Do you think a Superman film scence can hold as much emotion as this?

[SatEL]

Lt. James Gordon (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000198/): Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight.

If so describe your own powerful scence similair to this. Describe in detail the scence and what music would be playing if you already have an ideal score in mind. Also include the lines of what the characters would say.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I think there can be for the end of the movie with Superman hovering outside of Lex's window talking to him about why the people can trust him or what he sees in mankind. Something along those lines and it could fit.

[SuperDaniel]

^Yes. Superman for all seasons, anyone?

[Brainiac 8]

Superman for all seasons would be a fantastic base for a movie actually. :up:

[SuperDaniel]

A mix of Superman for all seasons, Birthright, Man of Steel, Action Comics #800 and add Brainiac from TAS would be my ideal origin movie.

[Crook]

I think there can be for the end of the movie with Superman hovering outside of Lex's window talking to him about why the people can trust him or what he sees in mankind. Something along those lines and it could fit.
Bam:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b310/midnite4/bermejolexp21color.jpg

An ending like this, would be ideal. It perfectly sets up Luthor and Supes' growing rivalry through the franchise.

[The Guard]

I'd rather have real emotion, thanks. Not pretty sounding schlock.

[Crook]

You are free to suggest your own ideas of "real emotion".

[The Guard]

Ummm...something a little more subtle, less manufactured.

[Lucid]

Do you think a Superman film scence can hold as much emotion as this?

Lt. James Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight.
Superman: For All Seasons is the most emotional Superman story I've read or seen. I've never seen a Batman story as purely emotional as For All Seasons. The only flaw in the book in terms of adapting it into a movie is that Lana is the main love interest, which I'm not sure would be the best idea for a movie. I've always liked Lois as the main love interest in a movie, especially a reboot origin movie. But if I were making a Superman origin, I would lift maybe 90% from For All Seasons. It's a brilliant book and the best Superman story ever written, in my opinion.

By the way, emotion doesn't come from dialogue, but rather a combination of elements beginning with the base of character. That's the most important element in crafting a Superman story, the psychology of the characters and their relationships. The below is a good example of "emotional" dialogue that is only strong because it comes from the dilemma inside the character.

http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/image/Superman_Seasons3.jpg

[SuperDaniel]

^:up:

[El Payaso]

I'd rather have real emotion, thanks. Not pretty sounding schlock.

Same here. Much rather the feeling of it than someone explaining it verbally in detail.

[November Rain]

There's actually been more emotion portrayed in the past superman films, why is everyone making the dark knight seem like its covering new ground.


even superman's speech to lois about how the world is crying out for a superman is more powerful than what gordon says at the end.

[I Am The Knight]

Same here. Much rather the feeling of it than someone explaining it verbally in detail.

The Nolans have a knack for that.

[Lucid]

Same here. Much rather the feeling of it than someone explaining it verbally in detail.
This thread and the quoted post raise a good point, actually, which may be too in-depth for this board, but here it is anyway for those who care:

Cinematically, The Dark Knight is actually quite horrendous. Rather than using visual storytelling--the essence of cinema--everything in the film is established and explained through dialogue. It's like a stage play, not a movie, which is one-dimensional, lazy filmmaking. But! when viewed from that perspective, I actually think The Dark Knight is brilliant, honestly. I enjoyed the movie, it's a great story, gloriously crafted, phenomenally written, but it's a terrible piece of cinema (in fact, the most "cinematic" thing about the movie is Heath Ledger's performance).

The best movies work visually, creating atmosphere and emotion without speaking a word. That's why movies like E.T., Star Wars, and The Wizard Of Oz have lasted as long as they have and why each new generation, despite their ever-increasing "old movie" biases and ever-decreasing attention spans, falls in love with those movies, because they work on a fundamental level of visual storytelling. And I'm not talking about action sequences, I'm talking about executing any type of scene effectively harnessing the universal visual language of movies. It's easy and boring to just say something in a movie through dialogue, but if the filmmaker shows it to the audience, makes them feel it, that's when the experience of a movie becomes more than a passive experience, more than just a flat screen in front of you--it becomes an interactive experience where you're engulfed into the world of the movie. Only visual storytelling can create such an experience. A more recent example is The Sixth Sense. Why did audiences go crazy for that movie? The story is actually quite plain and sluggish, not the makings of a $600 million blockbuster. It's because M. Night Shyamalan, in the Spielbergian tradition, utilized the visual storytelling language to a hypnotically potent effect and audiences responded to that language whether they knew it or not.

A Superman movie can, without a doubt, contain such emotional visual storytelling because we know that the material provides glorious opportunities--any movie does, but especially a colorful morality myth like Superman--it just comes down to whether the director knows how to take advantage of such opportunities. So in this thread, when we're talking about "emotion," we're not talking about dialogue. We're talking about character, atmosphere, and the talent of the director.

Again, I point to Superman For All Seasons as a great jumping off point. Anyone who hasn't read that comic needs to go out right now and buy it. You'll thank me later.

[The Guard]

By the way, emotion doesn't come from dialogue, but rather a combination of elements beginning with the base of character.

Exactly. For some reason, many people think to think it stems from flowery, drawn out dialogue. Not so.

[Ita-KalEl]

There's actually been more emotion portrayed in the past superman films, why is everyone making the dark knight seem like its covering new ground.


even superman's speech to lois about how the world is crying out for a superman is more powerful than what gordon says at the end.

Not really.

[hatebox]

Cinematically, The Dark Knight is actually quite horrendous. Rather than using visual storytelling--the essence of cinema--everything in the film is established and explained through dialogue. It's like a stage play, not a movie, which is one-dimensional, lazy filmmaking. But! when viewed from that perspective, I actually think The Dark Knight is brilliant, honestly. I enjoyed the movie, it's a great story, gloriously crafted, phenomenally written, but it's a terrible piece of cinema (in fact, the most "cinematic" thing about the movie is Heath Ledger's performance), and not the most engaging cinematic experience.

