The Movie Thread Returns

[the_dog_days]

Does anyone writing or directing a superhero movie ever research the characters? I've seen no evidence of this.

[SonicMage117]

To be fair Gotham By Gaslight was marketed and produced solely as alternate universe, the Nolan trilogies and other live action films were not.

 

As far as directors and producers having enough passion to do actual research. Yes, there's proof out there but this is found by the content of the films, not the representation of it alone. Proof can also be found in various ways such as the 1-2 questions in order for fans to test directors, actors and producers on knowledge to see who's faking interest.

 

I usually watch the Q&A briefings of WinderCon or Comic Con which unveil the thoughts and intentions of the production team before release. In hidnsight and retrospective, this only seems to kill hype as we can see where the direction of the films lead to so that is a fault of the viewer's will, such as my own.

 

It's not only the Nolan Batman films I have a problem with, I just have always thought they were the most flawed but with the nicest packaging. I think Batman Forever was equally as bad but for generally different reasons.

Edited February 11, 2018 by SonicMage117

[algroth]

I just wish Nolan had done some actual research into the characterization and background of the main villains of Batman's world. I have no problem with someone's original vision - as long as it makes sense within the world that it belongs to. The "Let's make it our own" approach is great for making money but not so much for preserving the characters we know and love. It worked well for some characters in the film but not so well for others.

 

Uh, no. The "let's make it our own" approach, as you call it, isn't great for "making money", it's simply the natural byproduct of an artist within a different medium adapting and choosing to tell his own vision of a particular story, roster of characters and/or setting. Sometimes the changes can be informed by financial/money-making ambitions, sometimes by artistic ones. Tarkovsky didn't make his own vision of Roadside Picnic, which differed greatly from the source material, just to 'make money'. It's no different in this case. Nolan is under no obligation to portray the Batman villains as they were in the source material either, it is simply his take on them. As far as I'm concerned, with both Bane and the Joker he's made some of the most memorable comic book film villains to date too, perhaps precisely because these two were molded to fit the themes and conflicts that Nolan wanted to explore in either of his films.

 

And mind that I don't think the Dark Knight trilogy is even amidst the half of Nolan's best work. But no doubt it is head and shoulders above pretty much the rest of the genre it's a part of.

Edited February 12, 2018 by algroth

[SonicMage117]

I agree, by Hollywood's standard he is basically allowed to do what he wants with the characters, just as any other director & production team but I mean, there's a difference between how something like say Thor: Ragnarok which was a love letter to comic fans whereas the Batman movies from almost every generation are a love letter to Hollywood.

 

The gauge of perception on which I drew these allegations are in the proof of content, as said state of pre-delimma before, so not so much allegatons to an end. I can't help but look at all the small very fine + hidden details and easter eggs in a movie like Thor: Ragnarok and pit it up against a movie of the opposite tone, to thereby protest my own contingency to this particular matter.

 

For example, having a slew of characters such as Red King or Korg which 90% (maybe more) of viewers won't even know when nearly every comic fan would but again, I'm nitpicking the likes of a great franchise anyhow. Or the even Shakaar, the tatooine city, where originally came from Planet Hulk. I really wished there were more of these specific things in Batman films but alas, to rid my distrust and disregard to that appointment, I've given up hope and have just stayed with the animated shorts & full length movies.

 

Other than my complaints on the trilogy, I think they did push Batman forward, somewhat renewing the hunger of a broader audience for the dark Knight detective that disappeared for so long. I'm just glad it's over and hopefully in the future we can get a Batman Beyond trilogy with an old Bruce Wayne and Damien Wayne.

[Blarghagh]

To be fair Gotham By Gaslight was marketed and produced solely as alternate universe, the Nolan trilogies and other live action films were not.

 

You're talking about DC Universe. The comics themselves at this point are 20 alternate universes with different takes and they do not market themselves like that; New 52, for example, is the main timeline now, and it's at most parts a betrayal of the source material - and it IS the source material.

 

Few things bother me more than ridiculous nerd purism. Most superhero comics aren't even good! I can't remember if I even liked a single issue of Batman I've read that wasn't The Killing Joke. Even ignoring that, Nolan's take on Batman was different for a reason - it was a different medium and a different story it was telling. If you want to see what happens when you try to take a comic book and put it on the screen, go watch Watchmen instead and see how incredibly boring it gets before they start changing stuff in the end. Sure, it gets ridiculously stupid from that point forward, but at least it's not boring.

