22:17
Objectively speaking, I think The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date. It's not my personal favourite, and it isn't the most faithful to the comics. But it's the tightest overall and the one which comes closest to being perfect.
Please don't take this as a personal attack or anything, but I strongly disagree with you. I do make some negative comments on Nolan's films here and there, but the most resentment I have for out of all of his films would have to be The Dark Knight. I thought it was extremely poorly written for a film that became so highly regarded by fans and critics alike. Honestly, this movie as well as Batman & Robin, are the worst I've ever seen in the Batman franchise; they're just bad for different reasons.
TDK is full of logic gaps and holes that completely undermined its approach to staying 'realistic' and laughable attempt at character development. Harvey Dent's transition to Two-Face was so incredibly poorly done, and Batman's character is sidelined to take the fall for Dent at all costs. Batman never learns from his mistakes or recognises his own hypocrisy, and he is constantly outsmarted by the villains. The inconsistent characterization, such as Batman killing Two-Face in the end despite spending the entire film proving to be 'incorruptible' by not killing the Joker, which is especially reprehensible since he killed ninjas and Ra's al Ghul in the previous film. But Superman killing a genocidal maniac is bad, right? ::) Say what you want about Batman trying to stop Catwoman from killing Schreck in Returns, but Nolan's take constantly breaks his moral code whenever he finds it convenient (Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, Talia). TDK, as well as the first and third movies, made me really hate Batman for his hypocrisy. But really, Batman was sidelined because of Nolan's desire to make a convoluted plot, without a regard for consistent characterization.
The contradictory messages on human behaviour throughout the film drove me nuts i.e. people panic violently and try to murder Coleman Reese when Joker threatens to blow up a hospital...but convicts on a boat refuse to blow up another boat full of people?! Give me a break! Yeah sure, Batman is right when he says that some good exists in even among the most wicked, especially the way they defied Bane when he exposed the Dent cover-up...oh wait! The dialogue, just like in Begins, spells the themes out over and over again, and yet it comes across as so shallow, because the messages on human behaviour are contradicted throughout the film.
And again, too many things about this film that contradict its 'realistic' approach, like Batman works with the police despite his reckless approach to human life - at least the Arrow in the CW tv show is viewed as an outlaw, and the police do whatever they can to bring him down. And Two-Face's deadly disfigurement that nobody in the real world could ever survive from. Yeah, Batman can't be a detective and Joker can't look like a clown because it's unrealistic...but you can still have one side of your face completely charred and still talk properly, let alone you can survive from!
I could go on and on, but I'd take up another two pages. People here criticise TDKR, as they should, but I say that Dark Knight is just as idiotic. Apologies for the long rant, but for a film that everyone talks about as 'elevating' the genre, it has serious flaws that not even Batman & Robin suffers from. While Batman & Robin was bad because of its poor attempt at humour and inappropriate sexual references, The Dark Knight sucks because of its ridiculously convoluted, pretentious plot where nothing even makes sense, the characters' motivations are all over the place, and it has shallow dialogue and themes that actually have no business being in the film at all.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 03:30
I think Marvel has done a terrific job of not only combining different franchises together as one cohesive universe, but they consistently continue to make entertaining movies. The only movie of theirs I really didn't like at all was Iron Man 2, because it barely had a plot and nothing was at stake, but otherwise I've admired all of their films. So yeah, I think they are the premiere comic book film franchise.
I agree that there was less at stake in 'Iron Man 2' but I kind of like that element. I liked that it was simply an Iron Man story rather than another overblown 'the world is at stake' extravaganza. I think too many comic-book movies feel the need to be bigger than the last film but occasionally a smaller-scale threat can be quite refreshing.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 22:17
I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains. But even so, I think Batman Returns is one of the most unique, textured, beautiful and sadly misunderstood interpretations of the Batman mythos. It's kind of like 'The White Album' of Batman movies. Which would make Batman and Robin the 'Smell the Glove' of Batman movies. :-[
Objectively speaking, I think The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date. It's not my personal favourite, and it isn't the most faithful to the comics. But it's the tightest overall and the one which comes closest to being perfect. Of course it's not perfect, but then none of the Batman films are. Subjectively speaking, my personal favourite Batman films are Batman: The Movie, Batman 89 and Mask of the Phantasm.
Subjectively-speaking my favourite Batman films are 'Batman '89' and 'MOTP'. And I know what you mean about 'The Dark Knight' being an 'objectively' superior Batman film, although I do think 'Batman '89' is unfairly written-off in terms of tight-storytelling (the first-act is textbook tight storytelling IMHO in terms of setting up the 'birth of the Joker' and doesn't betray the fact that it was conceived during a writers' strike). However, what I do respect about 'TDK' is that it combines great storytelling with relative faithfulness to the comic-books, particularly in terms of characterisation.
I have roughly similar feelings to you about 'Batman Returns' versus Sam Hamm's hypothetical 'Batman 2'. As a standard sequel and franchise-builder 'Batman 2' would have been an ideal sequel (it's also an arguably much tighter and more coherent piece of storytelling than 'Batman Returns'). However, I like that 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns' are almost standalone films, and great ones at that. They each express a unique sensibility and work perfectly well on their own terms (and as much as I
adore the MCU franchise, it helps to get the best out of each separate instalment to watch them in the context of the films that bookend them). I don't think 'Batman Returns' would have been regarded as the first (and possibly only) 'art-house summer blockbuster' (a description I interpret in vastly positive terms) if it had been a more traditional sequel.
And 'Batman & Robin' as the 'Smell the Glove' of Batman movies? ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 22:50
QuoteI love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains.
This right here pretty much explains my feelings for the burton films as well nice to know i wasn't the only one silver.
:)
Well that at least makes three of us BurtonFanatic93. ;)
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 06:07
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Fri, 11 Apr 2014, 22:50
QuoteI love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains.
This right here pretty much explains my feelings for the burton films as well nice to know i wasn't the only one silver.
:)
Well that at least makes three of us BurtonFanatic93. ;)
:)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 03:30
Apologies for the long rant, but for a film that everyone talks about as 'elevating' the genre, it has serious flaws that not even Batman & Robin suffers from.
That's it, right there. Marvel Studios aren't ashamed to make comic book films.
Joss Whedon: "Every time people say, 'You've transcended the genre,' I'm like: No! I believe in genre."
I'd say it is the best for the way they've managed to connect all the films in the franchise and for the entertainment and quality of all the films.
There's not a film from this franchise I can say I didn't like compared to the other CBM franchises.
I like Burton's Batman films best and the 1966 film and Schumacher's to a lesser extent. I don't think Nolan's films are bad but certainly not that great or the best CBM films ever. I agree with The Laughing Fish's analysis of TDK. Although not perfect either, I'd take the Burton films over the Nolan films any day.
I like the first two Superman films and I think Man of Steel was not bad at all, but the rest of the films were disappointing.
I'm not a huge fan of Raimi's Spider-Man because I think they got Spider-Man's character wrong but I still like the films, especially the first two. I liked TASM too but its sequel isn't looking good.
I only saw the first two Blade films and I thought they were good but I'm just not a big fan of the character.
I thought the X-Men films were decent efforts and I really enjoyed the last one (XMFC) but I wouldn't say the franchise is better than the MCU, not even close.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 06:39
Marvel Studios aren't ashamed to make comic book films.
Joss Whedon: "Every time people say, 'You've transcended the genre,' I'm like: No! I believe in genre."
I like that! ;)
Quoteit had an anticlimactic ending
Burton had the ending of Hamm's 89 script rewritten several times. I expect the ending for Batman II would have been similarly reworked. But as a starting point, I thought Hamm's first draft was superior to Waters' in almost every respect.