Can't agree with that - to me TDK has some of the best imagery I've seen in a blockbuster and the whole look of the film really played up to the paranoid, climactic mood, as well as the characters of Batman and the Joker. It was an extremely satisfying film on a visual level, and that's probably the aspect i love most about it.

The way I see it, TDK was entitled to its corny scene at the end because the whole film had been the opposite of that for the the entire 2 and a half hours.

Yes, it was Gordon explaining to us the situation, but it worked because in the context of a superhero blockbuster what Batman was doing was relatively profound. And hey, I still see a hell of a lot of people arguing about the implications so it clearly wasn't that obvious anyway.

And yes, Guard, you actually have to suggest what you'd have done instead to have a degree of credibility when criticizing. IMO.

[BatmanFreak23]

TDK is #2 All Time Box Office for a reason!

[RickO'Connell]

TDK is #2 All Time Box Office for a reason!

#2 on the unadjusted all time box office list

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

But fan boys will refuse to admit this

[FlawlessVictory]

#2 on the unadjusted all time box office list

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

But fan boys will refuse to admit this

So what?

I'd say #2 on the unadjusted list in an age where there are nintendos, playstations and xbox's and home theaters and piracy up the ass is pretty damn impressive. Not too mention the amount of competition movies now face from other movies and much shorter lengths of times held at theaters to make room for the big push to DVD. Plus, with some of those movies, you risked the chance that if you didn't see it at the theater during its run, you may never end up seeing it at all.

[Showtime]

#2 on the unadjusted all time box office list

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

But fan boys will refuse to admit this

Nevermind fanboys, why don't you go and tell that to all the publications, internet sites, news stations and everybody else reporting it is #2. Nobody seems to be going by the infamous "adjusted" list...sorry to disappoint you.

[RickO'Connell]

Nevermind fanboys, why don't you go and tell that to all the publications, internet sites, news stations and everybody else reporting it is #2

They may be reporting it but in the end it is not fact. So if they want to go by lies then by all means go ahead :cwink:

[Showtime]

They may be reporting it but in the end it is not fact. So if they want to go by lies then by all means go ahead :cwink:

Well it isn't a lie, it is #2 on the all time list, if it was a lie there wouldn't be "two" lists. They would only count one or the other right?

[RickO'Connell]

They would only count one or the other right?

That is what they are doing only counting one & ignoring the other one which shows different results. But hey they can do what they want

[Showtime]

That is what they are doing only counting one & ignoring the other one which shows different results. But hey they can do what they want

Well I never hear anybody talking about the adjusted for inflation list anywhere really? The studios don't use it, the critics, writers, it is kind of the secondary list with all movies, why would it be different for Dark Knight?

[RickO'Connell]

Well I never hear anybody talking about the adjusted for inflation list anywhere really? The studios don't use it, the critics, writers, it is kind of the secondary list with all movies, why would it be different for Dark Knight?

It shouldn't be different for any movie but it is what it is

[Crook]

Inflation is only really applicable to films within close years of one another. The varying factors that contribute to box office gross aren't so high there. Case in example, Spider-Man 1 and TDK.

Films that are decades apart however, simply cannot be compared using an inflation model. Some like to think that ticket price is the only difference displayed, but it's much more than that. Cheaper tickets means more willing buyers, which accounts for higher ticket sales and a higher chance of repeat viewings. Inflating that gross doesn't take these incentives into account. Neither does it account for piracy, home theater, and dvd growth.

[Motown Marvel]

i found that line from gordon at the end of the movie to be one of many ham fisted corny speeches in TDK. i dont need that in a superman film....or any film.

[FlawlessVictory]

i found that line from gordon at the end of the movie to be one of many ham fisted corny speeches in TDK. i dont need that in a superman film....or any film.

What were the other "many ham fisted corny speeches" in TDK?

[Diamondhead]

Behold the impossible
A man so powerful that he dares to replace the Gods of legend
Simple word cannot describe him
Because the Gods would admire the courage and nobility in such a man’ soul
The courage to go beyond the absolute limit of resistance
To go at death's door and come back
The nobility to act for the greatest cause
For the love of his fellow brothers and sisters
He keeps going no matter what
Because he’s the last of his kind
He bears the weight of the whole world upon his shoulder
He’s a lone angel warrior
He’s risking death because he is a hero
And he succeed because he is Superman

[Lucid]

Can't agree with that - to me TDK has some of the best imagery I've seen in a blockbuster and the whole look of the film really played up to the paranoid, climactic mood, as well as the characters of Batman and the Joker. It was an extremely satisfying film on a visual level, and that's probably the aspect i love most about it.

The way I see it, TDK was entitled to its corny scene at the end because the whole film had been the opposite of that for the the entire 2 and a half hours.

Yes, it was Gordon explaining to us the situation, but it worked because in the context of a superhero blockbuster what Batman was doing was relatively profound. And hey, I still see a hell of a lot of people arguing about the implications so it clearly wasn't that obvious anyway.

And yes, Guard, you actually have to suggest what you'd have done instead to have a degree of credibility when criticizing. IMO.
I think you misunderstood me slightly. I wasn't talking about cinematography or "imagery," as you mentioned. I agree that there are many beautiful single images in The Dark Knight--the film was well photographed. What I was trying to talk about is the visual storytelling language, meaning the overall method that the director chooses to deliver the story to the audience and, more specifically, the actual scene coverage, the combination of shots for each scene and how those shots are ordered and paced, strategically revealing the necessary information to the audience at each passing moment.

