Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 8, 2017 22:45:32 GMT -5
Just saw it. Now THAT was a good dark serious comic book/superhero movie. Even without the hard R violence it's such a more competently made film. Makes all the excuses people make for MOS and BVS look more pathetic. Get your sh!t together WB.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 9, 2017 12:18:54 GMT -5
Just saw it. Now THAT was a good dark serious superhero movie. Even without the hard R violence it's such a more competently made film. Makes all the excuses people make for MOS and BVS look more pathetic. Get your sh!t together WB. The dramatic core of it (Xavier/Logan/X-24) felt truthful and was well executed. With MOS and Suicide Squad/etc.- the drama feels fake, and nobody cares enough about the characters for the stakes to matter. If Logan is a hit, it'll be interesting to see where things turn from here, with the soft-action X-Apocalypse (with no real world consequences oddly, only giant CGI disasters) being a box-office disappointment. Will it make studios be more open (or push) for more intense and adult-toned superhero films that have REAL consequences. Deadpool already shookup what studios thought was necessary for s superhero film to be a hit, but who knows what they'll do if the R-rated Logan makes giant bucks....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 9, 2017 12:55:04 GMT -5
And I'll be glad if it makes studios realize that comic book movies should be more ambitious as far as quality and variety. DC is a mess and while I love the MCU they need to take some risks makin different kinds of movies and I don't just mean conceptually. I'm not talking about R ratings either.
If Marvel studios had real brass they'd make a fantastic Punisher movie or ghost Rider movie. Don't just play it safe with safe pg 13 characters. Do some provocative stuff. Like you said deliver real world consequences and human emotion. Not just sanitized cgi spectacle and destruction.
What they do is great for what it is but if other people start pushin boundaries what Marvel does runs the risk of looking even more formulaic and old hat. Right now out of the big three it's FOX that's living up to WB's promise to be director friendly with comic book movies. Whodathunkit?
Between Deadpool and Logan I think Fox just became a clear close second behind Marvel/Disney. If Jackman as Wolverine and Downey as Iron Man were neck and neck as far as who is better Jackman just passed him with Logan. Hopefully Downey stops being so sensitive about being a junkie and does Demon in a Bottle as his last movie as Tony Stark.
SPOILERS!
SPOILERS!
SPOILERS!
What I loved about Logan is that when X24 killed that family it registered emotionally. Whereas in MOS when ZOD tried to kill a family I didn't give a damm about them or the situation.
When Logan and Xavier died I cared. HeII I misted up a bit. Compare that to the hollow laughable soulless death of Superman in BVS. Logans death was far more predictable and less shocking but the emotion of it felt earned. Logan died after 17 years and 9 movies. People felt like they knew him. They were used to him.
Superman died after three years and two movies where he hardly spoke. Who the f*** thought that was a good idea? Boggles the mind how creatively bankrupt the people at DC films are. With Jackman's hanging up the claws I don't think comic book/superhero on screen death has stuck with me this much since Bill Bixbys David Banner was killed off.
Snyder fanboys talk about how mature and adult the DCEU is but it looks childishly shallow compared to the Logan movie. That is a mature serious dramatic film. It's not perfect. No film is but it's arguably the best comic book film Fox has ever released. I just can't taken the amateurish attempts at drama and so called storytelling in the DCEU seriously. Especially after this.
SPOILERS!
SPOILERS!
SPOILERS!