Quoteand would've had even LESS Batman screentime than he had for Returns.
I think Batman would have had about the same amount of screen time as in Waters' script. Bruce Wayne would have had a lot more and would have been the film's central protagonist. Bruce was involved in numerous plot strands in Hamm's script:
• Using his public persona to combat social injustice in Gotham (which Vicki was documenting through her photojournalism)
• Battling the Penguin and Catwoman
• Investigating the murders of the heads of the Five Families, and in turn reinvestigating his parents' murder and uncovering Napier's true motives in killing them
• The love triangle between himself, Selina and Vicki
• His relationship with Robin
In Waters' script Batman/Bruce has two storylines:
• Reacting to the Penguin and his goons
• Trying to save Selina
There's no dramatic impetus driving his actions throughout the movie. Not until the very end when he has a personal stake in rescuing Selina. Other than that, he's just reacting to the problems the villains create without having any deeper personal interest in them.
Hamm's script kept Batman as the main character and also gave substantial roles to Gordon and Alfred. In Hamm's script, Gordon is shown investigating crimes in Gotham, interrogating suspects in holding cells (just like he does in Nolan's films), visiting Bruce at Wayne Manor, and interacting with Harvey Bullock (yes, Bullock was in Hamm's script too). In Waters' script Gordon has four lines of dialogue, all of which could have been spoken by any other generic policeman.
I honestly don't see how anyone can claim that Waters' portrayal of Bruce, Gordon and Alfred was better than Hamm's. I like the portrayal of Batman in BR, but that's because I like Keaton's performance, the costume and the way Burton presented him on screen. But all of those strengths would have been present had they gone with Hamm's script, except they also would have had a compelling character arc to add dramatic impetus to his actions. In fairness to Waters, he did give Batman more lines in his original script. But they were largely cheesy one-liners similar to those spoken by Clooney in Batman and Robin. Thankfully Keaton – who clearly had a better understanding of the character than Waters – removed these lines from the script. The only one that made it into the finished film was the "Eat floor – high fibre" line. :-[
Another advantage to Hamm's script is that I think Keaton would have liked it more. As things stand, he's expressed a degree of dissatisfaction with his role in Batman Returns. If they'd used Hamm's script I suspect he would have been more enthusiastic about doing the third film.
QuoteFor what it's worth, I didn't think Bruce Wayne was that developed either; I felt the script emphasized to much on the Penguin's treasure hunt if anything.
But the treasure hunt storyline tied directly into Bruce's personal narrative (he possess one of the statues, the treasure is buried under Wayne Manor, and he discovers his parents' deaths were connected to the treasure). The election storyline in Waters' script doesn't involve Bruce in any meaningful way. He has one conversation with Shreck about it and that's all.
In Waters' script Bruce is exactly the same person at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. But in Hamm's script he definitely developed over the course of the film, learning to use his public persona to help the disadvantaged and affect positive change in Gotham. His attraction to both Vicki and Selina added an element of emotional conflict to his story, and the scene where he discovers his family's connection to the stolen wealth upon which the city was founded was far more powerful than any of his scenes in the finished film (I also love the flashback scenes taking place in the 19th century - just imagine a Victorian version of Burton's Gotham!). And the guilt he feels over that, combined with his apprehension regarding the copycat vigilantes, leads him to question his existence as both Batman and Bruce.
As far as the Penguin goes, I'm fairly certain he got more of an emphasis in Waters' story than in Hamm's.
QuoteI mean, Hamm's take on Catwoman was just an evil cat-burglar who slashed people to death
This I agree with. The Catwoman in Hamm's script was very similar to the version from the syndicated newspaper strip that was in print at the time. But she wasn't very likable or sympathetic. Waters' Catwoman was more a mixture of the Golden Age and Pre-Zero Hour versions. Overall, I liked Waters' version more than Hamm's. I guess that's the trade off – if you go with Hamm's script you lose Waters' Catwoman. Still, I think Pfeiffer could have made the more villainous Catwoman interesting. And I'd rather have a great Batman film than a great Catwoman film.
Quoteunlike Burton/Waters' take, wasn't even a reflection to Batman at all
I think she was. She's even mistaken for Batman during a number of scenes, which results in her crimes being attributed to him. The Bruce/Selina parallels weren't as heavily emphasised in Hamm's script, but the Batman/Catwoman parallels were definitely there.
QuoteI didn't like the Robin subplot either.
I loved it. They actually had Dick Grayson as a kid instead of a twenty something. They stuck to his back story from the comics and managed to incorporate him into the narrative in a way that was believable and unobtrusive. IMO it was certainly better than Waters' mechanic version of the character.
QuoteHarvey Dent's transition to Two-Face was so incredibly poorly done,
I thought it was handled in a measured and evenly paced manner. Everything was foreshadowed earlier in the film. The only problem I have with it was that they omitted the split personality/'Big Bad Harv' aspect of the character, so what we ended up with was normal Harvey Dent turning into angry/insane Harvey Dent. But that was a creative decision on Nolan's part and I think it worked in the context of the film. Dent's moral and psychological corruption was the thematic backbone of the entire movie. It's a gradual process that's already underway, even before he gets scarred. He steps outside the law when he condones Batman going after Lau, when he steals the ambulance with the Joker's henchman inside to interrogate him, and when he lies to the public to take the rap for Batman's activities. He also shows subtle signs of anger problems in the first half of the film, particularly when he's interrogating the Joker's henchman. I thought Nolan set his transformation up quite effectively.
I'd certainly rank the Batman: The Animated Series version of Two-Face over Nolan's, but I still think Nolan did a decent job with the character.
QuoteBatman never learns from his mistakes or recognises his own hypocrisy
That criticism could just as easily apply to Batman Returns.
Quoteand he is constantly outsmarted by the villains
The Joker's godlike invincibility is a criticism I agree with. He claims to act on impulse – like the irrational, spontaneous Joker of the comics – and yet all of his actions are clearly premeditated and driven by a logical philosophical agenda: namely a desire to illustrate the innate corruptibility of the human spirit. Steve Englehart criticised the portrayal of the Joker for the same reasons, saying that he was far too rational to truly be the Joker. But it's an aspect of the characterisation that's essential to the narrative – like the Penguin's acquisition of the Batmobile blueprints in BR, or the way he suddenly has an army of heavily-armed penguin commandoes during the film's finale – and so I'm willing to overlook it.
QuoteThe inconsistent characterization, such as Batman killing Two-Face in the end despite spending the entire film proving to be 'incorruptible' by not killing the Joker, which is especially reprehensible since he killed ninjas and Ra's al Ghul in the previous film.
Batman killing in Nolan's films is an interesting subject and one that really deserves its own thread. I think the point of having Batman kill Dent was to show that although Batman physically defeated the Joker, the Joker won the moral victory by forcing both Dent and Batman to become killers. If Batman hadn't killed Dent, it would make no sense for him to take the blame for the latter's actions; the symbolic value of Batman as a representation of hope would have been untainted. But since it
was tainted – he
did in fact kill Dent – then there was a logical reason for him to take the fall for both of them. In doing so he ensured that at least one symbol of hope remained for the people of Gotham to believe in.
The only problem with this is that earlier in the film Batman drove the Tumbler at full speed into a head-on collision with one of the Joker's trucks, pulverising the driver's cab and almost certainly killing the driver in the process. Which means he'd probably already killed at least one other person in TDK before he got to Dent...
Quotebut Nolan's take constantly breaks his moral code whenever he finds it convenient (Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, Talia).
I can't argue with that.
QuoteBatman was sidelined because of Nolan's desire to make a convoluted plot, without a regard for consistent characterization.