Nolan's visual language is non-existent because his method is dialogue, which, generally speaking, is not as engulfing of an experience as visual storytelling. There are many examples of this fact besides Gordon's epilogue.

1. The most glaring one is that Nolan communicates that Harvey and Rachel have been abducted by having The Joker tell us that they've been abducted. Nolan never shows them being abducted, but rather communicates this key story point solely through the dialogue--the audience must trust that what The Joker says has in fact happened and then emotionally respond accordingly, far less "emotional" than actually seeing Harvey and Rachel being unexpectedly abducted.

2. In the hospital, The Joker explains his motives to Harvey Dent rather than allowing those motives to reveal themselves naturally through narrative.

3. The Joker's final speech about how Harvey is his "ace in the hole," explains to the audience the dynamic of The Joker's manipulation, rather than allowing that dynamic to reveal itself through narrative.

4. Gordon's epilogue explains to the audience the "truth" of the film's final events, rather than allowing the narrative to speak for itself and allowing the audience to react subjectively.

These examples are all large, key plot points. Smaller examples would be that Harvey Dent and Rachel never have an actual scene where we see that they're in love (for lack of a better example, no Armageddon "animal crackers" scene), they just say to each other "I love you," which, to Nolan, adequately makes the audience feel that the relationship is authentic. That's why I say that the film is like a play. In a play, characters walk around saying "I love you" and that means they're in love--that's how plays work, utilizing combinations of words to tell stories. Movies are visual, utilizing combinations of images to tell stories. Visual storytelling is the nature of cinema and it's what makes movies unique and powerful. At its best, visual storytelling is emotionally intoxicating and intellectually permeating. That's why when a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan ignores the visual nature of the art and employs verbal methods, such filmmaking becomes didactic, forced, lazy, and emotionally alienating. It's the equivalent of having a character turn to the camera and say "See, kids, that's why you shouldn't take drugs... (wink)" as opposed to a movie like Requiem For A Dream, which shows why you shouldn't take drugs and makes you feel it through the natural unfolding of its narrative and the succession of carefully chosen images scene-by-scene. Such visual storytelling is utilized by the great directors of conventional cinema (although I wouldn't put Aronofsky on that list, but he is a visual storyteller) and I hope that the future director of Superman employs such effective methods. I've always thought that a Superman film directed with such effective visual storytelling has the potential to be the highest grossing film of all time because the story appeals to such a vast array of genres and therefore market demographics.

[The Sage]

I think there can be for the end of the movie with Superman hovering outside of Lex's window talking to him about why the people can trust him or what he sees in mankind. Something along those lines and it could fit.

Like this?

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1294/lexluthormanofsteel05paez3.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lexluthormanofsteel05paez3.jpg)

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8364/lexluthormanofsteel05paqr3.jpg (http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lexluthormanofsteel05paqr3.jpg)

EDIT: Crook already did it, but with a different panel.

Good stuff, regardless.

And Lucid, interesting comments regarding The Happening in your link.

[November Rain]

Not really.
are you trying to say the portrayal of superman in the last five films have not been as selfless as batman's so-called sacrifice for gotham?

[hatebox]

I think you misunderstood me slightly. I wasn't talking about cinematography or "imagery," as you mentioned. I agree that there are many beautiful single images in The Dark Knight--the film was well photographed. What I was trying to talk about is the visual storytelling language, meaning the overall method that the director chooses to deliver the story to the audience and, more specifically, the actual scene coverage, the combination of shots for each scene and how those shots are ordered and paced, strategically revealing the necessary information to the audience at each passing moment.

Nolan's visual language is non-existent because his method is dialogue, which, generally speaking, is not as engulfing of an experience as visual storytelling. There are many examples of this fact besides Gordon's epilogue.

1. The most glaring one is that Nolan communicates that Harvey and Rachel have been abducted by having The Joker tell us that they've been abducted. Nolan never shows them being abducted, but rather communicates this key story point solely through the dialogue--the audience must trust that what The Joker says has in fact happened and then emotionally respond accordingly, far less "emotional" than actually seeing Harvey and Rachel being unexpectedly abducted.

2. The Joker's final speech about how Harvey is his "ace in the hole," explains to the audience the dynamic of The Joker's manipulation, rather than allowing that dynamic to reveal itself naturally through narrative.

3. Nolan elects to verbalize Bruce's moral dilemma through Alfred's story about the bandit in Burma, rather than allowing the narrative to display such a dilemma on its own.

4. Gordon's epilogue explains to the audience the "truth" of the film's final events, rather than allowing the narrative to speak for itself and allowing the audience to react subjectively.

These examples are all large, key plot points. Smaller examples would be that Harvey Dent and Rachel never have an actual scene where we see that they're in love (for lack of a better example, no Armageddon "animal crackers" scene), they just say to each other "I love you," which, to Nolan, adequately makes the audience feel that the relationship is authentic. That's why I say that the film is like a play. In a play, characters walk around saying "I love you" and that means they're in love--that's how plays work, utilizing combinations of words to tell stories. Movies are visual, utilizing combinations of images to tell stories. Such visual storytelling is the nature of cinema and it's what makes movies unique and powerful. At its best, visual storytelling is emotionally intoxicating and intellectually permeating. That's why when a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan ignores the visual nature of the art and employs verbal methods, such filmmaking becomes didactic, forced, lazy, and emotionally alienating. It's the equivalent of having a character turn to the camera and say "See, kids, that's why you shouldn't take drugs... (wink)" as opposed to a movie like Requiem For A Dream, which shows why you shouldn't take drugs and makes you feel it through the natural unfolding of its narrative and the succession of carefully chosen images scene-by-scene. Such visual storytelling is utilized by the great directors of conventional cinema (although I wouldn't put Aronofsky on that list, but he is a visual storyteller) and I hope that the director of Superman employs such effective methods. I've always thought that a Superman film directed with such effective visual storytelling has the potential to be the highest grossing film of all time because the story appeals to such a vast array of genres and therefore market demographics. Just like John McCain, I don't think Warner Bros. "gets it," lol.

