Messages

https://collider.com/why-dc-animated-movies-dont-look-like-graphic-novel-comics-art/

Does anyone happen to know where one can find an interview with Tim Sale where he discusses how he sees Batman as a character, and his preferred take on Batman?

Back when he had his own website, he had a section where he gave his thoughts on all the major characters he worked with, and I remember his take on Batman said something to the effect of him being "the most immature superhero of all," in the sense that he was still very much an 8-year old dealing with his dead parents. But that website no longer exists, and the only interview I can remember where he touches on that subject was for BOF, which no longer has it on the site.

John Williams' theme is definitely iconic, no disputing that. But here is the thing: Superman, whether anybody likes it or nor, still has a history long before the score that John Williams composed in 1978. The same thing goes for the Donner movie. If we keep paying homage to a particular theme because of a sense that it's iconic, it only stifles creativity and variety.

Well, there's a history for Superman before the Fortress of Solitude. And for Batman before the Batmobile. When certain aesthetic elements get introduced, if they catch on in a big enough way - with the creative teams that continue these characters, with the general audience, or with both - they end up absorbed into the basic DNA of the character's world. You don't swap in a spaceship anchored off the coast of the Amazon, or a lavender hover car with ears around the cockpit, just because you're doing a "new" version; you do variations on the established elements. Those examples don't make for a perfect analogy with a musical score, but the same basic principle applies.

And it's just not true that retaining a theme stifles creativity and variety. Go back to Bond - the continued presence of Monty Norman's theme didn't stop Marvin Hamlisch from drawing on disco, or Éric Serra from writing an "avant-garde" techno score, or John Barry from trying out a number of styles throughout his long tenure on the series. The theme, in all those cases, was reworked to fit the larger score, not the other way around, and in effect became a "musical cameo," as you put it. Which is not an inherent negative. Doing variations on a theme, by its nature, provides variety, in how it demonstrates the ways one piece of music can be stretched and turned and arranged.

Why didn't Elfman use Nelson Riddle's theme for B89 and BR? I thought this guy hated composers creating new themes for different interpretations?

Elfman doesn't get it. The sound for the new films had already been ESTABLISHED.

I can't speak for Elfman, obviously, but there are a number of practical reasons why the 66 Batman theme (written by Neal Hefti; Riddle was the series composer) wasn't used. 20th Century Fox could've refused to allow its use; Michael Uslan was dead set against having any connection to the 60s series; Peters and Guber might not have wanted it, if only so they could push the Prince album; Tim Burton could've been opposed to using it (when an interviewer at the time asked him why he hadn't included the theme, Burton reportedly just shrugged). The composer does not have final say on the music any more than an actor has a say on which of their takes gets used. But Elfman - and others involved in B89 - may have concluded that the 60s series, being deliberate camp and satire, was somewhat removed from the character, and that their efforts - including their musical efforts - were the first high-profile attempt to establish an "authentic" take on the character outside of the comics.

And were I in Elfman's place, I might have said, for all the reasons I've given, that the sound for the characters had already been established, and a new film attempting a different sound simply for the sake of having something new was in error.

Haven't seen the film yet, but I do want to comment on something I've thought about for a while re. film scoring...

I reject out of hand the idea that, because a new iteration of these characters comes along, everything must start from scratch, including the music. Leaving out personal bias, there's a good reason to retain established themes, and the best example of it is James Bond. As has been mentioned in this thread, he's gone through six actors, ten directors, and numerous writers, composers, and producers. He's been played as elegantly ruthless, strayed into science fiction, come dangerously close to Jason Bourne territory, entertained intentional camp, and flirted with the epic. Throughout all the (sometimes radical) shifts in look, tone, and attitude, certain building blocks of the filmmaking have stayed in place: the gun barrel opening, the opening credits sequence with the women, the supporting cast at Mi6 (except in cases of death or retirement)...and the James Bond Theme. Some might dismiss these as superficial elements, but they're crucial to lending the series a certain consistency throughout all the big changes, and they give a general audience - not necessarily hard-core fans, but a general audience - a place of comfort. So that, when the films undergo rather dramatic shifts in style and tone, there are at least a few easily identifiable pieces to latch onto and say "this is still Bond."