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 10, 2017 11:29:27 GMT -5
And I'll be glad if it makes studios realize that comic book movies should be more ambitious as far as quality and variety. DC is a mess and while I love the MCU they need to take some risks makin different kinds of movies and I don't just mean conceptually. I'm not talking about R ratings either. If Marvel studios had real brass they'd make a fantastic Punisher movie or ghost Rider movie. Don't just play it safe with safe pg 13 characters. Do some provocative stuff. Like you said deliver real world consequences and human emotion. Not just sanitized cgi spectacle and destruction. What they do is great for what it is but if other people start pushin boundaries what Marvel does runs the risk of looking even more formulaic and old hat. Right now out of the big three it's FOX that's living up to WB's promise to be director friendly with comic book movies. Whodathunkit? Between Deadpool and Logan I think Fox just became a clear close second behind Marvel/Disney. If Jackman as Wolverine and Downey as Iron Man were neck and neck as far as who is better Jackman just passed him with Logan. Hopefully Downey stops being so sensitive about being a junkie and does Demon in a Bottle as his last movie as Tony Stark. SPOILERS! What I loved about Logan is that when X24 killed that family it registered emotionally. Whereas in MOS when ZOD tried to kill a family I didn't give a damm about them or the situation. When Logan and Xavier died I cared. HeII I misted up a bit. Compare that to the hollow laughable soulless death of Superman in BVS. Logans death was far more predictable and less shocking but the emotion of it felt earned. Logan died after 17 years and 9 movies. People felt like they knew him. They were used to him. Superman died after three years and two movies where he hardly spoke. Who the f*** thought that was a good idea? Boggles the mind how creatively bankrupt the people at DC films are. With Jackman's hanging up the claws I don't think comic book/superhero on screen death has stuck with me this much since Bill Bixbys David Banner was killed off. Snyder fanboys talk about how mature and adult the DCEU is but it looks childishly shallow compared to the Logan movie. That is a mature serious dramatic film. It's not perfect. No film is but it's arguably the best comic book film Fox has ever released. I just can't taken the amateurish attempts at drama and so called storytelling in the DCEU seriously. Especially after this. While I have undying appreciation for the positives of Marvel Studios- I don't think they're perfect. The two seasons of Netflix's Daredevil I think shows that sometimes they nail it perfectly (season 1) - and (with season 2) sometimes not, dark or not. Though..... I don' t think they've botched things nearly as badly as WB has with Superman. (and Green Lantern, Catwoman, etc.) Logan rates among the best of Fox's superhero films. I see it as: X:DOFP, X:First Class, X2, Logan, then X1 imo.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 10, 2017 12:45:49 GMT -5
I totally agree. While Marvel is the most consistent of the big four superhero studios they're also the most formulaic even though they have a few different formulas. Iron Fist is getting terrible reviews and while Marvel television and Marvel studios aren't the same or work together their still connected creatively and financially.
When they nail it it's amazing and like nothing else but when they put out the same predictable stuff it's hard to defend them. I know Fiege doesn't want to look like Marvel is being forced to make certain decisions and are making choices while not being influenced by what others are doing but sometimes you've got to put pride and image aside to keep up and stay relevant. Their good will is only going to get them so far.
With rating the X-men films I'd probably go
X-Men: Days of Future Past Logan (maybe) X2: X-Men United X-Men: First Class X-Men Deadpool The Wolverine X-Men: Apocalypse X-Men: The Last Stand X-Men Origins: Wolverine
The order may shift with the top three but to me they all belong at the top. It'll take a few more viewings but I'm still not exactly sure where I'd place Logan. It may go higher it may go lower.
My big question is with the sucess of Logan and Deadpool how long do you think it'll be before WB and Sony give us R rated Lobo and Venom movies? You just know they are thinking about it. Especially Sony. They've wanted Venom film for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 10, 2017 14:21:16 GMT -5
I totally agree. While Marvel is the most consistent of the big four superhero studios they're also the most formulaic even though they have a few different formulas. Iron Fist is getting terrible reviews and while Marvel television and Marvel studios aren't the same or work together their still connected creatively and financially. When they nail it it's amazing and like nothing else but when they put out the same predictable stuff it's hard to defend them. I know Fiege doesn't want to look like Marvel is being forced to make certain decisions and are making choices while not being influenced by what others are doing but sometimes you've got to put pride and image aside to keep up and stay relevant. Their good will is only going to get them so far. With rating the X-men films I'd probably go X-Men: Days of Future Past Logan (maybe) X2: X-Men United X-Men: First Class X-Men Deadpool The Wolverine X-Men: Apocalypse X-Men: The Last Stand X-Men Origins: Wolverine The order may shift with the top three but to me they all belong at the top. It'll take a few more viewings but I'm still not exactly sure where I'd place Logan. It may go higher it may go lower. My big question is with the sucess of Logan and Deadpool how long do you think it'll be before WB and Sony give us R rated Lobo and Venom movies? You just know they are thinking about it. Especially Sony. They've wanted Venom film for a long time. Never got the Venom love.... though I admit that (if they had kept it split to two movies as planned and not smushed two movies into one) Spiderman 3 showed some ways it could have been interesting as a Spiderman film.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 10, 2017 14:44:14 GMT -5
I thought Venom was an ok villain who became overrated then became worse when they tried to make him a leading characters/hero/anti hero similar to what they've done with Harley Quinn and Deadpool.