I could see how this whole "visual language" stuff could be confusing if you're not accustomed to thinking about cinema in these terms. If you want further explanation, you can check out my post on Jim Emerson's blog regarding M. Night Shyamalan. My post begins: "Ah, I didn't know that you actually read these posts." Here's the link: http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/06/whats_happening_in_the_happeni.html

I don't think your first example is really fair as Dent's kidnapping is meant to be as much a surprise to us as it is to Batman. We're meant to be vaguely optimistic that the Joker's been caught to suddenly horrified at the reality of the situation, which becomes apparent to us when it cuts to Dent tied up.

I'd also say that though the ending maybe didn't need words from Gordon AFTER Batman ran away, it still worked anyhow - though I'd put that down to the music as much as anything. As I said, I felt the that after 2.5 hours the film was entitled to its 'corny scene' and it was corny, but luckily it was IMO a powerful and profound one. Again, Alfred's Burma story wasn't exactly subtle as a device, but told against shots of the Joker it becomes effective, and is hugely economical. In 2 minutes the audience understood the heart of the Joker, and it was no less terrifying for its brevity.


And economy is what it's really all about. I'd never deny TDK is a dialogue film. But when intertwined with inspired imagery it works very well. When you have a story as large as TDK then applying efficient, economical dialogue in itself becomes an art form, and it seems you at least agree that the film did that well. As a student of the medium I'm sure you also realize that, whatever critics say, TDK is still playing within the confines of its genre so it can only ever go so far with purely visual storytelling. If it wants to make money, at least. I certainly can't think of a successful superhero movie that's done that much more than TDK has


I'd be genuinely interested if you could say how those points would be done better.

That's not a loaded question, I'd really like to know...

[The Guard]

And yes, Guard, you actually have to suggest what you'd have done instead to have a degree of credibility when criticizing. IMO.

No. You don't have to come up with something better to prove why you not liking something is invalid.

What I'd have done, simply put, is pander less. A lot less.

[hatebox]

No. You don't have to come up with something better to prove why you not liking something is invalid.

What I'd have done, simply put, is pander less. A lot less.

I suppose you don't, but when a large percentage of your posts are nothing more than something along the lines of"TDK isn't very good. Period" with no follow up you can't blame others for finding it tiresome. At least Lucid actually promoted a discussion even if I didn't fully agree with him.

But yes. It's your call.

[BATZARRO WWD]

As far as I know, that isn't the best, most emotional scene in history, so yeah.

Title: Can a chocolate cake ever taste better than swallowing a TDK DVD?

Body: Bla,bla,bla....

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I didn't find the speech to be emotional at all so no. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it either so no. The answer to me is no because I don't agree that it was great, the movie was though.

[FlawlessVictory]

As far as I know, that isn't the best, most emotional scene in history, so yeah.

Title: Can a chocolate cake ever taste better than swallowing a TDK DVD?

Body: Bla,bla,bla....

Who is serving the chocolate cake? Chocolate cake girl from the Spider-Man movies? :woot:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I find this thread to be strange. If you the thread starter picked out a particularly emotional scene this thread would be better, not that silly monologue at the end. Like the actual ending. I really felt for Dent because you could understand his pain and Eckhart was so damn good. As a matter of fact him and Oldman have been underpraised because of the fine showy work Ledger did.

[The Guard]

I suppose you don't, but when a large percentage of your posts are nothing more than something along the lines of"TDK isn't very good. Period" with no follow up you can't blame others for finding it tiresome. At least Lucid actually promoted a discussion even if I didn't fully agree with him.

I gave TDK a 9/10, and pointed out what I felt were its flaws and strengths rather directly, and have continued to do so. None of my posts have even hinted that I don't like the film or think it's any good. I have no idea where you've pulled this bizarre and interesting idea from. But you have completely misinterpreted my stance on THE DARK KNIGHT. Completely.

[The Guard]

I've done it! I've written a Superman scene that compares in terms of emotion!

JIMMY
Why doesn't he reveal his true identity, Chief?

PERRY WHITE
Because he's not looking to be recognized. He's the hero Metropolis deserves...even if we don't fully understand him yet. And though we may fear him, he'll still help us. Because he's more than just an alien..he's a caped angel...a Man of Steel and a Man of Tomorrow...(Perry tears up)...he's a...a...

LOIS
A Superman.

Did you see that? I had THREE characters in on stating the obvious.

I still can't believe people like that sequence so much. It's just Gordon stating the obvious in the most pandering and overwrought manner imaginable.

[FlawlessVictory]

I gave TDK a 9/10, and pointed out what I felt were its flaws and strengths rather directly, and have continued to do so. None of my posts have even hinted that I don't like the film or think it's any good. I have no idea where you've pulled this bizarre and interesting idea from. But you have completely misinterpreted my stance on THE DARK KNIGHT. Completely.

I'd hate to see you comment on a film you actually didn't like, LOL. It just seems with your posts you're always taking shots at BB or TDK in some manner and then you actually think those movies are good? :wow:

[I Am The Knight]

It's possible for someone to like something, but to recognize said thing's flaws at the same time...Nothing unnatural about that. You don't have to plain LOVE something or plain HATE something, which seem to be the 2 settings that were programmed into fanboys when they were born.

[Lucid]

----

[Lucid]

I don't think your first example is really fair as Dent's kidnapping is meant to be as much a surprise to us as it is to Batman. We're meant to be vaguely optimistic that the Joker's been caught to suddenly horrified at the reality of the situation, which becomes apparent to us when it cuts to Dent tied up.

