|
SonicRulez posted:It's just so boring because Nolan's Batman trilogy was all about "If Batman was real, it would suck complete rear end" The idea that Bruce Wayne is kind of a stilted man who makes a lot of mistakes and might not be the most flawless fit for the cowl and that Robin will be better suited to continue Bruce's fight is, honestly, the most accurate and truest reflection of Batman's mythos that Nolan could have done. I mean, the entire series ends with Batman leading the people of Gotham into restoring the city that has suffered in his absence and children cheering him on as he saves the day from megalomaniacal villains. There's nothing more uplifting, nothing more conventionally, comic-book-ly BATMAN than that; heck, it was arguably more inspirational than the assbutt Batjerk that the comics themselves had been peddling around that time, and to compare that with what Snyder attempts in BvS is just...incorrect. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Sep 10, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Batman Begins is that way. I don't see how that's true for TDK and TDKR. TDK is all about how Batman has evolved crime into psychos like Joker and he doesn't have as much of a handle on things as he thought. The movie ends with his girlfriend dead, the beacon of hope "dying as the villain", and all of Gotham hating him for supposedly killing Harvey or something. The ending of TDK is admittedly fuzzy in my head because it's kinda bullshit. TDKR, as you pointed out, then goes balls to the walls with it. Bruce's body is broken down from being Batman for like a couple of years. Gotham is once again overrun with costumed freaks. Sure the movie tells us he's a symbol of hope, but I mean BvS does that about Superman and I didn't buy that either. It feels kinda forced. The Robin bullshit is even worse. The city still needs Batman? Alright. Well Bruce did ninja training and he managed to pull it off for roughly 2 movies without needing an army and a sidekick and a magic knee at one point. What's this average cop supposed to do? Die. That's the point of the trilogy. Sure, I can agree that the symbol of a man standing up for justice is what the series claims Gotham needs. It's pretty adamant that it doesn't legitimately need a costumed superhero though. It needed Harvey Dent. That was the message of TDK and TDKR was it not? So when you say Batman is necessary, that's not really the whole truth. It needs "Batman" in that it needs a hero. It does not need "Batman" as in a costumed dude beating up other costumed dudes. And since Batman is about the latter, I feel pretty certain in saying that Nolan's message was that being Batman is bad for you. Gotham is still in a poo poo place, this new kid stands no chance, and Bruce Wayne had to retire to a new country and die just for it to work out. That's hardly "Batman is loving awesome" in my eyes. I know a lot of people found the ending to TDKR uplifting and Kevin Smith cried, but I didn't think that at all. It's not as mean-spirited as MoS and BvS are to Superman, but it's still not exactly 60's TV series tier. THAT is "Batman is seriously the coolest". Nolan's series floats around TAS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
The Dark Knight ends with Gordon saying that Batman is the hero that Gotham deserves. I wouldn't call that anti-Batman so much as it says quite a bit of how terrible of a place Gotham is in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Batman Begins is that way. I don't see how that's true for TDK and TDKR. TDK is all about how Batman has evolved crime into psychos like Joker and he doesn't have as much of a handle on things as he thought. The movie ends with his girlfriend dead, the beacon of hope "dying as the villain", and all of Gotham hating him for supposedly killing Harvey or something. The ending of TDK is admittedly fuzzy in my head because it's kinda bullshit. TDKR, as you pointed out, then goes balls to the walls with it. Bruce's body is broken down from being Batman for like a couple of years. Gotham is once again overrun with costumed freaks. Sure the movie tells us he's a symbol of hope, but I mean BvS does that about Superman and I didn't buy that either. It feels kinda forced. I'm gonna be honest that this sounds like you projecting a lot of invented cynicism onto a series that doesn't display it. Like...this whole "Robin is a lovely replacement who's just gonna die" thing is just...that is not this film. The film says Robin is a fine replacement who's going to be the Batman that Bruce couldn't be. Watching that ending and twisting it into the most pessimistic reading of John Blake's prospects feels no different than what you accuse Snyder of doing, of looking at Superman and thinking "Well that's not realistic. Let's have a bunch of people die instead" regardless of what the text actually says. Nolan doesn't just tell us that Batman is a symbol of hope; he shows us. He shows Batman constantly saving people, he shows Batman's building relationship with Gordon and the citizens of Gotham, he allows time for this relationship to develop and change and even pivot as logical consequences of the plot, he builds three-dimensional perspectives from characters who doubt Batman in spite of his virtues and those who believe in him in spite of his flaws. To compare this to Snyder's weird stone-faced alien who destroys a city and then earns the adoration of the populace in between scene changes is just...I can't really put it any other way than to say that it's wrong. There's no comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