Spider-man 3 should have ended on a cliffhanger with Brock becoming bonded to the symbiote and led to Venom being the main bad guy in Spider-man 4. Trying to cram him into 3 just didn't work. It was too much on top of the Sandman and Harry Osborne stuff.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 12, 2017 16:29:14 GMT -5
I thought Venom was an ok villain who became overrated then became worse when they tried to make him a leading characters/hero/anti hero similar to what they've done with Harley Quinn and Deadpool. Spider-man 3 should have ended on a cliffhanger with Brock becoming bonded to the symbiote and led to Venom being the main bad guy in Spider-man 4. Trying to cram him into 3 just didn't work. It was too much on top of the Sandman and Harry Osborne stuff. The 'making of' book for Spiderman 3 suprisingly revealed all the craziness involved with S3- The original plan was for a cliffhanger with the Symbiote- and it would have been far better split as initially planned. Both storylines I thought were fine for Spiderman 3 (resolving the Goblin and the Venom storyline), but mashing both was a disaster.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 13, 2017 10:47:53 GMT -5
I blame Avi Arad for so many problems. He did a lot of good but he also made some awful choices. Much like the Salkinds I guess. He pushed for Venom.
It that really was raimis original idea then Sony should have listened to him. In the long run it all worked out I guess. If Spider-Man 3 and 4 had been made and been hits we probably wouldn't have Spidey as part of the MCU now.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2017 0:03:34 GMT -5
I blame Avi Arad for so many problems. He did a lot of good but he also made some awful choices. Much like the Salkinds I guess. He pushed for Venom. It that really was raimis original idea then Sony should have listened to him. In the long run it all worked out I guess. If Spider-Man 3 and 4 had been made and been hits we probably wouldn't have Spidey as part of the MCU now. Well... Even if Spiderman 3 and 4 were able to have come out under Raimi, I know Raimi's said he didn't want to do Spiderman without Tobey Maguire, and Tobey was already getting a little old for Spiderman... so even if S3 and S4 came out, then we would still have seen a reboot by Sony minus Raimi's influence. And then, it'd still disappoint- and then back to Marvel getting Spiderman. For my two cents, I would have preferred that - at the very least- Raimi have been allowed to finish things off on his trilogy properly, even if Raimi couldn't stay long after in any scenario...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 16, 2017 15:06:59 GMT -5
I'd have shot Spider-man 3 and 4 back to back if I were Raimi and Sony. But if they had done 3 and 4 and they had been critically and commercially sucessful that would have changed the entire timetable of sonys Spidey films. The only reason we got TASM reboot when we did was because Ramis Spider-Man 4 fell apart and Sony had the reboot in development as a back up plan. If Raimi had stayed on the reboot would have been pushed back to a later date if they'd even rebooted at all. For all we know we could have gotten a sequel with a new director and actor Batman Forever style.
The point is the reboot was in development after Nolan's The Dark Knight had changed the game. That's why it was a darker grittier reboot of the origin. The reboot came out amidst The Avengers changing the game again. The reason Sony switched gears with the second movie to make it lighter and build a shared Spideyverse was to cash in on what the MCU had done.
If this had all been pushed pack things would have turned out much differently. Maybe we wouldn't have gotten a hard reboot. Maybe Sony would have worked with Marvel on the first reboot. I doubt that because their own failures forced that and if the films had been successful they wouldn't have felt the pressure to ask Marvel for help. Kind of like if the Schumacher Batman films had been universally successful where would all DC films have been in the early 2000s or even today?