Besides the inconsistency in Batman's moral code – and I agree with you, that is a problem – I didn't think the characterisation as a whole was problematic. Bruce changes and grows as a character throughout the three films, but the trajectory of his character development always felt natural and consistent to me. I think the only time his character arc progressed in a way that was inconsistent or illogical was the thing about him quitting (twice) in TDKR. But that's another big topic best saved for its own thread.
QuoteThe contradictory messages on human behaviour throughout the film drove me nuts i.e. people panic violently and try to murder Coleman Reese when Joker threatens to blow up a hospital...but convicts on a boat refuse to blow up another boat full of people?!
But people are contradictory in real life. There are good people in the world, and there are bad people, and it's not always easy to make the distinction. Nolan used that uncertainty to create suspense throughout the film. We never knew if the characters – whether it was a major character like Dent, or minor characters like the people on the boat – where going to choose the right moral decisions or the wrong ones. TDK is a film that doesn't shy away from the complexity of human nature. That's one of the things I like about it.
QuoteAnd again, too many things about this film that contradict its 'realistic' approach,
The 'realism' angle has been overemphasised by the fans. Nolan's intention was to create a grounded adaptation that sustained a feeling of verisimilitude. He never said he was aiming for cinéma-vérité. At the end of the day, he was making a trilogy of fantasy films. And while he may have downplayed some of the more fanciful aspects of the mythology, he never said it was his intention to eliminate them entirely.
QuoteBatman works with the police despite his reckless approach to human life - at least the Arrow in the CW tv show is viewed as an outlaw, and the police do whatever they can to bring him down.
But Batman's actions weren't officially sanctioned in TDK. Yes, he was working with Gordon. But it was off the record. That's why the police were still investigating him at the beginning of the film, and why Gordon was being questioned about the light on top of police headquarters. He was still as much of a vigilante in TDK and he was in Batman Begins, only by this point the police had realised it was in their interests to cut him some slack.
QuoteAnd Two-Face's deadly disfigurement that nobody in the real world could ever survive from.
Two-Face's disfigurement is the fundamental aesthetic conceit of the character. Do away with it and you're left with... One-Face, I guess. I don't think it's fair to criticise Nolan for striving for realism, but to then also criticise him for making concessions to the fantastic nature of the source material. It's a difficult balance to strike, and for the most part I think he got it right.
QuoteYeah, Batman can't be a detective
He was as much of a detective in TDK as he was in any of the other live action films. At least in TDK we got to see him profiling criminals and investigating a crime scene. But I agree that the detective angle is something that needs to be fixed in future films. None of the movies have done it justice so far (except perhaps the 1966 film).
Quotethe characters' motivations are all over the place
Again, this is a criticism that could apply to almost all of the Batman films. Especially Selina in Batman Returns.
QuoteApologies for the long rant,
Don't apologise, it was an interesting post. You've obviously thought about it a lot, and the best discussions thrive on a diversity of viewpoints.
QuoteHowever, I like that 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns' are almost standalone films, and great ones at that. They each express a unique sensibility and work perfectly well on their own terms (and as much as I adore the MCU franchise, it helps to get the best out of each separate instalment to watch them in the context of the films that bookend them).
Well said. Batman 89 and Batman Returns both function as self-contained standalone films in a way that most other superhero movies don't. They're both totally unique in terms of style and tone. I like to think Burton's third Batman film would have been something equally unique and original.
Thanks for the reply, Silver!
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
Quoteit had an anticlimactic ending
Burton had the ending of Hamm's 89 script rewritten several times. I expect the ending for Batman II would have been similarly reworked. But as a starting point, I thought Hamm's first draft was superior to Waters' in almost every respect.
Quoteand would've had even LESS Batman screentime than he had for Returns.
I think Batman would have had about the same amount of screen time as in Waters' script. Bruce Wayne would have had a lot more and would have been the film's central protagonist. Bruce was involved in numerous plot strands in Hamm's script.
Hamm's script kept Batman as the main character and also gave substantial roles to Gordon and Alfred. In Hamm's script, Gordon is shown investigating crimes in Gotham, interrogating suspects in holding cells (just like he does in Nolan's films), visiting Bruce at Wayne Manor, and interacting with Harvey Bullock (yes, Bullock was in Hamm's script too). In Waters' script Gordon has four lines of dialogue, all of which could have been spoken by any other generic policeman.
But the treasure hunt storyline tied directly into Bruce's personal narrative (he possess one of the statues, the treasure is buried under Wayne Manor, and he discovers his parents' deaths were connected to the treasure). The election storyline in Waters' script doesn't involve Bruce in any meaningful way. He has one conversation with Shreck about it and that's all.
In Waters' script Bruce is exactly the same person at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. But in Hamm's script he definitely developed over the course of the film, learning to use his public persona to help the disadvantaged and affect positive change in Gotham.
I must admit you've made very good points here. The treasure hunt does tie directly to Bruce Wayne since it not only connects to his parents' deaths, but it takes place in a final showdown with the Penguin in the Batcave. I actually don't remember in the script that Batman and Catwoman were involved romantically though. But yeah, you make a compelling argument that the film focuses more on Bruce Wayne as the main character, whereas the Waters script tends to emphasise too much on the tragic side of the character.
Quote
I think she was. She's even mistaken for Batman during a number of scenes, which results in her crimes being attributed to him. The Bruce/Selina parallels weren't as heavily emphasised in Hamm's script, but the Batman/Catwoman parallels were definitely there.
I actually meant that they didn't really reflect each other in terms of damaged psyche. Hamm's take on Catwoman was rather cold-blooded to the point of being evil. Batman, as you know, wasn't like that at all.
Quote
I loved it. They actually had Dick Grayson as a kid instead of a twenty something. They stuck to his back story from the comics and managed to incorporate him into the narrative in a way that was believable and unobtrusive. IMO it was certainly better than Waters' mechanic version of the character.
Eh, fair enough. I guess it just wasn't my cup of tea. And for the record, I didn't like Waters' mechanic idea either. If they weren't going to adapt Robin properly, then I'm glad Burton decided not to go ahead with it. Just like the John Blake thing – only difference is Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing the part made it tolerable.
Quote
I thought it was handled in a measured and evenly paced manner. Everything was foreshadowed earlier in the film. The only problem I have with it was that they omitted the split personality/'Big Bad Harv' aspect of the character, so what we ended up with was normal Harvey Dent turning into angry/insane Harvey Dent. But that was a creative decision on Nolan's part and I think it worked in the context of the film. Dent's moral and psychological corruption was the thematic backbone of the entire movie. It's a gradual process that's already underway, even before he gets scarred. He steps outside the law when he condones Batman going after Lau, when he steals the ambulance with the Joker's henchman inside to interrogate him, and when he lies to the public to take the rap for Batman's activities. He also shows subtle signs of anger problems in the first half of the film, particularly when he's interrogating the Joker's henchman. I thought Nolan set his transformation up quite effectively.
I disagree re: Dent being effectively developed. I found him to be shoehorned by the time he becomes Two-Face, and it totally threw off pacing. I had no idea what specific time did the third act took place after he was disfigured. Most of the first half of the film shows Dent being used as a punchline for a joke - like that courtroom scene, there was hardly psychotic how he defended himself at all, it was a cheap laugh if anything - or cracking jokes at his own expense. And Dent never came across as psychotic when he threatened that schizophrenic henchman either. Distressed, sure, and although it may have been the wrong thing to do regardless, you can sympathise why he took the matters into his own hands, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people would do the same thing under that situation. But see, the thing that bothered me about that scene was he still used restraint. In the two-part Two-Face episode in BTAS, when Dent was distressed he became volatile and deranged beyond reason. But in this scene, not matter how distressed he was, he wasn't going to quickly resort to violence, which doesn't convey to me as someone with really deep psychological deficiencies. Anger problems, sure, but far from someone who could be deranged. I see more compelling psychotic behaviour when I see drivers who are prone to road rage.
