Movie-Specific : The Dark Knight Rises

[ShogunRua]

Shogu, this might be the topic that we disagree on the most... i have the exact opposite feelings as you do towards Batman and the films.

Yes, they're both "mass-produced, popcorn blockbusters," but what Nolan does is the following...
He doesn't take the easy-out Micheal Bay Transformers route;

It's funny you mention Michael Bay.

One comparison I've heard is that Christopher Nolan is like the really awesome, non-shitty version of Michael Bay. Personally, while I loved Nolan's last three films (Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception) and thought they were all pure entertainment classics, I like that comparison a lot.

Nolan always has plots with dozens of inconsistencies and plot holes. The dialogue in his films ranges from average (in Inception) to completely awful.

The difference is that Nolan also makes his films riveting, expertly produced, and cuts out all the bullshit Bay injects into his works.

I'm certain Nolan could have put half the care into his Batman Films and still succeeded in making "mass-produced, popcorn blockbusters" Batman Films, but he goes a step further and this is more then evident in his work.

Well, probably. I don't see how this contradicts my point, though.

Exactly, Burton filmed his Batman like Micheal Bay filmed his Transformers... he probably didn't even have scripts going in. "They played the plot with a wink and a nod," and this is more then noticeable... i've seen better performances in high school drama dress rehearsals.

There's really no comparison between Burton's Batman films and Bay's Transformers flicks, even in approach, let alone execution. (Burton's two films are actually funny, and create a quirky, amusing world, instead of going for sophomoric, lame gags)

I think you're really stretching here, especially considering you mentioned Burton's Batman films are in your T9, anyways.

Having amazing actors like Jack Nicholson around and not fully utilizing their talent is the shame that Burton brought to his Batman movies.

I don't know about that, but Nicholson's Joker was, to me, unquestionably better than Ledger's Joker. The latter was excellent, but the former was truly great and exceptional.

Nolan squeezed all the talent from his crew, and this too is noticeable (and again a credit to Nolan's superior directing abilities).

Speaking of not "fully utilizing talent", what are terrific actors like Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman doing in Nolan's Batman films? Collecting a paycheck? They have no real roles, if you think about it, especially in "The Dark Knight".

And why is an outstanding actor like Christian Bale so goddamn bland and forgettable in the main role of Batman?

Nolan has many talents, but he's no Sidney Lumet or Stanley Kubrick in terms of being able to elevate an actor's performance. Just the opposite, in many instances; Nolan is the first person to prove that you can make someone like Michael Caine (in "Inception", too!) or Christian Bale bland and forgettable.

My prior analogy (romance novels vs. catcher in the rye), isn't meant to compare Burtons Batman to a Romance Novel or to say Nolans Batman is a Catcher in the Rye, but the difference between Nolans films and Burtons Films.

Well, romance novels are trash, while "Catcher in the Rye" is a true artistic classic.

Neither Burton's nor Nolan's "The Dark Knight" are even close to being "art".

They're both pure popcorn entertainment. Really entertaining ones too, but certainly not "art".

But you are right, I don't like reading (now) very much(beyond emails, forums and on-line content) nor have i watched many "classic films."

Yeah, I knew I was right when I wrote that. There's no other way you would be haling a Batman film as an artistic classic.

The only way you would is if you hadn't truly (or very, very rarely) experienced a real artistic classic.

I'll be honest; I took several film course in college, and while I enjoyed many of the "classic" films, it's hard to judge them with hindsight.
It's like you preferring a 1980's dial-up 2400bts modem as opposed to the now cable/dsl internet simply because it was "one of the first" or "classic." While it's nice to examine the history and see how things were done in "the past," it's nearly impossible to prefer "classic" to "modern."

Yeah, this is a pretty ridiculous comparison, dude.

Some things do indeed get better over the years, and technology (your example) is certainly one of them. Others do not. Art definitely contains a litany of counter-examples.

No one can play the violin today like many individuals could back in the 19th century. No one can create a sculpture today anywhere near as well as the Greeks and Romans could, or since Rodin 100 years ago.

The films from the 1970s (my favorite decade) are vastly superior to the 2000s, even though I thought the last decade was terrific, overall.

I don't know what kind of shit they had you watching in film class, but I would do yourself a favor and watch other classics.

This works for technology, which means it also works for movies (though films also have a "Story" and "Art" which are exemptions to my analogy/point and is the "wild card" factor that allows some classics to live on (many of Kubricks contain this factor)).

Haha, movies are not just an application of contemporary technology.

I don't give a shit if they're in 3D or not. (Actually, I hate 3D) I mostly care about the story, characters, and dialogue.

"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know [b]the thing about chaos? It's fair!

It's an average line, dude. Not bad, but not particularly good, either. If you were impressed by it, your eyes will be popping out of your skull in ecstasy after watching a few Sidney Lumet films.

Any why I wasn't surprised that many people on this Forum (and in this Thread) liked Burton over Nolan Batman, that's because of the "Nostalgic" Factor.

Uh, not really? I barely remembered Burton's films from my youth, and am rating off when I re-watched them as a 15 year-old.

***

But Catcher in the Rye is pretty average at best. If it wasn't on practically every high school reading list in the country for the last 50 years, it would've fallen into obscurity by now. It's obnoxious fluff. And a popcorn-munching action blockbuster designed to appeal to teens is a work of art now? Well, I guess Burton's Batman was infinitely less pretentious.

Obviously, I agree with your overall point. However, "Catcher in the Rye" is a freaking masterpiece.

I think "Catcher in the Rye" suffers from the fact that every emo/hipster/pretentious, insufferable, limp-wristed, high school artdouche identifies so strongly with Holden Caulfield and the book, (even though Holden himself fucking hated such people) and this causes a backlash of sorts.