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2017 19:05:01 GMT -5
I'd have shot Spider-man 3 and 4 back to back if I were Raimi and Sony. But if they had done 3 and 4 and they had been critically and commercially sucessful that would have changed the entire timetable of sonys Spidey films. The only reason we got TASM reboot when we did was because Ramis Spider-Man 4 fell apart and Sony had the reboot in development as a back up plan. If Raimi had stayed on the reboot would have been pushed back to a later date if they'd even rebooted at all. For all we know we could have gotten a sequel with a new director and actor Batman Forever style. The point is the reboot was in development after Nolan's The Dark Knight had changed the game. That's why it was a darker grittier reboot of the origin. The reboot came out amidst The Avengers changing the game again. The reason Sony switched gears with the second movie to make it lighter and build a shared Spideyverse was to cash in on what the MCU had done. If this had all been pushed pack things would have turned out much differently. Maybe we wouldn't have gotten a hard reboot. Maybe Sony would have worked with Marvel on the first reboot. I doubt that because their own failures forced that and if the films had been successful they wouldn't have felt the pressure to ask Marvel for help. Kind of like if the Schumacher Batman films had been universally successful where would all DC films have been in the early 2000s or even today? That's true... In some cases it was better for something to flop completely so that we could have a fresh adaptation of the comics from the ground up. If Lester's SIII had done JUST enough box office for continuation, I think we would have gotten even more horrible sequels. With Superman IV- I like parts of it, but even with a decent budget and better writing, it would have been hard to ignore the 'memory wipe' and 'time reversal' if you wanted a truly great series with few flaws. In Shumacher's case... I'm SO thrilled with the first two Nolan Batman films, that it does force me to give Goyer points forever just for that alone and not totally condemn all his works. (to be fair, Blade 1 and 2 weren't bad)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 17, 2017 8:54:50 GMT -5
Sometimes failures lead to good things. Hollywood has had to learn from their superhero failures the hard way.
What if the punisher Daredevil and ghost Rider film she had all been hits? We never would have gotten the superior MCU versions.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 19, 2017 23:03:01 GMT -5
Sometimes failures lead to good things. Hollywood has had to learn from their superhero failures the hard way. What if the punisher Daredevil and ghost Rider film she had all been hits? We never would have gotten the superior MCU versions. I like the casting of Punisher (although I think the actor (not the movie) for Punisher:War Zone is/was better casting). Haven't seen "Ghost Driver" on Agents of Shield yet--- but it seems REALLY weird to have him without the motorcycle.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 29, 2017 20:15:53 GMT -5
I think overall Stevenson was the best Punisher too though I think Dolph is underrated. I've liked all the Punishers since they all brought something to the table even though the movies haven't ever been great. I always thought Frank should be a stoic tank of a man.
Ghost Rider on AOS is the Robbie Reyes version not blaze or ketch. For him I actually think the car is appropriate. Doesn't seem like the biker type.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 2, 2017 15:46:16 GMT -5
I think overall Stevenson was the best Punisher too though I think Dolph is underrated. I've liked all the Punishers since they all brought something to the table even though the movies haven't ever been great. I always thought Frank should be a stoic tank of a man. Ghost Rider on AOS is the Robbie Reyes version not blaze or ketch. For him I actually think the car is appropriate. Doesn't seem like the biker type. Stevenson physically looks the closest imo. I was giantly disappointed with how DD season 2 treated Elektra and Punisher. So far, out of the tv shows, I've only really enjoyed DD season one, Agent Carter season one and parts of Agents of Shield.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 2, 2017 17:11:24 GMT -5
Marvel Netflix has to be careful not to fall into certain traps and it looks like they kind of have.
I think the two and three arc seasons have helped Supergirl and Agents of shield tremendously this year. Keeps them from being so formulaic with the season long big bad and all that. I think this is the best AOS has ever been. Period. Ghost Rider is the shot in the arm the show needed and is the weirder fringe of the MCU that the show shouldn't have been dealing with in the first place.