And what especially bothers me about his descent into madness is how he is manipulated by Joker – the man who played a big part in killing Rachel. I mean, the Joker was the reason why Dent took matters into his own hands with that henchman in the first place when Rachel was in danger – not to mention Joker tried to kill her before. But now that he comes face-to-face with Joker, Dent allows himself to be manipulated, and lets Joker go? Even for someone who became psychotic- that just does not make any sense at all. In BTAS, Rupert Thorne destroys Dent's reputation and inadvertently got him disfigured, and Dent does everything he can to get his revenge. But in the first half of TDK, he does everything he can to stop the Joker when Rachel is in danger, but as soon as he gets disfigured, he spares the main culprit but instead takes his anger out on other accessories, the mob and Gordon? So he resents Gordon for keeping blind faith in those corrupt cops and tortures him emotionally by threatening his family...but spares the guy who intended to harm him and Rachel in the first place? That's just ludicrous.
The things like supporting Batman getting Lau back from Hong Kong and Dent lying to the public that he was Batman bothered me as well because: 1) that whole Hong Kong incident would've been illegal and land Gotham authorities in trouble and 2) wouldn't that whole stunt by turning himself in to get Joker damage his credibility anyway?
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
QuoteBatman never learns from his mistakes or recognises his own hypocrisy
That criticism could just as easily apply to Batman Returns.
That still doesn't make Nolan's films immune from that criticism either. Like I said, it's actually even worse here because Bruce Wayne keeps saying he won't cross that line long before he became Batman, but he does it anyway. For a trilogy that's supposed to focus the beginning, middle and end, it's not clear what exactly his stance on murder really is.
Before that one quote in Returns, it was never explored what his morals were. Hell, one could even try to edit that "Wrong at both counts" remark out of that film, and it doesn't really factor into the movie's conclusion at all. That being said, what I hate about Nolan's movies as well as Returns to an extent is they try to have it both ways – if filmmakers are going to support one stance then they should at least stay consistent. In retrospect I'm surprised Burton left that remark in the final cut –since he was going for a more disturbed Batman.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
Batman killing in Nolan's films is an interesting subject and one that really deserves its own thread. I think the point of having Batman kill Dent was to show that although Batman physically defeated the Joker, the Joker won the moral victory by forcing both Dent and Batman to become killers. If Batman hadn't killed Dent, it would make no sense for him to take the blame for the latter's actions; the symbolic value of Batman as a representation of hope would have been untainted. But since it was tainted – he did in fact kill Dent – then there was a logical reason for him to take the fall for both of them. In doing so he ensured that at least one symbol of hope remained for the people of Gotham to believe in.
The problem is that Joker didn't need to force anything – Batman was already tainted because he killed in Batman Begins. He was responsible for the deaths of the fake Ra's and ninjas after burning the temple down (we don't even know if that guy he refused execute even survived), and he had set up the real Ra's to die in the train wreckage. Batman even acknowledged that he had killed Ra's in the Dark Knight Rises when Talia confronted him about her father's death. His argument that Ra's had to die because millions of lives were at stake is rather weak; Joker was trying to do the thing, but Batman saves him instead, and gets sarcastically praised as "incorruptible".
And I don't believe Batman taking the fall is a logical option either. Batman built this crime-fighting reputation by gaining recognition for saving Gotham from the League of Shadows, and continues to fight psychopaths like Joker – in front of many witnesses, and helps Dent's case by kidnapping Lau. After all this, people are supposed to be easily convinced that Batman became a cold-blooded murderer? And assuming if Joker is still alive by the end of TDK, why would he suddenly keep his mouth shut while Batman covers up Dent's murders? He went through all this trouble to corrupt the "beloved" Harvey Dent, yet he'll allow Batman to protect Gotham from knowing the truth?
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
The only problem with this is that earlier in the film Batman drove the Tumbler at full speed into a head-on collision with one of the Joker's trucks, pulverising the driver's cab and almost certainly killing the driver in the process. Which means he'd probably already killed at least one other person in TDK before he got to Dent...
Great. You gotta love that incorruptible Batman!
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
QuoteBatman was sidelined because of Nolan's desire to make a convoluted plot, without a regard for consistent characterization.
Besides the inconsistency in Batman's moral code – and I agree with you, that is a problem – I didn't think the characterisation as a whole was problematic. Bruce changes and grows as a character throughout the three films, but the trajectory of his character development always felt natural and consistent to me. I think the only time his character arc progressed in a way that was inconsistent or illogical was the thing about him quitting (twice) in TDKR. But that's another big topic best saved for its own thread.
I can't agree. For instance, Bruce says he wanted to become an inspirational symbol for Gotham, but at the start of TDK he tells off those copycats. And it's not like he advises them to help in different ways or anything, just a casual dismissal and off he goes. But in TDKR, he argues the whole point was "anyone could be Batman (or specifically, a hero)". On top of the fact that Batman drives vehicles that endanger lives and cause collateral damage; those actions are the opposite of an "inspirational" symbol. Man of Steel got criticised for Superman's recklessness, but this gets a pass.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
QuoteThe contradictory messages on human behaviour throughout the film drove me nuts i.e. people panic violently and try to murder Coleman Reese when Joker threatens to blow up a hospital...but convicts on a boat refuse to blow up another boat full of people?!
But people are contradictory in real life. There are good people in the world, and there are bad people, and it's not always easy to make the distinction. Nolan used that uncertainty to create suspense throughout the film. We never knew if the characters – whether it was a major character like Dent, or minor characters like the people on the boat – where going to choose the right moral decisions or the wrong ones. TDK is a film that doesn't shy away from the complexity of human nature. That's one of the things I like about it.
Even though people are indeed complicated in real life, I don't believe TDK presented this idea in a clever, believable or even meaningful way. We hear horrible stories of what happens behind prison walls in the real world, where it's every man for himself, yet Nolan tries to present the idea that not all prisoners should be viewed as deadly barbarians with that boat scene, that even at least one convict has some goodness in them. And they emphasized this by portraying a "hard-looking" thug to not pull the trigger. Yeah right, even if that was the case, that guy wouldn't get his hands near the detonator because he'd be stuck in the middle of a riot. What's made even worse about that scene is how no one in the other boat behaved like a terrified human being in that situation. I saw more believable terror and fear in cheesy, outdated disaster movies compared to this. Sorry, but I don't find that scene, or anything else this movie in general, that's relates anything to accurate human behaviour. Mind you, I DON'T want to see people actually killing each other, but I thought the whole set-up was a lame contrivance. It's actually made it even worse when people go on a killing spree when Bane exposes the Dent cover-up.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
But Batman's actions weren't officially sanctioned in TDK. Yes, he was working with Gordon. But it was off the record. That's why the police were still investigating him at the beginning of the film, and why Gordon was being questioned about the light on top of police headquarters. He was still as much of a vigilante in TDK and he was in Batman Begins, only by this point the police had realised it was in their interests to cut him some slack.
The problem is I have with a Batman movie like this is it asks me to buy into the idea it's set in a somewhat more 'realistic-looking' world where characters are drastically changed to suit the tone, and there are rules in place where certain characters can't exist because it doesn't fit in this 'world'. And yet it expects me to suspend my disbelief that police will summon the Batsignal to call for Batman's help. Put it this way, we can't have Superman and Batman exist in the same world, but we can police call for Batman's help even if they don't really sanction his actions? Wrong! The latter is not more believable than the former. If I imagine Batman existing in a more realistic world, there would be NO Batsignal. There would NO cooperation from the police, only zero tolerance. Batman would be hunted down as a wanted fugitive, together with the Joker.