Edited February 12, 2018 by TrueNeutral

[SonicMage117]

Hmmmm..

I must have missed something then. Which Bat-verse did Nolan base his characters off of? I know Suicide's Joker was based off the 80's tattoed Joker comic stretch, and it was scary how accurate Leto was yo it - although I hate that version of the Joker.

 

Sorry my purist belief disappointed you

[Blarghagh]

No, the point is that he didn't have to be loyal to any specific batverse, he just made a new verse. You know, what DC themselves do all the time?

[Amentep]

 

I just wish Nolan had done some actual research into the characterization and background of the main villains of Batman's world. I have no problem with someone's original vision - as long as it makes sense within the world that it belongs to. The "Let's make it our own" approach is great for making money but not so much for preserving the characters we know and love. It worked well for some characters in the film but not so well for others.

 

Uh, no. The "let's make it our own" approach, as you call it, isn't great for "making money", it's simply the natural byproduct of an artist within a different medium adapting and choosing to tell his own vision of a particular story, roster of characters and/or setting. Sometimes the changes can be informed by financial/money-making ambitions, sometimes by artistic ones. Tarkovsky didn't make his own vision of Roadside Picnic, which differed greatly from the source material, just to 'make money'. It's no different in this case. Nolan is under no obligation to portray the Batman villains as they were in the source material either, it is simply his take on them. As far as I'm concerned, with both Bane and the Joker he's made some of the most memorable comic book film villains to date too, perhaps precisely because these two were molded to fit the themes and conflicts that Nolan wanted to explore in either of his films.

 

And mind that I don't think the Dark Knight trilogy is even amidst the half of Nolan's best work. But no doubt it is head and shoulders above pretty much the rest of the genre it's a part of.

 

 

Hitch did this all through his career.  He argued - for example - that if you took a stage play and set it all in one room that you were doing it wrong because you weren't taking advantage of what film was (and then went and broke his own rule by filming ROPE in one room - but with the illusion of it all being one shot to make up for it).

 

A good example of this is his adaption of YOUNG AND INNOCENT which jettisons the story of the police officer doggedly pursuing a wanted man (the main story of the book) to concentrate on the wanted man trying to elude the law long enough to prove his innocence, which Hitch found to be a more interesting story.

 

Much as I find Nolan's Batmans to be overly serious and overlong, I can't fault them for being a different take on Batman.

 

 

 

To be fair Gotham By Gaslight was marketed and produced solely as alternate universe, the Nolan trilogies and other live action films were not.

 

You're talking about DC Universe. The comics themselves at this point are 20 alternate universes with different takes and they do not market themselves like that; New 52, for example, is the main timeline now, and it's at most parts a betrayal of the source material - and it IS the source material.

 

Few things bother me more than ridiculous nerd purism. Most superhero comics aren't even good! I can't remember if I even liked a single issue of Batman I've read that wasn't The Killing Joke. Even ignoring that, Nolan's take on Batman was different for a reason - it was a different medium and a different story it was telling. If you want to see what happens when you try to take a comic book and put it on the screen, go watch Watchmen instead and see how incredibly boring it gets before they start changing stuff in the end. Sure, it gets ridiculously stupid from that point forward, but at least it's not boring.

 

 

Officially the DCU consists of 52 alternate universes; originally it had infinite.  The current continuity is under the "Rebirth" continuity, which is the New 52 continuity with some of the pre-New 52 Continuity restored (particularly with respect to Superman and the older group of Titans).  But the idea of continuity has always been in many respects more a fan construct that was imposed on comic stories once fans got into the business; I think prior to that continuity simply consisted of what the editors (like Julie Schwartz) could remember and/or what some of the early comic fans (like Dr. Jerry Bails) could remind them of.

[Blarghagh]

Blumhouse has tapped Chris Columbus (Home Alone 1 & 2, Harry Potter 1 & 2) to write and direct, based on the popular video game series... Five Nights at Freddy's.

 

:lol:

[injurai]

hmmm

[ShadySands]

Michael Fassbender to Star in 'Kung Fury' Feature Film

[algroth]

Not sure how to feel about that. I felt the joke was already spread rather thin at the short's full length, even as I really enjoyed the concept trailer and videoclip leading up to it.

[Katphood]

Watched Threads(1984).