He doesn't really show us he is a symbol of hope, he has a character tell us at one point but it kind of doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
I'm not comparing the quality to TAS. Not at all. I'm saying they both take a pretty negative look at Batman himself. I haven't projected anything onto the movie that it didn't already give me. If Bruce had decided being Batman was unhealthy and passed it to "Robin" then fine. I am willing to buy just about anything. TDKR is explicitly about Bruce physically being unable to do it though. His body is totally broken down. Why should I not think the same thing will happen to the new guy? Especially when the new guy has no training whatsoever. I know the movie would like me to believe he's gonna be Batman Beyond or whatever, but that's not what was presented to me. Not if you think about it for longer than 1 second. It has nothing to do with realism. I'm using the movie's own internal logic and applying it to another situation in the same movie. Bruce was too broken to be Batman because if someone actually tried to do that, their body would break down. The same thing will happen to John Blake and nothing in the movie says that it won't. That's not pessimism or cynicism or even realism. It's logic. It happened to Bruce. It will happen to a guy doing the same thing. My point is that my view of the trilogy is that it establishes that the city needs a beacon. A symbol of hope. That is obvious. It does not at all say that it needs a cape. It's pretty drat adamant that it doesn't. To the point of breaking Batman down, having him quit for several years due to the wear and tear, and then having him pass the mantle on in the hopes that this new guy can be the symbol instead. Which is a weirdly broken message since the point as I understood it was that Batman didn't need to actually be there to be the symbol. That was the whole point of the civilian uprising and the kids drawing the bat symbol while Bruce was in a pit in Somewhere That Isn't Gotham. Batman doesn't have to actually be there to be effective. Gotham doesn't need literal Batman himself. It needs what Batman stood for. I don't see how that conclusion can be perceived as incorrect. That's the real reason the Robin stuff didn't work at the end for me (beyond how forced a reveal that was). It was fan wank in a place that didn't need to have it. He doesn't have to be Batman to make a difference, that was the goddamn point. In fact, he deliberately should not be Batman, because the last guy who did it got pretty well hosed. Granted he got Anne Hathaway and supposedly his entire fortune, so maybe it depends on how you view "I had to fake my death to find peace in life". Again, the quality of these series is not being compared. However, both Nolan's trilogy and Snyder's stuff have the same core concept to me. Being a superhero would suck and nobody could actually do it. If you're gonna tell me that I'm wrong for thinking that then maybe I need to rewatch TDKR. Because I'm 99% positive that movie ends with Batman quitting because it's way too loving hard to be Batman in the "real world'. BvS ends with Superman dying because being Basically Jesus would suck and nobody could actually do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Actually Nolan's Gotham does need Batman. Source: everything that happens in the Nolan trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
What I liked about Batman Begins is that it drove home that the Wayne side of things was just as important as the Batman side, instead of Batman being the mask. I know that contradicts what Katie Holmes says at the end of the movie, but Alfred lecturing Bruce about his dad's legacy, followed by the revelation that the Waynes were unknowingly fighting the League of Shadows long before Bruce was, was pretty effective in driving home that there was value in working outside of the shadows as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 08:00
|
|
Argue posted:What I liked about Batman Begins is that it drove home that the Wayne side of things was just as important as the Batman side, instead of Batman being the mask. I know that contradicts what Katie Holmes says at the end of the movie, but Alfred lecturing Bruce about his dad's legacy, followed by the revelation that the Waynes were unknowingly fighting the League of Shadows long before Bruce was, was pretty effective in driving home that there was value in working outside of the shadows as well. Didn't you get the memo?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
My personal viewing of the Dark Knight Rises is that it is anti-Batman. Like The Dark Knight has that fantastic scene at the end with the Joker where he says there is no way that things will ever go back to just fighting gangsters. Gotham has changed because of Batman and he will always have to be there. Then in the DKR Batman has been gone for years. (Seemingly that fall that killed Harvey Dent hosed up Bruce's knee.) And all of Gotham's crooks are....locked up in Blackgate. The threatened onslaught of Super criminals that the Joker prophesied? They never showed up. Or if they did, Gordon sent them packing. In fact the bad guys in DKR only come along for revenge against the Hero. It's the weird Hollywood line of thinking that the hero is the reason behind all the troubles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