I'd also say that though the ending maybe didn't need words from Gordon AFTER Batman ran away, it still worked anyhow - though I'd put that down to the music as much as anything. As I said, I felt the that after 2.5 hours the film was entitled to its 'corny scene' and it was corny, but luckily it was IMO a powerful and profound one. Again, Alfred's Burma story wasn't exactly subtle as a device, but told against shots of the Joker it becomes effective, and is hugely economical. In 2 minutes the audience understood the heart of the Joker, and it was no less terrifying for its brevity.


And economy is what it's really all about. I'd never deny TDK is a dialogue film. But when intertwined with inspired imagery it works very well. When you have a story as large as TDK then applying efficient, economical dialogue in itself becomes an art form, and it seems you at least agree that the film did that well. As a student of the medium I'm sure you also realize that, whatever critics say, TDK is still playing within the confines of its genre so it can only ever go so far with purely visual storytelling. If it wants to make money, at least. I certainly can't think of a successful superhero movie that's done that much more than TDK has


I'd be genuinely interested if you could say how those points would be done better.

That's not a loaded question, I'd really like to know...
You keep saying that Gordon's epilogue was cheesy, but you liked it anyway. I don't know about other people on these boards, but I didn't think it was cheesy, I thought it was great. It was one of the best moments of the film, especially when viewing the film more as a work of theater than cinema. So you don't have to keep defending the epilogue. I liked it!

I think we kind of agree here, but are just coming at this topic from different angles. You used the word "economy." I agree that's the right perspective in which to view TDK, but I would use a harsher word: lazy. "Economy" of storytelling in cinema--at least in the way that you're describing--is really a way of saying shortcuts. Shortcuts are lazy and uncreative because they are easy to think of--it's a lot easier to just write a monologue instead of constructing a thoughtful progression of events that communicates the same point--and, worse yet, the audience doesn't feel shortcuts--they destroy emotion and audience investment.

My point is that I hope that a Superman film will work on a deeper emotional level because the material has such potential that I would hate to see it squandered, which is what Bryan Singer did the last time around. I hope WB uses this reboot as an opportunity to make a classic and classics are created using visual storytelling, not dialogue. And it's not a matter of genre constrictions. I mentioned E.T. and Star Wars in a previous post, two films that strictly conform to genre guidelines, yet they are told visually and reach out to audiences. Dialogue isn't synonymous with convention--all films use dialogue and images together--it's a matter of the balance between the two and where the information and feeling originates from that dictates the audiences enjoyment of the film.

To answer your question, the way to improve TDK would be to simply remove those moments of dialogue and let the natural unfolding of the story speak for itself because all of the revelations in the dialogue are thoughts that the audience would have on their own at various points in the film, but would be conjured up by events rather than simply being told so, which leads to more enjoyment because audience members are contributing something of themselves to the movie and, at that point, you've got them! because they're now participating in an interactive experience, sending them deeper inside the film at each passing moment, making them more invested in the characters and the outcome and they enjoy the movie more. Simple logic. A Superman story, in my opinion, can possibly do this better than any other story because the characters are so universal, so identifiable, the conflicts and dilemmas are so intrinsically human and arduous, and yet at the same time the setting is a fantasy world filled with bright colors, fun archetypes, moral ideals, and the shining hopes of civilization. Such a film seems tailor made for enrapturing escapist entertainment. Now, I would be ecstatic if we got a Superman film that was as good as TDK, but I think the world of Superman can create a better movie, so that's what I'm hoping for... but never expecting. :) ;)

[Katsuro]

Superman Returns had plenty of scenes with more emotion than that.

I almost teared up at the end, when Superman was speaking Jor-El's lines from earlier to his son. That **** was emotional.

[El Payaso]

Superman Returns had plenty of scenes with more emotion than that.

I almost teared up at the end, when Superman was speaking Jor-El's lines from earlier to his son. That **** was emotional.

I agree about that scene. It's one of the best I've seen in any Superman movie. It makes perfect sense on how it's Superman who faces fatherhood, finds a new sense in his life and is forced to not to be with his son in a normal way (just like Jor-El did). Who cares if it haven't happened in the comics, it is better than the average comic book storyline.

But I'm not comparing since the TDK scene had its own merit. It's not like TDK had tons of verbal moments (like BB did), so I didn't mind some literary scene in it after all the goodies that movie had.

[FlawlessVictory]

Superman Returns had plenty of scenes with more emotion than that.

I almost teared up at the end, when Superman was speaking Jor-El's lines from earlier to his son. That **** was emotional.

I understand this scene was supposed to be emotional but it failed to work for me because I was never emotionally invested in any of the characters in the film to begin with. Whatever happened to any of them at the end or at any other point in the film didn't matter to me as the movie never made me care about them. I never found any of the characters likeable with the exception of Richard and even then that wasn't much.

[SuperDaniel]

^Exactely.

[Lucid]

----

[SuperDaniel]

I guess we should thank heavens that this disgrace will be forgotten.

[BULLITT]

Perry: “An orphan may have friends…. maybe none at all…but they’re still connected to humanity….to all of us.”

Lois: “You don’t think Superman feels connected to us?”

Perry: “How could he? For all practical purposes he’s a God among mere mortals.

Lois: “And what, we “mere mortals” don’t deserve a benevolent God watching over us?”

Perry: “Deserve? Hardly. I think the fact that he is here, is a cautionary tale for us.”

Lois: “How so?”

Perry: “He’s the last son of a dead civilization, an advanced people who obviously had the ability to send him here, yet they could not save themselves. They somehow lacked the desire, or compassion, to overcome their shortsightedness…to look-out for one another. How can his existence be anything but a cautionary tale?”