I think its reputation would be even higher if it wasn't on high school reading lists.

[ayall]

I think i'm done arguing my points, i'll just end on this closing statement.

For anyone who thinks "The Catcher in the Rye" is an awful book or that Nolan's Batman's are awful, while you're entitled to your opinion (as everyone is), ultimately the joke is on you.

"The Catcher in the Rye" is an amazing book and Nolan's Batman movies are phenomenal; and the fact that the MAJORITY(nerds or not) of book/film lovers believe this and want more of these, means the "industry" will keep moving in directions which support books such as "The Catcher in the Rye" and movies like Nolan's Batman's.

(At one point the Majority also thought the world was flat, so that's why I hesitate to say the majority is right...)

... but when it comes to entertainment, right-here right-now, I'm delighted to know that my opinions(i.e. movie taste) fall in the majority and Nolan (not Burton) will be making the next Batman Movie!


Ultimately I feel sadness for the haters; Not so much because your opinions are awful, but because you are doomed to live a life of disappointment since you can't appreciate "Modern" Films/Movies.

[CMonster]

Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. (as found on dictionary.com)

They're both pure popcorn entertainment. Really entertaining ones too, but certainly not "art".

I don't know how you personally define art, but I would say that there are certain "popcorn blockbusters" that could fall into the definition of art. While I would agree most don't because they are bland, boring, and ordinary, being that what is beautiful is subjective. From what I can gather from ayall, the ability to put fine detail and impressive graphics in a movie that stars actors who can carry there own weight (i.e. not Shia LeBeouf) is appealing and more than ordinary (i.e. very high tier). I legitimately think that people now days are trying to confine art to only things that are very serious, but I would say that it is not so. While it may be less difficult that sculpting like the Greeks and Romans, as someone attempting to get into stand-up comedy, I would have to say that the ability to craft a joke so that it is enough to make people cry from laughter is an art. I would also say there are plenty of famous comedians who can get people to laugh but what they do is not art, they are the Transformers of comedy. Saying that something made with lighter themes, less symbolism, and less standout characters is not art completely ignores entire genres that require massive amount of creativity to make into worthwhile cinematic adventures. I recently read an article written about George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. The article said fantasy is essentially second class literature because the authors can use magic as a deus ex machina whenever they want so they are lazy writers. Then he says he is absolutely hooked on the books. While plenty of fantasy may be lazy writing, most authors who don't write fantasy aren't required to create entire worlds with their own idioms, customs, mythologies, and a plethora of other in depth and complex parts of living that can make a fantasy world seem realistic. As a fan of the books, the amount of each of those things I listed, as well as great detail in the description of settings, deep characters, intriguing plot lines, and the rejection of the classic good vs. evil narrative makes it better than lots of the 'classic literature' that I've read. The author of the article is expressing something similar to how many people feel about comic books and comic book based movies, but good comic books need just as much care to make them as deep and fantastic as some have ended up. However, I personally don't think writing off entire genres as 'not art' should be done. While what Nolan does is nowhere on the level of somebody like Kubrik, I would still call it art. There have been many famous painters, but some are better than others, yet all are still artists. Then there are the painters who made crap, some people liked it, and then everybody forgot about them because they sucked. These were not artists, they were the Michael Bays of painting.

[ayall]

These were not artists, they were the Michael Bays of painting.

i LOL'd at this... i know this thread has nothing to do with him, but I just love how Michael Bay has completely ruined his entire reputation.

[tef]

For anyone who thinks "The Catcher in the Rye" is an awful book or that Nolan's Batman's are awful, while you're entitled to your opinion (as everyone is), ultimately the joke is on you.

Yeah, the joke is on you for having a legitimate opinion you can support with argument. Fuck you opinion-havers. Only canonical stuff and/or stuff I like is awesome.

Ugggggggggggggh.

[ayall]

For anyone who thinks "The Catcher in the Rye" is an awful book or that Nolan's Batman's are awful, while you're entitled to your opinion (as everyone is), ultimately the joke is on you.

Yeah, the joke is on you for having a legitimate opinion you can support with argument. Fuck you opinion-havers. Only canonical stuff and/or stuff I like is awesome.

Ugggggggggggggh.

Well, if you read the rest of my post, you'd realize why "the joke" is on them.


But I'm in the exact opposite boat when it comes to music... i love bands like Led Zeppelin, Queen, Beatles... and can't stand artists like Kanye West. Unfortunately for me, Kanye is extremly popular and bands like Zeppelin don't really exist anymore (and are no longer in such high demand). So i'm doomed to live a life of listening to my old Zeppelin records while Kanye puts out new crap i can't stand every day.

[green man]

yeah nobody listens to Led Zeppelin or The Beatles anymore

[ayall]

yeah nobody listens to Led Zeppelin or The Beatles anymore

it's not that nobody listens, it's that the exact music is no longer made (no new music from said artist).

furthermore, I'm sure as years continue to pass, less and less people will listen to Zeppelin and even the Beatles.

As Lincoln once said; "The world will little note, nor long remember"

[tef]

Well, if you read the rest of my post, you'd realize why "the joke" is on them.

I did and I don't. What you said doesn't follow logically at all. You're making value judgements on the kind of person you think is reacting in the way you describe, instead of understanding nature's infinite variance and shutting your fucking mouth.

Edit: And fuck the Beatles. <3

[ayall]

Well, if you read the rest of my post, you'd realize why "the joke" is on them.

I did and I don't. What you said doesn't follow logically at all. You're making value judgements on the kind of person you think is reacting in the way you describe, instead of understanding nature's infinite variance and shutting your fucking mouth.

Edit: And fuck the Beatles. <3

I guess you're trolling for a fight... i decline.