"What if Robocop wasn't a satire"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Someone needs to explain to me how B:TAS is cynical about the effect Batman has on Gotham City
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Probably because Batman Beyond was basically Batman: The Darkest Timeline (even Superman wasn't safe!). TAS itself wasn't cynical though, despite the darkness. "It's Never Too Late" is the perfect example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Dario the Wop posted:Probably because Batman Beyond was basically Batman: The Darkest Timeline (even Superman wasn't safe!). TAS itself wasn't cynical though, despite the darkness. "It's Never Too Late" is the perfect example. Yeah, I used TAS as shorthand for the entire DCAU "trilogy" of TAS, TNBA, and Beyond. Beyond is pretty drat harsh on Batman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Think the worst thing to happen to Gotham in TAS is compamy kidnapping the poor to work in a slave camp
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:My personal viewing of the Dark Knight Rises is that it is anti-Batman. In DKR all the villains are in Blackgate because of a basically-illegal law pushed through by disguising Dent's death and making Batman take the fall. It says that cops can only be successful if they do the same thing as superheroes and gently caress the law for their own benefit basically. It was breaking Gordon up to keep doing it as a plot point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Not according to David Ayer. Dunno what this has to do with what Geoff Johns means by "controversial flourishes," anyway. I haven't seen the film, so are you suggesting Suicide Squad was originally very well-edited, and then Johns came in and chopped all that to poo poo when he got promoted in May? Like I don't know where you're getting anything about SS's editing process from the term "controversial flourish," especially since he was referring specifically to Zack Snyder in that quote. Well, I mean, Johns almost certainly wouldn't have direct control over the editing, and not to play conspiracy theorist but there's basically no loving way Ayer would say anything beyond "the editing was to my satisfaction" no matter how good or bad the editing was and how heavily it changed the tone of his movie. That's the politics of Hollywood and unless you're someone on the level of David Fincher or higher you're gonna piss someone at a studio the gently caress off if you blame the studio for changing your movie out from under you. And even David Fincher got into a mess of hot water when he publicly disowned Alien 3. But there's a veritable mountain of gossip and "sources close to the director/studio", all of which sound like controlled leak, that place the blame squarely on WB for taking what Ayer delivered (which sounds like a dark, brutal satire centered on how absolutely awful the protagonists are in the vein of basically every other movie he's ever made, ever) and recutting it to be a slightly edgier Guardians of the Galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:Think the worst thing to happen to Gotham in TAS is a company kidnapping the poor to work in a slave camp
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Finally got around to watching Dick Tracy. I don't regret doing it. The first thing I noticed about this movie is that the score is basically Batman '89. I know that Elfman got quite a lot of work in the early 1990s entirely on the strength of Batman '89 but there's a few places here where it's incredibly obvious that's why he was hired (same deal with Darkman - there's tons of bits in that movie as well where the incidental music is very Batman-like). This movie looks really good. It uses colour brilliantly, it uses matte paintings really well, it uses make-up in a really creative way to reproduce the various gruesome heavies Tracy tangled with in the comics. It's a movie that embraces what it is and makes no apology for itself; it's sort of like a live-action cartoon. Al Pacino is really fun in this movie; he's definitely the highlight of the cast. I reckon most of it must have been ad libbed. Warren Beatty seems like he's trying really hard to be Harrison Ford, though. He's not bad by any means but I think he does a way better job as director than as the star. Maybe it's because I can't think of much else I've seen him in off the top of my head. Edit: Oh, yeah, and Tracy is a terrible, terrible cop. Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
The animated series isn't so much critical of Batman as it doesn't let him have his cake and eat it too It's almost as if they're trying to say obsessive behavior, no matter how much good it accomplishes, might have detrimental effects on someone's personal life. Hell that's basically what Waller tells Terry in Epilogue. "Save the world, but don't forget to buy flowers for your girlfriend's birthday, and you'll accomplish something Bruce failed to."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