Supergirls the best DC Show right now. It's most consistent. Arrow is most improved. They've really made this Prometheus thing fascinating. He works in a way a lot of the CW bad guys don't and has pushed another side of these characters no one wants to really admit: they like the violence on some level. Legends is the most far out and epic. The Legion of doom has been fun. The stakes are as big as they've ever been. The only true disappointment this season has been iron fist. I hope the learn from this for the punisher.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 2, 2017 17:43:20 GMT -5
Marvel Netflix has to be careful not to fall into certain traps and it looks like they kind of have. I think the two and three arc seasons have helped Supergirl and Agents of shield tremendously this year. Keeps them from being so formulaic with the season long big bad and all that. I think this is the best AOS has ever been. Period. Ghost Rider is the shot in the arm the show needed and is the weirder fringe of the MCU that the show shouldn't have been dealing with in the first place. Supergirls the best DC Show right now. It's most consistent. Arrow is most improved. They've really made this Prometheus thing fascinating. He works in a way a lot of the CW bad guys don't and has pushed another side of these characters no one wants to really admit: they like the violence on some level. Legends is the most far out and epic. The Legion of doom has been fun. The stakes are as big as they've ever been. The only true disappointment this season has been iron fist. I hope the learn from this for the punisher. Iron Fist is giantly diasppointing to me, because the original comics had some really great comic writers on it from the start: _ Roy Thomas, Len Wein, Doug Moench, then Chris Claremont fairly fast in its run. With Punisher- I liked the Gerry Conway origin, but it seemed like Punisher should be fairly easy to do right- as he's not much different than any other vigilante story that's been done to death. If they have great villains and make a great ensemble cast, then it could really be a good show--- but most of Netflix's superhero stuff has not impressed me so far....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 7, 2017 16:11:46 GMT -5
Punisher faces the same problem characters like Cage and Iron Fist do. They were comics based on 70s revenge films, martial arts films, exploitation and blaxploitation films. That made them stand out from typical comics fare but when adapted to screen they just blend in with the other films like that. Any adaptation needs to keep the comics flare. That's why Blade worked. It kept the influence of those kinds of films I mentioned but had a slick dark style with stylized action.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 8, 2017 12:10:37 GMT -5
Punisher faces the same problem characters like Cage and Iron Fist do. They were comics based on 70s revenge films, martial arts films, exploitation and blaxploitation films. That made them stand out from typical comics fare but when adapted to screen they just blend in with the other films like that. Any adaptation needs to keep the comics flare. That's why Blade worked. It kept the influence of those kinds of films I mentioned but had a slick dark style with stylized action. Agreed. The fun of the b-movie exploitation films wasn't how logical or 'realistic' they were. Similarly, the comics of the 70's were fun because they had energy and flair. With Netflix's Daredevil, there was a lot of talk and darkness.... but the showrunner (at the time before he left) had great talk that had meaning. Hence, it could be cheaper and get away with it. But, still--- the action scenes suprisingly kicked butt. To me, Luke Cage and Jessica Jones are 'meh'. Good, but was 6 hours way too long. Daredevil Season 2 was a giant dull misfire imo. It showed how well done the first season was by comparison. Netflix's Iron Fist has so many wrong choices in adapting its comics, I struggle to find one thing good about it. The casting of Colleen Wing perhaps, but even then, her martial arts are horrible. I think SOMEBODY has to take the blame for this disaster. Scott Buck hopefully moves on or gets replaced. It's not just the budget, but incredibly poor story choices that makes this one a train wreck.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 8, 2017 13:19:53 GMT -5
Marvel was clueless on what to do with Luke Cage for over 30 years. The 90s take on him was a joke and the early 2000's tale was just racist. To give them credit the tv show had one of the better incarnations of the character. Most people think the show dropped the ball once they were done with Cottonmouth and I'd agree. I wonder if all the Netflix shows would benefit from being cut down to 8 episodes with the same budget. A lot of BBC shows are less than 13 and they work well. Doctor Who could also benefit from being cut down from 12-13 to maybe 10.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 9, 2017 14:44:36 GMT -5
Marvel was clueless on what to do with Luke Cage for over 30 years. The 90s take on him was a joke and the early 2000's tale was just racist. To give them credit the tv show had one of the better incarnations of the character. Most people think the show dropped the ball once they were done with Cottonmouth and I'd agree. I wonder if all the Netflix shows would benefit from being cut down to 8 episodes with the same budget. A lot of BBC shows are less than 13 and they work well. Doctor Who could also benefit from being cut down from 12-13 to maybe 10. Good points. The horrible thing (to me) is that with Marvel comics, usually there are TOO many good stories- so, having 13 episodes should be a blessing and they should be pretty tight as far as episodes go. To date, only Daredevil has used this to the greatest extent well- in the first season.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 9, 2017 16:40:48 GMT -5
With all their history they have a lot to draw from from multiple continuities. They usually do a good job. When it doesn't work it's usually a case of execution. Iron Man 3 is a prime example. D.C. has the same problem but worse. Not only that but stuffing three or more stories into one film hurt BVS and TDKRises.