Lois: “Maybe it was his destiny to come here?”

Perry: “ Perhaps, but even with all his powers and abilities, if we’re determined to try and impose our will over each other, even he won’t be able to stem the flow of suffering and chaos we inflict on ourselves.”

Lois: “ I like to think that he’s here as an example. As a symbol for us to aspire to our better angels.”

Perry: “It’d be better to live in a world that doesn’t need a Superman.”

Lois: “Well, we don’t, so we do.”

Perry: “It makes me wonder, though.”

Lois: “What does?”

Perry: “Why he does what he does. Think about it. It’s a never ending battle that he wages…trying to prevent whatever happened to his home, from happening here. When we see him, it’s usually because he’s trying to put right something that we screwed-up…and when we don’t see or hear about him, he’s probably off in some….fortress of solitude…keeping a vigil over us. Shakespeare himself couldn’t have written a more tragic character”

Lois: (looking earnestly at her boss) “ Oh, I know why he does it Chief.”

Perry: “Okay, Lane, I’ll bite..Why?”

Lois: “Because it’s his home too…….and because no one else can.”

Perry: (with Lois ,looking out the Daily Planet conference window…as Superman silhouetted by the orange-yellowed hue of sunset, drifts over Metropolis) A half smile curling the left-side of his face. “”Don’t call me Chief.”

[SuperDaniel]

People like to exaggerate things...

[BULLITT]

pill 1 |pil|
noun
a small round mass of solid medicine to be swallowed whole.
• ( the pill or the Pill) a contraceptive pill : she is on the pill.
• informal a tedious or unpleasant person.
• informal (in some sports) a humorous term for a ball.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Who is serving the chocolate cake? Chocolate cake girl from the Spider-Man movies? :woot:

If she's serving, I'll eat the slice!:up:

[the GRIN Reaper]

Exactly. For some reason, many people think to think it stems from flowery, drawn out dialogue. Not so.
Dialogue was not all that made the emotion of that scene. Not even close.

[The Guard]

Exactly. So why did they feel the need to include so damn much of it?

[Black Zodak]

A lot of people in this forum say that Gordon's epilogue at the end of the film was cheesey. If he was saying it to one of his peers, I might agree somewhat. But he is speaking to his 10 year old son. The boy who doesn't understand why Batman is running, because he knows Batman did nothing wrong. Gordon's epilogue is written the way it is because it is suppose to come across as a father talking to his son, and explaining to him why the Batman has to run.

[November Rain]

if that's the case, it doesn't require the drammatic pauses...

[DavidTyler]

Perry: “An orphan may have friends…. maybe none at all…but they’re still connected to humanity….to all of us.”

Lois: “You don’t think Superman feels connected to us?”

Perry: “How could he? For all practical purposes he’s a God among mere mortals.

Lois: “And what, we “mere mortals” don’t deserve a benevolent God watching over us?”

Perry: “Deserve? Hardly. I think the fact that he is here, is a cautionary tale for us.”

Lois: “How so?”

Perry: “He’s the last son of a dead civilization, an advanced people who obviously had the ability to send him here, yet they could not save themselves. They somehow lacked the desire, or compassion, to overcome their shortsightedness…to look-out for one another. How can his existence be anything but a cautionary tale?”

Lois: “Maybe it was his destiny to come here?”

Perry: “ Perhaps, but even with all his powers and abilities, if we’re determined to try and impose our will over each other, even he won’t be able to stem the flow of suffering and chaos we inflict on ourselves.”

Lois: “ I like to think that he’s here as an example. As a symbol for us to aspire to our better angels.”

Perry: “It’d be better to live in a world that doesn’t need a Superman.”

Lois: “Well, we don’t, so we do.”

Perry: “It makes me wonder, though.”

Lois: “What does?”

Perry: “Why he does what he does. Think about it. It’s a never ending battle that he wages…trying to prevent whatever happened to his home, from happening here. When we see him, it’s usually because he’s trying to put right something that we screwed-up…and when we don’t see or hear about him, he’s probably off in some….fortress of solitude…keeping a vigil over us. Shakespeare himself couldn’t have written a more tragic character”

Lois: (looking earnestly at her boss) “ Oh, I know why he does it Chief.”

Perry: “Okay, Lane, I’ll bite..Why?”

Lois: “Because it’s his home too…….and because no one else can.”

Perry: (with Lois ,looking out the Daily Planet conference window…as Superman silhouetted by the orange-yellowed hue of sunset, drifts over Metropolis) A half smile curling the left-side of his face. “”Don’t call me Chief.”

I love this. Where is it from?

[DavidTyler]

Exactly. So why did they feel the need to include so damn much of it?


Simply because that's the kind of film Nolan makes.

Look at anything else he's done.

And some of us really like that style ... me for example.

There is a lot of dialogue in a Nolan film but there is also action. True, he'd rather dialogue exposition and save the action sequences to demonstrate the human conidition like Pacino running across the frozen ground in alaska in pursuit of Robin Williams. We can identify with what that must be like but it doesn't really give us plot points.

Like I said, some of us like that.

If there were only one style of film making, there wouldn't be a reason for different directors to exist. There would just be a big corporate machine that did everything by the numbers.

It's like some people enjoy Ann Rice and some people (me for example) call her writing style 'But I Digress'. While her style makes me crazy, other people it enthralls.

And no, Guard, I don't think it's necessary for you to tell us what you would do differently to give credence to your critique of a film. ... BUT your takes are always interesting and it certainly adds to your postings.