What I liked about Arrow is that they don't shy away from the fact that Oliver Queen is a vigilante (although perhaps they emphasize that too much), and the police don't condone him at all, even when he stops killing people. Arrow may sometimes be seen as a low priority by the cops, but as of now, they never cooperate with him. In fact, Detective Quentin Lance, Black Canary's dad, got arrested recently for cooperating with him. Long overdue, but at least that show has some logic in that regard. Nolan's movies, however, do want to have it both ways, and doing that only hurts my suspension of disbelief.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
He was as much of a detective in TDK as he was in any of the other live action films. At least in TDK we got to see him profiling criminals and investigating a crime scene. But I agree that the detective angle is something that needs to be fixed in future films. None of the movies have done it justice so far (except perhaps the 1966 film).
The problem is not only does Batman need Fox's help for most of the time, but how does those scenes actually factor in stopping the Joker? It doesn't really, not in any real significant way. Batman especially never uses his head – only mindless action. Burton's films didn't dig deep into these detective skills either, but at least they hinted he was capable of such skills and used them to undermine his enemies, i.e. figuring out which chemicals did Joker taint to create Smilex, exposing Penguin's true colours in public (although that's more using his brain rather than using detective work).
As for the criticism re: Nolan's 'realism' - I'm afraid Nolan brought that upon himself. When people, other than the director himself, praise movies like this for being not 'realistic' and 'intelligent' despite it has flaws that not even silly action movies like GI Joe or even godforsaken Transformers, then that becomes a problem. If he is going to commit to realism, and change characters around to suit his liking then he should've been more consistent with it. If he is going to selective though, he shouldn't call it realistic at all. I mean, the Marvel movies change lots of things to make it look contemporary, but they don't abandon the idea that Tony Stark is a genius who builds his own robotic suits, or Hulk and Captain America became superhuman because of scientific experiments. They don't apologise for the fantasy. But Nolan's films have a lot of cartoonish stuff that's just as outlandish but yet they take themselves so seriously.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
Again, this is a criticism that could apply to almost all of the Batman films. Especially Selina in Batman Returns.
I'm afraid it's even worse here since this movie is praised for being clever and so on. I don't normally take Batman movies seriously, I never thought Burton's movies were anything more than entertaining movies with a few ideas here and there, but for movies like this that get praised and hyped for being 'deep' and so on, I expect it to hold up for consistency, actual character development and strong storytelling overall. And the more I think about these movies, the less I'm convinced.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
Don't apologise, it was an interesting post. You've obviously thought about it a lot, and the best discussions thrive on a diversity of viewpoints.
Well, I do tend make very long posts. ;)
QuoteI actually meant that they didn't really reflect each other in terms of damaged psyche. Hamm's take on Catwoman was rather cold-blooded to the point of being evil. Batman, as you know, wasn't like that at all.
I see what you mean. From a psychological perspective, Hamm's Catwoman was a lot more straightforward. There was a weird sadomasochistic subtext to his version, but other than that she wasn't particularly layered. That being said, she was probably closer to what most people expect from the modern day Catwoman. But I happen to think the Pfeiffer Catwoman is more interesting than the Catwoman from the modern comics. Pfeiffer's Selina incorporated the most intriguing elements from every era of the comics up to that point and combined them to create a more memorable and psychologically layered version than we've seen before or since.
QuoteBefore that one quote in Returns, it was never explored what his morals were. Hell, one could even try to edit that "Wrong at both counts" remark out of that film, and it doesn't really factor into the movie's conclusion at all. That being said, what I hate about Nolan's movies as well as Returns to an extent is they try to have it both ways – if filmmakers are going to support one stance then they should at least stay consistent.
I agree. The line that bothers me more in BR though is when he asks Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?" That's probably my favourite scene in the movie, but his moral indignation is undermined by the fact he killed the tattooed strongman earlier in the film. Burton's Batman never explicitly states that he doesn't kill, and so I don't take issue with him doing so when there's no other choice (e.g. the Joker thug in the bell tower). But there was no need for him to kill the tattooed strongman. And he certainly didn't need to smile while doing it. It would have been much cooler to have had a little fight scene between the two, ending with Batman knocking him into the sewers but letting him live. That's the only scene in the movie where he unambiguously kills someone. It's debateable whether the fire breather survived or not, but I always assumed he did. If it wasn't for the scene with the strongman, BR's haters would have one less criticism to hurl against the film.
But I agree with you about the inconsistency in Batman's morals. There's no use paying lip service to the 'golden rule' if Batman doesn't abide by it. And the only films where he does abide by it are Batman 66 and Batman and Robin. They need to be more consistent about this in future films.
Quote(we don't even know if that guy he refused execute even survived)
Since he was half naked on a snowy mountain, I don't think his chances were too good. Even if he survived the explosion, he likely would have frozen to death outside. If Bruce had difficulty scaling that mountain, then what chance would a podgy out-of-shape farmer have?
QuoteAnd I don't believe Batman taking the fall is a logical option either. Batman built this crime-fighting reputation by gaining recognition for saving Gotham from the League of Shadows, and continues to fight psychopaths like Joker – in front of many witnesses, and helps Dent's case by kidnapping Lau. After all this, people are supposed to be easily convinced that Batman became a cold-blooded murderer? And assuming if Joker is still alive by the end of TDK, why would he suddenly keep his mouth shut while Batman covers up Dent's murders? He went through all this trouble to corrupt the "beloved" Harvey Dent, yet he'll allow Batman to protect Gotham from knowing the truth?
I actually agree with this too. Kevin Smith made the same point in one of his podcasts. It would have been better simply to have told the truth about what happened to Dent and then blame his death on the Joker to protect Batman. Doing so wouldn't have invalidated the legislation he'd worked on when he was in office, and when people found out what the Joker had done to him it might even have created greater public sympathy for Dent. And people still would have had Batman to look up to as a symbol of hope. I think Gordon realised they'd made the wrong move in TDKR.
Perhaps Batman's real reason for taking the fall was that he wanted an excuse to quit?
QuoteI can't agree. For instance, Bruce says he wanted to become an inspirational symbol for Gotham, but at the start of TDK he tells off those copycats. And it's not like he advises them to help in different ways or anything, just a casual dismissal and off he goes. But in TDKR, he argues the whole point was "anyone could be Batman (or specifically, a hero)".
I see what you mean. But that's really a flaw in TDKR rather than the first two films. TDKR does introduce a number of inconsistencies with BB and TDK, but they don't detract from my enjoyment of the first two films.
QuoteWell, I do tend make very long posts.
You should read some my rambling posts. Though if you do, you may expire from old age before you reach the end of them. :-[
Anyway, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on The Dark Knight. You've explained and justified your viewpoint well and I respect your opinion. But I still think it's a good film. It does have its flaws, but ultimately I think its strengths greatly outnumber them. Chacun à son goût.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 13 Apr 2014, 22:26
I agree. The line that bothers me more in BR though is when he asks Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?" That's probably my favourite scene in the movie, but his moral indignation is undermined by the fact he killed the tattooed strongman earlier in the film.