And retaining the Bond theme hasn't been limiting to composers who've worked on the series, so far as I can see. The theme itself is rearranged, re-orchestrated, and incorporated to whatever else the composer does in every film. Another (less consistent) example would be the Godzilla series. In the Showa era, themes varied according to the composer, but by the late 80s, Akira Ifukube's melodies had been settled on as the defining music of the Toho kaiju, or at least for Godzilla himself; hence, even if Ifukube wasn't composing, most of the films since have used his theme.

IMO, superhero film series should've been following this practice from the start. To bring in personal bias - film scores are the last best means for orchestral music to enter into the culture, and certain themes and melodies - including John Williams' Superman theme - have obtained the same prevalence in our culture as the most recognized works of Beethoven, Wagner, etc. Again, things might be different for hard-core fans, but for a general audience, that sort of music does become iconic and definitive. And Elfman's point in interviews about how such melodies become like DNA should be better understood. A strong, central melody, like his Batman theme or Williams' Superman theme, doesn't have to sound constantly throughout a soundtrack, but it can inform how the rest of the soundtrack is written. The themes themselves, especially if they're vintage, can be saved for key moments - the approach Elfman seems to have taken with this score.

And I think his use of Williams' Superman theme is a great example of how arrangement and orchestration can inject new life and color into an established theme. Dropping in a brief reprise of the main melody, arranged in a new key, juxtaposed against harsh and dissonant strings, can turn what was meant to be a very driving, upbeat, heroic sound into something menacing. Williams himself has shown that trick off for years as he's reworked his themes for Harry Potter and Star Wars to fit new scenes and situations. So the argument that an established theme somehow wouldn't be appropriate to a new take on these characters doesn't hold water for me; a talented enough composer (and orchestrator) can make them work for nearly any mood.

Of course, I might feel differently if I liked anything that Zimmer and XL had done in the previous films - but I didn't. Outside of a few films (in which he had others' melodies to work with), Zimmer has never been a favorite of mine, and music was just one of many aesthetic elements of BvS I found unremarkable and unpalatable.

["Christopher Nolan's work is prose, Tim's is poetry, but they can co-exist in the same stratosphere."]

I suppose I should've looked harder to see if there was a thread about this interview...

My favorite line from this is: "Christopher Nolan's work is prose, Tim's is poetry, but they can co-exist in the same stratosphere."

And I'm fascinated by Waters' description of the competing visions for the Catwoman film. Burton's influences for it make me smile; the original Cat People is a great movie.

And I just took that last comment on the different types of audiences as personal opinion expressed in shorthand cliches; nothing to get offended by.

The Returns costume. That design and color scheme coupled with the mobility of the BvS suit would be my ideal. I'm fine with a slimmer Batman, myself.

["Christopher Nolan's work is prose, Tim's is poetry, but they can co-exist in the same stratosphere..."]

Came across this today - interesting read: http://www.money-into-light.com/2016/06/daniel-waters-on-batman-returns.html

I think the best bit is the way he distinguishes between Burton's approach and Nolan's: "Christopher Nolan's work is prose, Tim's is poetry, but they can co-exist in the same stratosphere..."

There are a few Superman Lives scripts floating around the Internet, and I recently read three, one each from Smith, Wesley Strick, and Dan Gilroy.

Smith described his script in the documentary as "real fanboy w**k stuff;" at least he's honest. It was a really poor work IMO. Structurally, the plot wasn't in awful shape, but the dialogue was hokey, Superman had some truly terrible one-liners, and the characterisation of Lois Lane was insufferable.

Strick's script is the most forgettable of the three. I seem to recall liking some of the stuff between Lex and Braniac, but its take on Superman himself was way off.

Gilroy's script was pretty sound IMO. It anticipated some of the stuff that got done with Superman in MoS (existential feelings of not fitting in and all that), but IMO executed them much more effectively, and without denying the audience a chance to see Superman be outwardly idealistic, heroic, and capable of multitasking. I don't know why this script decided to create a Superman who doesn't know he's an alien until he's grown-up and an established superhero, but that angle was as well done as I think it could be. Clark's relationship with Lois, and Lois's with her niece, were well-written as well. It wasn't a perfect script by any means; Supes is too Batman-ish in his first scene, Lex was written out early (and his characterisation was...iffy, at best), Doomsday might as well have been any generic monster (though you could say that of the character in general), and there was some truly terrible "banter" between Supes and Braniac in the final battle. But if this script represented the basic gist of what was going to get shot, and if it saw some further polish (and some careful editing on Burton's part during filming and post), then the film would've been built on solid ground.