[I Am The Knight]

A lot of people in this forum say that Gordon's epilogue at the end of the film was cheesey. If he was saying it to one of his peers, I might agree somewhat. But he is speaking to his 10 year old son. The boy who doesn't understand why Batman is running, because he knows Batman did nothing wrong. Gordon's epilogue is written the way it is because it is suppose to come across as a father talking to his son, and explaining to him why the Batman has to run.

Jimmy = The Audience :o

[BATZARRO WWD]

Jimmy = The Audience :o

That might have worked better if they hadn's explained it in the previous conversation between Gordon and Batman...

[Reebee52]

I would first like to say that I loved the Dark Knight. It had flaws (mainly editing), sure, but so do most movies. I don't think I've ever seen a perfect film.
The dialogue at the end was a little... Dramatic, I guess. But I really liked it, even though it was explanatory.

As for a Superman movie conveying emotion? This is a given. That's what Superman has GOT on Batman to begin with. So many people arrogantly throw Superman aside in favor of Batman because "he's more complex" or "he's darker." Generally, these people don't get Superman.
Superman is emotion. He is a symbol of Hope. And yet he has complex emotions in himself. Superman For All Seasons exemplified many this perfectly.

This Superman quote trumps any moment in the Dark Knight: "They can be a great people, Kal El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show them the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son."

That line alone portrays so much of what Superman is. No other comic movie has come close to getting a character right in so few words. That statement means so many things.

Though Superman Returns was flawed, it had it's moments: "You say the world doesn't need a savior. But every day I hear them crying for one."

That's just good writing. It's moments like these that make Superman Returns. Yeah, he had a kid. It was a terrible terrible mistake. Yeah they probably should have started over instead of having a reboot four years later. And why was young Clark Kent wearing glasses? But it had scenes throughout that really got Superman right, and those had great emotion.

[SuperDaniel]

That was only one or maybe 2 scenes in the movie that were close to get Superman right. The rest was just a complete mess.

[Lucid]

As for a Superman movie conveying emotion? This is a given. That's what Superman has GOT on Batman to begin with. So many people arrogantly throw Superman aside in favor of Batman because "he's more complex" or "he's darker." Generally, these people don't get Superman.
Superman is emotion. He is a symbol of Hope. And yet he has complex emotions in himself. Superman For All Seasons exemplified many this perfectly.
I agree 100%! You nailed it.

This Superman quote trumps any moment in the Dark Knight: "They can be a great people, Kal El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show them the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son."

That line alone portrays so much of what Superman is. No other comic movie has come close to getting a character right in so few words. That statement means so many things.

Though Superman Returns was flawed, it had it's moments: "You say the world doesn't need a savior. But every day I hear them crying for one." That's just good writing.
Eh, this is where you lost me. Superman contains emotion, but it's a huge mistake to aim for emotion using the Christ analogy. Jor-El didn't send his son to earth to be its "saviour," he sent his son for human reasons, because he didn't want to see the boy die on Krypton--purely instinctual, parental love--not out of some unemotional divine "good."

See, this is where Superman movies have gone wrong. A Superman movie needs to treat its story and characters in purely human terms, not make all its characters Gods. Such misguided characterizations are why people say Superman isn't "relevant" anymore, because he's handled so poorly in movies.

You mentioned Superman For All Seasons. That's the perfect characterization of Superman, a person who questions his place in the world, who doesn't know if his life is worthwhile, who is searching for a sense of purpose, a universal dilemma that all of us go through, and even though he's the most powerful being on Earth who can make the most difference, he goes through it, too! That's what Superman should be like in a movie, fresh, vibrant, relatable.

That would make Superman relevant and it's never been done in a movie before.

[markstrange]

Superman is getting make over, and I am extremely happy about that. Superman (1987) was a superb movie for its time but unfortunately all that followed plummeted to there deaths, this includes of course superman returns. I am not a HUGE superman fan, but I hope they give as much justice to the character as Chris Nolan gave Batman. This reboot is such a great opportunity to do so.

What I’ve always wanted form a superman movie is not the beginning of superman but the end of Kal-El and the planet Krypton. I want to see a man struggle to save his dying planet. I want to see the beginning of Brainiac. I want to see a desperate Kal-El have to give up his son, sending him to earth to protect him ( not to protect the planet earth like some sort of Jesus figure).

My fandom comes from Superman the animated series, so forgive me if I’m a bit ignorant on the comic book superman. When I say braniac I refer to the supercomputer version, I know there are others, but I like this one far better. It seams to fit so nicely.

[El Payaso]

I agree 100%! You nailed it.


Eh, this is where you lost me. Superman contains emotion, but it's a huge mistake to aim for emotion using the Christ analogy. Jor-El didn't send his son to earth to be its "saviour," he sent his son for human reasons, because he didn't want to see the boy die on Krypton--purely instinctual, parental love--not out of some unemotional divine "good."

See, this is where Superman movies have gone wrong. A Superman movie needs to treat its story and characters in purely human terms, not make all its characters Gods. Such misguided characterizations are why people say Superman isn't "relevant" anymore, because he's handled so poorly in movies.

While I get what's your preference I still don't see how those analogies have ever been the ruin of the movies (STM and SII had them and they did pretty good) or are "irrelevant" or "poor" as you claim.

Sure, they don't have to turn Superman into a religious figure or put in him every Jesus refrence, but analogies have been on the characters all the time. Like Huilk and Jekyll & Hyde or Frankenstein. Some references are constantly made but Hulk is Hulk.

[Reebee52]

I agree 100%! You nailed it.


Eh, this is where you lost me. Superman contains emotion, but it's a huge mistake to aim for emotion using the Christ analogy. Jor-El didn't send his son to earth to be its "saviour," he sent his son for human reasons, because he didn't want to see the boy die on Krypton--purely instinctual, parental love--not out of some unemotional divine "good."