The only excuse I could come up with is Bruce fell in love with Selina and didn't want her to get into trouble, and became even more desperate upon learning she was Catwoman. That line during ballroom scene doesn't really bother me since he was putting on that billionaire facade, but in the end he could always try to talk her out of killing Shreck without putting himself on a moral pedestal. It's an very odd thing to say since he doesn't hesitate to kill some of the worst scum in society himself. There's no point denying it, the "wrong on both counts" line was simply out of character.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 13 Apr 2014, 22:26
Perhaps Batman's real reason for taking the fall was that he wanted an excuse to quit?
I like to think that Nolan was simply making stuff up as he went along. ;D ;)
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 13 Apr 2014, 22:26
I see what you mean. But that's really a flaw in TDKR rather than the first two films. TDKR does introduce a number of inconsistencies with BB and TDK, but they don't detract from my enjoyment of the first two films.
I think what bothers me especially is for all the talk of "symbolism" and "inspiration", you rarely see what sort of impact that Batman has on society. In BB, you see the police reacting to his presence, but you don't see what impression he is having on the public because he never fights random crime. Apart from the copycats and a brief debate during Dent's press conference in TDK, it's the same thing. In contrast, the heroes in Donner's Superman, Raimi's Spider-Man, Whedon's Avengers and even Webb's Amazing Spider-Man, you see them save people, making their presence felt and everyone takes notice. With those contradictions mentioned in the third film, it makes that scene with Batman and the copycats even more frustrating.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 13 Apr 2014, 22:26
Anyway, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on The Dark Knight. You've explained and justified your viewpoint well and I respect your opinion. But I still think it's a good film. It does have its flaws, but ultimately I think its strengths greatly outnumber them. Chacun à son goût.
Fair enough, I'm glad you still enjoy the film despite acknowledging its share of problems. There are a few things I did like such as the opening bank heist, the two short fight scenes involving Batman at the car park and nightclub and the chase scene. But those are all action scenes. Other than those, the rest of the film just simply didn't cut it for me. Ah well, it's been a fun discussion! :)
I think in terms of pure AMBITION, MCU easily beats them all. But in terms of quality, I think The Dark Knight trilogy is probably the most consistent. There hasn't been a single decent Superman film since Superman II in my opinion.
The Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise is probably the most inconsistent. I thought the '89 film was great, Returns was good but certainly flawed, Forever was a mixed bag(occasional great ideas, occasional stupidity), and Batman & Robin is another one of those "so bad, it's good" movies for me.
While I don't think any of the Blade movies were GREAT, but I thought the first two were great, gory fun with ENOUGH of an emotional center for you to care. The third film on the other hand, just felt like a generic music video disguised as a film.
I actually think the first X-Men is quite overrated. While it wasn't bad, it was just sorta bland and ho-hum in hindsight with nothing really memorable about it. X2 was an excellent follow-up, though. It explored the characters and themes much deeper, had much better cinematography and action, and actually took a few risks with the story I didn't expect. X-Men: The Last Stand was more satisfying than both on a pure VISCERAL level, but it lacked the heart or complexity that made the second film so successful. While X-Men Origins: Wolverine was pretty cliche and weak with its script, I DID enjoy it more as a simple action romp than any of the other X-Men films so I will give it that. X-Men: First Class is the only X-Men film to rival X2 with its script, characters, and ideas while still being an entertaining comic-book movie. The Wolverine was GOOD, but the plot got overly convoluted towards the end and I thought the robot samurai was just too over-the-top and silly for what is, a more low-key, character-driven story than the previous films.
I thought the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy was pretty good overall. The first Spider-Man certainly wasn't deep or thought-provoking, but it had enough heart and charm to make up for those weaknesses. The second film on the other hand, had a much deeper, more emotionally engrossing script, better written characters, and overall, just a smarter film than the original. The third film certainly had its problems, but it was entertaining from beginning to end and there were a lot of really good, memorable scenes in it so I didn't hate it. The reboot just came off bland and soulless and the sequel was just BAD. The love story was just constant bickering and arguing without going anywhere until the last 20 minutes. The villains were all rushed and poorly developed. And Spider-Man himself wasn't even in the film much after the first 15 minutes.
The Fantastic Four movies were just 2 hour visual effects reels with barely any story going on.
I haven't seen the first Hellboy but I thought the second film was a lot of fun. While it wasn't anything special in terms of story, it was just so much fun with its humor, action, and visuals so it really didn't bother me.
Another celebrity death; the colonel from Iron man 2 and captain america winter soldier Gary shandling died at age 66
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 24 Mar 2016, 20:43
Another celebrity death; the colonel from Iron man 2 and captain america winter soldier Gary shandling died at age 66
Damn! :(
I'm a huge fan of the "Larry Sanders" show so this is terrible news for me.
RIP
It's a lopsided comparison. The MCU is made up of individual franchises. Comparing their entire universe to individual franchises from other studios is bound to favor Marvel.
Instead why not ask how Marvel's franchises stack up to others. And frankly, I think that tends to work against Marvel since they're every bit as trilogy-fixated as every other movie studio. That favors the other studios because their stories lend themselves to end points. But Marvel Studios ostensibly will "never end". It's an ongoing thing just like the comics. I don't think the Iron Man franchise is much to write home about. The first movie is rightfully a legend, the wheels came off the wagon in Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 was okay but not as fun as the first one or as character-driven as the second. It's just sorta there.
To date Marvel hasn't made another solo Hulk movie because their first one flopped. Thor: The Dark World was, again, fun but not quite as good as the original. It's too soon to say where Ragnarok will fit into that. Avengers: Age of Ultron didn't seem to amaze anybody.
It looks like Marvel's hat trick is creating franchises that peter out after the first entry. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is arguably the only real example of Marvel Studios delivering the goods the second time... but people debate even that. Civil War looks promising but a lot of the hype centers around Black Panther, Spider-Man and other newcomers. The Civil War storyline almost seems like an afterthought, which is a damn shame because Civil War is an amazing storyline.
Meanwhile, Man of Steel and Batman v Superman clearly go hand in hand. MOS introduces the characters and BvS really took the story and the characters to the next level. BvS is a Superman sequel, I don't care what anybody says to the contrary. The conflicts in BvS involve, affect or otherwise originate from someone from MOS.
So far this Superman franchise is as entertaining to me as anything Marvel has done and, unlike Marvel, both entries so far have been equally good.
I'm glad Marvel Studios is around doing their thing but they really need to improve their game when it comes to making sequels that equal the original of whatever franchise they're working with.
Lowest ranked MCU film on Rotten Tomatoes: Thor: The Dark World Score: 66%
Highest ranked DCEU film on Rotten Tomatoes: Man of Steel Score: 56%
Cue the hate and anger... :-X
Rotten Tomatoes scores are meaningless. What's important is your personal opinion, not others.
I for one enjoy Man of Steel and Thor: The Dark World equally. And besides, if we choose to take the critics' word for granted, we're lead to believe that something like Superman Returns is not only better than MOS, but also better than Captain America: The First Avenger, T:TDW and The Incredible Hulk. To which I say: no.
Yep, it's rubbish. And there are people out there that use RT as a reason to like or hate something, as proof their opinion is right. It's an opinion business, and I rate my own experience over somebody else's. BvS is not deserving of the hate, and I find it bizarre to be completely honest. But if we're talking about audience reaction, and if it really matters to me, well...the majority of people here liked it, and that satisfies me.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 27 Mar 2016, 09:15
Yep, it's rubbish. And there are people out there that use RT as a reason to like or hate something, as proof their opinion is right.
I'll go one better and suggest most of these people who use RT to prove why they think a movie is good or bad is because they can't think for themselves.
They want to be in the majority. The cool kids club. If other people like something I like, well, that's great. But if not, it doesn't put me off. It doesn't make me change my opinion to suit somebody else's, because that's just dumb. Never apologise for liking something. Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.
