ayall wrote: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.
ayall wrote: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.
ayall wrote: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.
ayall wrote: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.
ayall wrote: 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.
ayall wrote: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".
ayall wrote: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.
ayall wrote: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.
ayall wrote: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.
ayall wrote:"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.
ayall wrote: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.
TheDenizen wrote: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.