It's a shame people are so narrow minded.

EisenLex:

Gets access to what he wants, when he wants - Zod's body and the scout ship.
Manipulates a cripple, using his wheelchair to blow up a hearing, along with his secretary and a hated foe.
Makes Bruce feel guilty by sending fake hate mail.
Has private military kill a bunch of people in an effort to frame Superman.
Has Martha kidnapped and is willing to have her burnt alive.
Pushes Lois off a building to her death, banking on Superman to arrive.
Has a bunch of kryptonite shipped and delivered to his business, to take down Superman.
Sets up the Batman and Superman fight, to kill one of the heroes, or both.
Creates a kryptonian mutation to kill Superman and terrorise the world.
Potentially killed his father and took over the company himself.

Sounds like a worthy representation of the character to me.

For quite a few of us, the issue isn't whether he ticked all the boxes on Lex Luthor Bingo; it's how he did it. And for me, how he did was just too damn annoying. If it worked for you, great.

I thought Affleck looked old enough for the part. Plus, I get the feeling that Hollywood doesn't want to have a leading man or woman looking too old for superhero movies anyway. They probably think it wouldn't be marketable enough.

Fair enough. Affleck's looks were only an issue for me; I fully expect that YMMV.

I thought she served more of a purpose in MOS with her investigation into Clark's trails and how she was the first stranger who trusted him. But I do agree that a lot of her screen-time could've been drastically cut in this movie.

That's actually a good point.

Great. You just brought my whole estimation of this movie lower 

I have to disagree. Up until this point, Batman was consumed with paranoia over Superman that he was too blinded to realize that Lex Luthor was manipulating both him and Superman. This was the turning point to understand what was going on.

Well, as I say, my objection wasn't so much that he stops, it was just how much of a turn-around he made, to the point where he's even describing himself as a friend of Superman.

Given that the next film is going to be the Justice League, I thought this film did the best it could introduce other characters in this universe. Not ideal perhaps, but I'll take it.

Frankly, I think DC should have planned another movie between this and Justice League, or had the first Justice League movie be a Seven Samurai-style search and gathering, than try and cram so many character introductions into this already-too-busy story.

I had problems with plot points that involved Superman in this movie i.e. leaving myself to wonder why did he take so long to arrive in North Africa, how come he couldn't pay attention when a bomb was about to detonate in the Senate hearing, why he didn't take Batman into custody instead of merely threatening him if he was so disapproving of Batman's methods at the end of the chase scene. Those are my reasons why I thought the movie didn't quite live up to my personal expectations.

But despite all of that, I thought he redeemed all of those issues with paying a sacrifice to stop Doomsday in the end. He still saved the world despite how it kept scrutinizing him and condemning him, and his death inspired Batman and Wonder Woman to carry on his legacy and protect the world from constant danger.

But my issue is with the logic. Wonder Woman has the strength to hack off limbs from this thing, and she's not vulnerable to Kryptonite. What actual reason is there that Superman has to wield the spear himself, instead of passing it off to Wonder Woman and serving as a distraction?

This is off-topic, but I never thought Jonathan Kent was actually encouraging Clark to let those kids drown. He was simply scared of the possibility that Clark could expose himself to a world that he's not prepared to cope with, and wanted to protect him from that level of persecution and pressure. Then again, Snyder brought that criticism upon himself by having Pa Kent say the word "maybe". I wouldn't have used it if I was a director.

And I acknowledged the "maybe" 

I'm not the only one who's made that joke, but the larger complaint is what you say here: that, in MoS, Jonathan Kent never wanted Clark to reveal his powers, because Clark - and the world - weren't ready (and apparently, nothing short of "alien invasion" was good enough to count as "ready.") It was Jor-El who encouraged Superman to display his powers, be a bridge between two peoples, lead us to the sun, etc. Which makes that line, and the dream vision of Kevin Costner, a very strange retcon for Snyder to pull in this film. Was Russel Crowe not available for a cameo that they had to change which father they wrote into the script?