"So, that's what that feels like"
(Someone who loved BvS to a fan of the SW prequels)
I echo what colors said on the previous page. BvS took the themes of MoS, addressed them head on and expanded the world. That's what I ask of any sequel. Some sequels just pay lip service to the original, and carry on without addressing much other than the fact it's the same bunch of characters. That's 100% not the case here. It is undeniably a sequel to Man of Steel. That film gives everything it's context. I respect that.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 27 Mar 2016, 10:35I'll go one better and suggest most of these people who use RT to prove why they think a movie is good or bad is because they can't think for themselves.
I personally make my own mind up, but I don't like shelling out a lot of money on a film at the cinema if I've already got doubts about its quality, which are further confirmed by the general critical consensus. I'd rather take a chance on something I suspect I will like and which has at least some critical backing (not necessarily 90% plus, but at least something that is vaguely 'fresh').
There has been the odd occasion when I've disagreed with the critical consensus, Zack Snyder's own Sucker Punch is one such example; The Beach is another...I'm sure there are quite a few others. That said, I find that I'm more likely to agree with the vast critical consensus that give a reasonably positive to films like the underrated Cloud Atlas and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, than I am to the box-office or even audience consensus (bear in mind how overwhelmingly popular the infernal Transformers franchise is with audiences, irrespective of almost unanimously bad reviews).
Suffice to say, whilst I don't always agree with the critical consensus, I trust critics over the general audience who make people like Adam Sandler and Kevin James big box-office stars. ::) And continue going to see Transformers films no matter what. ::) ::) I saw two films yesterday, which weren't unanimous hits with the critics, but certainly sounded more promising than Batman v Superman, and my companion and I thoroughly enjoyed those two films.
So I do think for myself, but I also appreciate a rough guide as to whether it's worth spending money on a film or not, and in my personal experience, the critics are usually right, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one who feels that way.
I'm sorry if people like me are 'hurting' the success of Batman v Superman, but maybe Zack Snyder should have listened to the people who criticised Man of Steel instead of apparently exacerbating everything that was wrong with it.
Have you even seen BvS yet, johnny?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 06:43
Have you even seen BvS yet, johnny?
Not yet. To be honest, the only thing that really puts me off is the element I was always bothered by; Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor. He just seems nothing like the Luthor from the comic-books to me, and it's a shame because Luthor is a unique villain, an alpha-male, calm and collected businessman, in a world populated by freaks, psychos, monsters and alien warlords, so this Luthor strikes me as a very missed opportunity. :(
I'd recommend you see the film, johnny. I was downbeat and dejected when the negative critical reviews flooded in. But actually seeing the film for yourself is the only tonic. To know how you truly feel about things. Don't go off second hand information, or even what I'm saying. I'd be interested to see what you think.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 08:17
I'd recommend you see the film, johnny. I was downbeat and dejected when the negative critical reviews flooded in. But actually seeing the film for yourself is the only tonic. To know how you truly feel about things. Don't go off second hand information, or even what I'm saying. I'd be interested to see what you think.
Thank you TDK. :) I do agree that one shouldn't go off second-hand-information and one should reserve their judgment until they've experienced something for themselves.
JG I wont spoil anything for you but I too had reservations about Eisenberg as luthor I think he's an enjoyable actor on screen but doesn't fit the luthor persona. He plays a younger version and this film in a way is an origin story for Luthor the way that Man of steel was an origin story for the Clark Kent we know as superman. I can tell you by the end he fits the modern luthor much better. The critics probably hate on him but he injects fun into the film in a similar manner to how the Joker should.
with respect to the Incredible Hulk, that film didn't underperform at the box office, it made nearly double its 150 million budget. The main reason we haven't seen another solo Hulk film is that Universal owns partial distribution rights for the character so it's easier for Marvel to include the character in other films than make him a lead character
I don't see how this Luthor can ever be the credible respected businessman and would-be President of the USA, in view of the things I've heard about the ending... :-X
But can I ask, does this Luthor have any sympathetic traits at all, or is he simply a weedy, kooky effeminate and irredeemably evil nerd? And if that is the case, why couldn't Snyder have gone for a more traditional alpha-male version of Luthor? Do the baddies in his films always have to be physically weak, nerdy and odd in comparison to the heroes (i.e. '300' where turncoat hunchback joined forces with the evil Persians against the perfectly-built ultra-macho Spartans)?
This is why I still prefer Burton's version of Batman. He seems to find affinity with society's outsiders and with 'Batman Returns' he manages to make the confident All-American CEO the main villain in opposition to Batman, Catwoman and even The Penguin's misfits.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 16:41I don't see how this Luthor can ever be the credible respected businessman and would-be President of the USA, in view of the things I've heard about the ending... :-X
Then it's quite possible that this version of Lex won't run for President.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 16:41But can I ask, does this Luthor have any sympathetic traits at all, or is he simply a weedy, kooky effeminate and irredeemably evil nerd? And if that is the case, why couldn't Snyder have gone for a more traditional alpha-male version of Luthor?
The only version of Lex I'd characterize as "alpha male" is STAS. Gene Hackman was a used car salesman, John Shea was a debonair playboy and Michael Rosenbaum was a sexy bald posterboy for Millennial teenagers. None of them were the gold standard of rugged, bare-chested manliness. As for comics, I guess Lex was pretty assertive but usually not what most people would define as alpha male the way you have.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 16:58Then it's quite possible that this version of Lex won't run for President.
Yes. Exactly. So a very limited Lex Luthor then. :-\
QuoteThe only version of Lex I'd characterize as "alpha male" is STAS. Gene Hackman was a used car salesman, John Shea was a debonair playboy and Michael Rosenbaum was a sexy bald posterboy for Millennial teenagers. None of them were the gold standard of rugged, bare-chested manliness. As for comics, I guess Lex was pretty assertive but usually not what most people would define as alpha male the way you have.
He's a tough, assertive businessman, not a club-waving caveman, but that's still an alpha-male in the scheme of things. What he's not is a weedy, whiny, cackling, insane, effeminate nerd.
John Shea comes the closest to capturing the essence of the comic-book character with his suave, charismatic businessman. Gene Hackman was at least close to the early pre-crisis scientist Luthor, and even if he had a cheesy used-salesman vibe at least he was funny and entertaining. And I certainly don't see any of the others as the gold standard, which is even more reason why we should demand a better Lex now.
He's arguably the most poorly served comic-book character after the Fantastic Four as far as films and TV go. Basically he's the opposite to Batman, Superman and The Joker in that respect.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 17:49Yes. Exactly. So a very limited Lex Luthor then. :-\
You are aware, aren't you, that exactly one comic book storyline was about Lex running for President, right? And the only adaptation so far that has even poked a toe in that direction is Smallville. This isn't a major storyline that's crucial to the foundations of Lex as a character. It's an interesting story and some neat things were done with it but it isn't one of those defining stories for Lex. It may be for you but not for the character.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 17:49John Shea comes the closest to capturing the essence of the comic-book character with his suave, charismatic businessman.
He was a hedonist with a lot of sadistic qualities. Shea's was an engaging performance but I'd hardly call him definitive.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 17:49Gene Hackman was at least close to the early pre-crisis scientist Luthor, and even if he had a cheesy used-salesman vibe at least he was funny and entertaining.
I grow less enamored with Hackman's take all the time. People are free to bash on Superman IV if they want but he stole a strand of Superman's hair, genetically engineered a screwed up clone of Superman, hid his device on a nuclear missile and pointed Nuclear Man at Superman with orders to take him out. That did a lot to redeem the Hackman Luthor's scientific prowess in my estimation... which Kevin Spacey later undermined but I'll spare you that.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 17:49And I certainly don't see any of the others as the gold standard, which is even more reason why we should demand a better Lex now.