 

Good gosh was that a scary & depressing movie. I recommend it to every person who feels depressed, watch this docudrama and you'll come out as a very happy and grateful individual. 

[SonicMage117]

Will this be good?

[Tale]

Radius on Netflix. I want to say it was good, but if anyone asks me to justify why, I wouldn't be able to say.

[LadyCrimson]

Radius on Netflix. I want to say it was good, but if anyone asks me to justify why, I wouldn't be able to say.

Does having liked/enjoyed something really need justification?

 

We all do it, but I'll never understand it. People are strange.

[algroth]

 

Radius on Netflix. I want to say it was good, but if anyone asks me to justify why, I wouldn't be able to say.

Does having liked/enjoyed something really need justification?

 

We all do it, but I'll never understand it. People are strange.

 

For me it's less that taste requires *justification* and more that it's a good exercise to subject yourself to to best identify what makes a good or bad film (or anything else) for you. It's especially useful if you plan on working or delving beyond casual enjoyment in that medium, as it helps cultivate a more sophisticated eye and critical mind over what you are consuming, and in the former's case it would obviously lend itself to learning more about what makes a good piece and what you could attempt to employ for your own work. 'Justification' does sound more like you have to be able to defend your taste, and honestly it's perfectly fine to not have a reason for finding enjoyment out of something.

 

 

That said, if one doesn't enjoy Seven Samurai one *must* provide justification for that, because that is just *wrong*.

 

[injurai]

I think articulation of something brings it out of the sub-conscience, but it can be hard to do. Sometimes you just end up circumnavigating an idea and never really figure out the core of lays underneath. A lot of movie reviews seems less to be an articulation of any fundamental insight, and instead end up mental masturbations of language trying to sell the reader more on the writing prowess of the critic than an fundamental interpretation of the film.

 

Sometimes it's better just to dispense with needing to articulate anything and let the thing speak for itself.

[Bartimaeus]

There are a lot of things that I can absolutely consciously recognize as working or not working for me, and can explain them to others. However, there are times where it's difficult to recognize exactly what I like about a movie, or even a particular scene, and would struggle mightily when comparing them to other movies or scenes that are similar that I really don't like. Guess that's why I'm not a movie critic.

 

Whisper of the Heart. I really enjoyed it - it was a very cute coming-of-age story. It was kind of like the as-a-child parts of Only Yesterday, except for the whole movie. Somewhat different themes, though, and not quite as interesting as a result, but I think more enjoyable.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The Wind the Shakes the Barley. Absolutely beautiful historical drama without any frills. Would highly recommend.

There are a lot of things that I can absolutely consciously recognize as working or not working for me, and can explain them to others. However, there are times where it's difficult to recognize exactly what I like about a movie, or even a particular scene, and would struggle mightily when comparing them to other movies or scenes that are similar that I really don't like. Guess that's why I'm not a movie critic.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that or that such a thing would make one a bad critic. A big problem I have with a lot of critics is that they come off as too pretentious and aim to use a lot of words to say little, and it would be refreshing for someone to say they liked something without pulling a nonsensical justification out of their ass.

[Amentep]

The only thing that bugs me with criticisms is when the critic tries to justify the critique by trying to project their own feelings on the people who made the move (most commonly used with an actor - something like "X is usually able to enliven a bad film, but even X looks embarrassed to be in this production...").  Or instances like Roger Ebert's review of the original Resident Evil movie (which has enough problems going on to address on its own) which takes at least a paragraph to criticize the IMDB entry for the film!

 

But otherwise its just an opinion.

[majestic]

Resident Evil has a nude Milla Jovovich. There is nothing wrong with this film.

[Amentep]

Oh Resident Evil is a fun enough film, but I wouldn't argue that its a great film in any objective sense.

[Wormerine]

I finally watched Duncan Jones’ Warcraft. As someone, who believed that decision to adapt Blizzard’s IP to be a horrible idea from the very beginning, it wasn’t half bad. Yeah, it was boring, visually confused movie with too many plots and too little character but from my experience it’s Warcraft in a nutshell - a lot of lore, not much story. Gameplay which makes blizzard games worth playing can’t be translated into a movie.

[Amentep]

Watched Threads(1984).

 

Good gosh was that a scary & depressing movie. I recommend it to every person who feels depressed, watch this docudrama and you'll come out as a very happy and grateful individual. 

 

Ah, Threads - for when The Day After is just too upbeat for you.