I've often wondered if they'd just stuck to Knightfall and No Mans Land if that movie would have been better. I liked Wayne retired as Batman but some didn't. Or maybe just Knightfall and TDKReturns. I didn't feel Gotham being cut off from the US and all the kangaroo court/class warfare stuff was really must have. Some of it felt clumsy and shoehorned in. Banes goal was to destroy Gotham. Not sure he of all people needed to smokescreen it by distracting people with talk of class inequality. Felt like Nolan just trying to be topical.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 10, 2017 21:03:13 GMT -5
With all their history they have a lot to draw from from multiple continuities. They usually do a good job. When it doesn't work it's usually a case of execution. Iron Man 3 is a prime example. D.C. has the same problem but worse. Not only that but stuffing three or more stories into one film hurt BVS and TDKRises. I've often wondered if they'd just stuck to Knightfall and No Mans Land if that movie would have been better. I liked Wayne retired as Batman but some didn't. Or maybe just Knightfall and TDKReturns. I didn't feel Gotham being cut off from the US and all the kangaroo court/class warfare stuff was really must have. Some of it felt clumsy and shoehorned in. Banes goal was to destroy Gotham. Not sure he of all people needed to smokescreen it by distracting people with talk of class inequality. Felt like Nolan just trying to be topical. I think the main problem was TOO much secrecy (making it difficult for any real feedback) and just too much emphasis on the 'twist' rather than character. (Something Nolan has been crazy about in "The Prestige", "Memento", and his last scifi film) While there was a bit that I thought was a little loose, imo I still think TDK satisfied everything I thought a Batman/Joker movie could be at its best. To me, TDKR just felt like a jumbled mess--- much like Spiderman 3. Rushed and too many conflicting goals storywise to really care about the characters onscreen. While Alfred and Gordon's family may have had justifiable reasons not to be in most of the story, I feel that their absence made the movie more sterile without a heart. And the Catwoman/Batman romance was incredibly lacking- Chris Nolan didn't initially want her in the movie, much like Raimi didn't want Venom, and you can kind of feel that in the script. I felt it hit the target more in "Batman Returns", in regards to their weird (but still somehow touching) relationship that's in the comics.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 11, 2017 12:49:01 GMT -5
I think the main problem was TOO much secrecy (making it difficult for any real feedback) and just too much emphasis on the 'twist' rather than character. (Something Nolan has been crazy about in "The Prestige", "Memento", and his last scifi film) While there was a bit that I thought was a little loose, imo I still think TDK satisfied everything I thought a Batman/Joker movie could be at its best. To me, TDKR just felt like a jumbled mess--- much like Spiderman 3. Rushed and too many conflicting goals storywise to really care about the characters onscreen. While Alfred and Gordon's family may have had justifiable reasons not to be in most of the story, I feel that their absence made the movie more sterile without a heart. And the Catwoman/Batman romance was incredibly lacking- Chris Nolan didn't initially want her in the movie, much like Raimi didn't want Venom, and you can kind of feel that in the script. I felt it hit the target more in "Batman Returns", in regards to their weird (but still somehow touching) relationship that's in the comics. Well you're right it was Jonathan Nolan not Christopher who wanted Catowman in the movie and you can tell. It's just like with Raimi and Eddie Brock. He didn't want him in Spidey 3 Arad did. I also felt the film was overstuffed and jumbled. It should have focused on the aftermath of the Dent Act the arrival of Bane and Batmans reappearance. Most of the other stuff should have been cut out. Just make Talia Talia and not some surprise twist. None of the class warfare stuff. I didn't mind John Blake and see what they were going for but his role should have been handled better. Just go for it and make him a rookie cop named Richard Grayson. That whole nod at the end felt awkward. I felt the same about the Talia twist. A lot of people felt it devalued Bane to make him someone else's second and any fan worth his or her salt couldn see that Miranda Tate was Talia. I know Nolan did it to make the story more intruiging but...meh. Funny you say that about the Batman/Catwoman romance. I thought Hathaway was solid but didn't feel like she or Bale had any chemistry. They didn't have that spark that West and Newmar or Keaton and Pfieffer had. Keaton had far more chemistry with his leading ladies than Bale did. It's all down to Nolan and the writers in his movies but It's been a real problem with most DC movies of the 21s century. Can't blame Nolan for Cavill and Adams getting on like a campfire and a bucket of ice water. Reynolds and Lively got married for real but on screen I didn't care about their relashionship in GL. I also thought the Rachel Dawes character wasn't very interesting. She worked better as a plot device/motivator in TDK and TDKR. She had no inner life as a character and while Gyllenhal was a better actress I didn't but think she or Holmes clicked with Bale. Neither did Selena Kyle or Talia. Just backs up what I've always said about Nolan. He's great with higher ideals and loftier morals but when it comes to basic emotions and raw passion the man doesn't present it very well. The big speech on the power of love in Interstellar was a joke.
|
|