OnimaruXLR posted:The animated series isn't so much critical of Batman as it doesn't let him have his cake and eat it too Worked out for the Question!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
And another thing - throughout Dick Tracy, Warren Beatty seems to look constantly confused at everything around him. And Al Pacino dies exactly the same way as the Joker in Batman '89.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
I remember that. I turned to my mom in the theater and said "hey that ended just like Batman!" I also remember the marketing blitz for it. Betty was everywhere, and the movie was being talked about constantly. He was terrible in interviews, he couldn't answer any questions about the movie, and was evasive when asked about him and Madonna.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Yeah Beatty wasn't a great Dick Tracy and is arguably what drags the movie down. Plus they do make Tracy inept, when the character is supposed to be an amazing cop with top of the line tactics. Trivia from the comic strips. Chester frequently showed techniques by the police that were just started to be used or even experimental! Chester got this info from local colleges
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Yeah Beatty wasn't a great Dick Tracy and is arguably what drags the movie down. Plus they do make Tracy inept, when the character is supposed to be an amazing cop with top of the line tactics. They even have two of the other guys going, "That's coercion, Tracy! Even if you do get anything, you won't be able to use it in court!" However, I did quite enjoy the scene where he's caught two of Big Boy Caprice's henchmen (I think it's Flattop and Itchy) and they're going, "Where's my phone call, Tracy? Give me my phone call, Tracy!" so Tracy picks up the phone, rips out the chord, throws it at them and says, "Make a note that these gentlemen waived their right to a phone call!" He's a dick in more ways than one. Pacino ranting as he kidnaps Tess Trueheart at the end is the best bit. "They say I kidnapped ya! I didn't kidnapp ya! But, I am kidnappin' ya now! Ah, how life imitates art!" Then he as he's tying her to a giant cog to get her head crushed in, he stops raving and goes, "Can't ya see I love ya?" and she has the most, "Oh, for God's sake, Al," look on her face. Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
I'd fogotten just how much of the movie is scored by Madonna songs. I can't help but feel it was in part one of the many projects meant to turn her into a movie star.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I'd fogotten just how much of the movie is scored by Madonna songs. I can't help but feel it was in part one of the many projects meant to turn her into a movie star. Oh it clearly was. Problem was that Madonna couldn't act for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Al Pacino is really fun in this movie; he's definitely the highlight of the cast. I reckon most of it must have been ad libbed. I wouldn't imagine so, that wasn't as commonplace at the time and I feel like Beatty was so tightly controlling everything; it was such a profound passion project of his after all. I haven't seen the film in ages, but I actually screen-tested for the part of the Kid in LA, and though I don't remember a ton about it since I was eight or nine years old, I do remember how detail-oriented Beatty was. I remember being in the room for a conversation about two different shades of yellow for the hat and coat, so I just can't imagine Beatty as director letting anything go off script.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:"What if Robocop wasn't a satire" I'm hoping that that clip at the end of the preview, where everybody downloads APB, is a swerve into a plot of hubris as the guy tries to control things with an infrastructure built for just one precinct, amateurs misusing it, criminals or pranksters abusing it, et cetera. I'm not holding my breath though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
A strong case could be made that this deleted scene is better than a great deal of the rest of X-Men: Apocalypse
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:A strong case could be made that this deleted scene is better than a great deal of the rest of X-Men: Apocalypse Whyyyy was that cut. Nightcrawler poppin' and lockin' 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Ha she looks like Boy George
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I'm gonna be honest that this sounds like you projecting a lot of invented cynicism onto a series that doesn't display it. The Nolan Trilogy is deeply, fundamentally cynical. It's always bleak. Dark Knight equates Batman with the War on Terror and turns him into a complete failure. Crime is filtered through a lens of inescapable gloom and anxiety. The moment Batman shows that he's got no jurisdiction he sets in motion the events that will cost him his war, his one love, and his reputation. He was completely unprepared. The only time Joker is defeated when the people on the ferries decide not to play his game (even then the civilians prove themselves cowardly at every turn). Batman and Gordon end up hiding the truth about Dent so that they can keep their political project going, and Joker exits the movie laughing at his success. Heroes are doomed to become villains, like Dent says. There's countless other examples, like how Blake is threatened by soldiers for