My point was that Eisenberg isn't even remotely close to the worst Lex there's ever been. He's no closer and no further away from the mark than any of his predecessors. My reading of Eisenberg's Lex is that he's a man lost in his own obsessions... and they're slowly eating him alive. I think history could look back very favorably on Eisenberg's performance.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 21:58My point was that Eisenberg isn't even remotely close to the worst Lex there's ever been. He's no closer and no further away from the mark than any of his predecessors. My reading of Eisenberg's Lex is that he's a man lost in his own obsessions... and they're slowly eating him alive. I think history could look back very favorably on Eisenberg's performance.
Lex is not a cackling kooky psychopath. There are plenty of those already in the DC Universe. What about a businessman villain who actually seems quite normal on the surface? Apart from Tim Burton's brilliant Batman Returns, in which Burton made up a character, Max Shreck, we haven't had any of those in the films. In other words, Max Shreck is a better Lex Luthor than any of the official versions of the character we've yet had in live-action. All the other DC films have conformed to the offensive notion that a person has to be an outsider and/or mentally ill to be evil, or otherwise be an alien.
Also, it's easy to say 'history will look back favourably on x or y' but none of us can see the future, and as it stands even the majority of this film's supporters consider Jesse 'Comic Con is like the Holocaust'/'I didn't bother with the comics' Eisenberg to be the weak link.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 22:08Lex is not a cackling kooky psychopath.
Perhaps not in your idealized conception of the character. But it remains a valid depiction of Lex Luthor. And, might I add, one that's light years ahead of some of his predecessors. I go with it.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 22:08Also, it's easy to say 'history will look back favourably on x or y' but none of us can see the future, and as it stands even the majority of this film's supporters consider Jesse 'Comic Con is like the Holocaust'/'I didn't bother with the comics' Eisenberg to be the weak link.
It's been my experience that jews (which I think Eisenberg is) mention the holocaust more casually than do others. I'm sure there are reasons for that and none of them concern me. I only mention it to say that you and I might not be so cavalier about it but that isn't necessarily a jewish restraint in my observation.
As to his "I didn't bother with the comics" bit, Eisenberg has spent a fair amount of the past several years trying like hell to establish a more foo-foo type of film career. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he accepted the role for the money so that he could afford to do an indie film or two for practically nothing. But at the same time he's shown a remarkable level of personal investment in the film and the character. Based on jacknothing, I wonder that Terrio signing on to write/co-write the film didn't deeply impress Eisenberg.
I digress. He clearly wants to be taken seriously as a respected film actor. I would totally understand him saying he hasn't read any comics. In fact, not all actors are Method. Some are from a less personal school where they build the character from the outside in as opposed to the Method approach of working from the inside out.
I say this because Lex reminds me a fair amount of Mark Waid's depiction of Lex Luthor from Birthright. The hair, some of the clothes but also the mannerisms. This would seem a thin justification... until you remember that Birthright was an undeniable inspiration for MOS, particularly aspects of Krypton.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Eisenberg later 'fessed up that "Yeah, I
might have glanced at Birthright." There are too many similarities there for
SOMEone not to have read it.
Mel Gibson recently derided BvS as he expressed that he doesn't have time for the superhero genre. Judging by this interview with The Washington Post, it doesn't sound like he's crazy about the MCU either.
Quote
Gibson laments what he sees as the "violence without conscience" of many modern films. "To talk about the violence question, look at any Marvel movie," he says, dismissively. "They're more violent than anything that I've done, but [in my movies,] you give a s--- about the characters, which makes it matter more. That's all I'll say."
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/mel-gibson-proves-a-tad-tetchy-on-his-hacksaw-ridge-comeback-tour/2016/11/03/aa072c78-a04e-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html
More violent than Braveheart or Lethal Weapon? MCU having no characters to care about? Whatever, Mel. ::)
If I had to rate the MCU films in Phase 1 and 2:
Phase 1:
- Captain America: The First Avenger
- Thor
- The Avengers
- Iron Man
- The Incredible Hulk
- Iron Man 2
Phase 2:
- Captain America: The Winter Soldier
- Iron Man 3
- Ant-Man
- Guardians of the Galaxy
- Thor: The Dark World
- Avengers: Age of Ultron
Too soon to list Phase 3.
So we're well over a week away from Infinity War coming out in theatres. I think right now is a good time to look back at some of our favourite scenes in the MCU over the last decade.
Here are some of my favourites.
Tony Stark goes to Gulmira, Yinsen's home village, to take out the Ten Rings terrorists in his first solo outing. This was right after Stark watches the news footage in anger, knowing the terrorists are using his weapons against the innocent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjJofEuSA78
Thor, born with a new sense of humility and morals, confronts Loki and destroys the Bifrost Bridge to save Yotunheim in his first solo outing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_tp-sfa1m4
Captain America sacrifices himself and crashes Red Skull's ship into the arctic, saying his goodbye to Peggy Carter in The First Avenger....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nxfP0d5EVQ
...until they meet again more than 70 years later, during this heartbreaking scene in The Winter Soldier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9-g6UXP6M
The Avengers assembling for the first time in combat against the Chitauri.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVjgyI-R4w0
James Cameron has spoken about the saturation of comic book movies. He's not really the best man to be talking about franchises due to his commitment to several more Avatar films. And I'm not the biggest fan of the guy. But for the purpose this debate, I 100% agree with his opinion.
I catch the bus to work and I've been going past this massive Avengers banner, and I think to myself how embarrassing it all is, and what the older generation think of it. Superheroes aren't embarrassing, but the state of the industry is. It's so predictable and stale. And when a director does something bold and daring like BvS, they get shouted out of town.
This is what modern cinema has become. Constant, and I mean constant, superhero films with the rest of the landscape consisting of reboots and absolutely forgettable 'comedies'. It's not cinema anymore. It's numbing and blah to the point it's all the same, effectively being extended sizzle reels dressed up as art.
Accusing Joel Schumacher of being toyetic seems so tame now.
Something happened to Hollywood and I don't see them getting out of this rut any time soon.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 23 Apr 2018, 01:42
James Cameron has spoken about the saturation of comic book movies. He's not really the best man to be talking about franchises due to his commitment to several more Avatar films. And I'm not the biggest fan of the guy. But for the purpose this debate, I 100% agree with his opinion.
I catch the bus to work and I've been going past this massive Avengers banner, and I think to myself how embarrassing it all is, and what the older generation think of it. Superheroes aren't embarrassing, but the state of the industry is. It's so predictable and stale. And when a director does something bold and daring like BvS, they get shouted out of town.
This is what modern cinema has become. Constant, and I mean constant, superhero films with the rest of the landscape consisting of reboots and absolutely forgettable 'comedies'. It's not cinema anymore. It's numbing and blah to the point it's all the same, effectively being extended sizzle reels dressed up as art.
Accusing Joel Schumacher of being toyetic seems so tame now.
Something happened to Hollywood and I don't see them getting out of this rut any time soon.
After coming out of seeing Infinity War with a strong sense of disappointment a couple of nights ago, I'm afraid I've lost my interest in the entire MCU. As a matter of fact, my interest in all things comics-related adaptations is at an all-time low.
Aside from Thanos, who was an excellent villain, Infinity War is an absolute load of f***ing rubbish. The only MCU films I'll ever watch again are the older ones I still enjoy. Otherwise, I don't care what happens in the future of the franchise any more.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F21mcgeu.jpg&hash=0e64b1ab633c057b36c2f2359fceaf4d2fe4ab16)