trying to evacuate people from Gotham. This anxious cynicism is never resolved or rejected. Batman Begins has a lot of talk about conquering fear, but that never ends up happening. Kind of silly for Batman. Toxxupation posted:Except the implication that the only way "superheroes in the real world" is honest is if they're bloodthirsty sociopathic sadsacks is just as if not more disingenuous than the alternative. "Realism" and "optimism" are not mutually exclusive ideals; the early reviews for Luke Cage imply that it's an honest story about the real-world problems minority figures/minority areas encounter while also making the titular character into a sympathetic and genuinely beatific person to idolize. Snyder/Goyer's inherent cynicism shielded as "realism" is just as dishonest as IM1's weird Objectivism and backhanded lesson on how great American Exceptionalism is. At least in the latter case I can ignore its genuinely troubling politics and watch a great action movie, MoS and BvS are bad grey boring films that ceaselessly prattle on how much Superman Actually Sucks And Does Nothing like that's some really insightful poo poo. BrianWilly posted:Like...this whole "Robin is a lovely replacement who's just gonna die" thing is just...that is not this film. The film says Robin is a fine replacement who's going to be the Batman that Bruce couldn't be. Watching that ending and twisting it into the most pessimistic reading of John Blake's prospects feels no different than what you accuse Snyder of doing, of looking at Superman and thinking "Well that's not realistic. Let's have a bunch of people die instead" regardless of what the text actually says. Stuff like this shows pretty well how incisive MoS and BvS turned out. BvS is about how the world deals with Superman, and what happens is that he becomes this terrifying cipher that divides people. It mirrors the comic/nerd sphere reaction to MoS closely, even taking a jab at the fans of the movie. Superman is God. He is a saviour. He's an alien. He's a demon. He's a dictator. He's a bloodthirsty sociopathic sadsack. When Superman is explicitly shown as a symbol of hope, Snyder questions the whole concept by having desperate people reach out at a distant alien figure. In truth he's a normal person with power and desire to save the world, but who's never in control. There's that brilliant moment after Congress blows up and Superman is unable to stop it: the talking heads declare that since Superman didn't stop the explosion, he was actually responsible. It's the same twisting of what happens in MoS - since Superman was unable to stop Metropolis from being ravaged in an interplanetary war, he actually destroyed the city. Snyder's Superman is exactly what he seems, but everyone projects their fears and wants on him. It's why MoS and BvS are actually pretty authentic about the concept of "superheroes in the real world". BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's why MoS and BvS are actually pretty authentic about the concept of "superheroes in the real world". No they aren't, because we've actually been exploring the concept of the demigod for thousand of years, and most people are smart enough to go "Maybe being really strong and fast and flying around isn't actually enough to solve deep seated systemic problems we as a society face". It's cute and makes for great photo ops, and nobody is going to turn it down when they are in trouble, but at the end of the day life goes on and there's really only so much a 'superman' can do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
I liked how of all Doc Manhattan's insane powers in Watchmen, his ability to create alkaline is probably what had the most profound effect on people's daily lives. Kinda like how Superman's ability to compress coal into diamonds and poo poo like that would be way more useful in the real world than him stopping bank robbers with his punch powers.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I liked how of all Doc Manhattan's insane powers in Watchmen, his ability to create alkaline is probably what had the most profound effect on people's daily lives. Kinda like how Superman's ability to compress coal into diamonds and poo poo like that would be way more useful in the real world than him stopping bank robbers with his punch powers. Maximum efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:A strong case could be made that this deleted scene is better than a great deal of the rest of X-Men: Apocalypse I know they were making GBS threads on Last Stand at the end there, but isn't Apocalypse the third film in the new cycle?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:I know they were making GBS threads on Last Stand at the end there, but isn't Apocalypse the third film in the new cycle? Doesn't make what they're saying any less right! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
That deleted scene confirms that they knew the X-kids were the best part of the movie and then cut them out to focus on more Magneto and Mystique. That movie deserved to fail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
BrianWilly posted:A strong case could be made that this deleted scene is better than a great deal of the rest of X-Men: Apocalypse I haven't seen the movie and this was cut? How awful is xmen:apocalypse?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:46
|
|