See, this is where Superman movies have gone wrong. A Superman movie needs to treat its story and characters in purely human terms, not make all its characters Gods. Such misguided characterizations are why people say Superman isn't "relevant" anymore, because he's handled so poorly in movies.

It's not that Superman is a Christ Analogy, it's that he is a Messianic Figure. This means a lone person who has the power to save many. Neo, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, all Messianic Characters. And Superman is one too. Yes his father saved his son out of instinct, but why send him to Earth? There are many other planets he could go to, but he chooses Earth in many stories because it will more than sustain him, it will give him amazing abilities that he can do good with.
Siegel and Shuster made Superman an amalgamation of Moses, Jesus, and Hercules (intentionally). Recall, they were both Jewish.
One of Superman's greatest struggles is that he wants to be Human, but he is godlike. There are many ties to Jesus, but I don't try to make it a religious thing; it's just the nature of a Messianic Character. Superman was sent here to help Humans become better themselves.

[TruerToTheCore]

Superman is supposed to be a mythological character. Jesus is one of the legendary characters he is modelled after.

[SuperDaniel]

^Yes!

[Lucid]

While I get what's your preference I still don't see how those analogies have ever been the ruin of the movies (STM and SII had them and they did pretty good) or are "irrelevant" or "poor" as you claim.

Sure, they don't have to turn Superman into a religious figure or put in him every Jesus refrence, but analogies have been on the characters all the time. Like Huilk and Jekyll & Hyde or Frankenstein. Some references are constantly made but Hulk is Hulk.

It's not that Superman is a Christ Analogy, it's that he is a Messianic Figure. This means a lone person who has the power to save many. Neo, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, all Messianic Characters. And Superman is one too. Yes his father saved his son out of instinct, but why send him to Earth? There are many other planets he could go to, but he chooses Earth in many stories because it will more than sustain him, it will give him amazing abilities that he can do good with.
Siegel and Shuster made Superman an amalgamation of Moses, Jesus, and Hercules (intentionally). Recall, they were both Jewish.
One of Superman's greatest struggles is that he wants to be Human, but he is godlike. There are many ties to Jesus, but I don't try to make it a religious thing; it's just the nature of a Messianic Character. Superman was sent here to help Humans become better themselves.

Superman is supposed to be a mythological character. Jesus is one of the legendary characters he is modelled after.
I think you guys are reading too much into what I'm saying. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a mythological element to a Superman movie--of course there should be, but not Jesus specifically.

Neo, Harry Potter, and Luke Skywalker are based on what Lord Raglan called the "Hero Pattern" and the story of Jesus fits the Hero Pattern as well, as do other religious figures like Moses, Buddha, and Muhammed, as well as mythological heroes like Hercules. Superman also fits the Hero Pattern, so of course there are similarities between Superman and Jesus, just as there are similarities between Jesus and Harry Potter, Neo, and Luke Skywalker, and just as there are similarities between Superman and Muhammed. Does that mean that Superman is an Islam analogy? Of course not. Superman isn't a Christ metaphor just as he's not a Muhammed metaphor. Superman is a hero that fits the common structure of most heroes, but he is his own hero. A movie shouldn't go out of its way to connect Superman to Jesus specifically because, yes, it "ruins" the movie, or more specifically, diminishes the amount of great story material that could be used that doesn't fit into a Jesus metaphor. Donner used the Jesus metaphor and Singer used it because he did whatever Donner did. I want something new, something better.

The most powerful, emotional, resonating dilemma for Superman to go through is not that of a god desiring to be human. Superman was raised on Earth by Earth parents and so he is human, emotionally speaking. He doesn't desire to "be human," necessarily, he simply desires to belong, to have purpose, which is a completely human desire that all of us feel--we don't need to be gods to feel that. Such a dilemma was explored to perfection in Superman For All Seasons and it's the dilemma that will make movie audiences fall in love with Superman again.

[Anita18]

I think you misunderstood me slightly. I wasn't talking about cinematography or "imagery," as you mentioned. I agree that there are many beautiful single images in The Dark Knight--the film was well photographed. What I was trying to talk about is the visual storytelling language, meaning the overall method that the director chooses to deliver the story to the audience and, more specifically, the actual scene coverage, the combination of shots for each scene and how those shots are ordered and paced, strategically revealing the necessary information to the audience at each passing moment.

Nolan's visual language is non-existent because his method is dialogue, which, generally speaking, is not as engulfing of an experience as visual storytelling. There are many examples of this fact besides Gordon's epilogue.
In TDK, the skipping of some chances to show you something visually was understandable because they want you to see the result of Joker's plans rather than how he implements them. That's why you don't ever see Joker mulling around in his lair about his evil plans. He just appears, causes havoc, and is gone.

I agree that the Joker "ace in the hole" speech was on the spoon-feeding side, as was Batman's "you're the symbol of hope I could never be" speech. I loved the Joker's speech to Harvey Dent in the hospital, because it seems like he's being obvious, but he's really spewing manipulative skeeze the entire time. :woot:

I think Nolan prefers to convey a mood through visuals, not necessarily use it to tell the story. Every shot of TDK was bursting with tension, and that's something you can't really show through dialogue or even plot. Plus, I feel he had to take shortcuts through TDK because there was just so much going on plot-wise.

Like this?

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1294/lexluthormanofsteel05paez3.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lexluthormanofsteel05paez3.jpg)

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8364/lexluthormanofsteel05paqr3.jpg (http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lexluthormanofsteel05paqr3.jpg)

EDIT: Crook already did it, but with a different panel.

Good stuff, regardless.
I don't think that'd necessarily be the ending of a Superman movie, but it's still a pretty awesome exchange. :up:

I still can't believe people like that sequence so much. It's just Gordon stating the obvious in the most pandering and overwrought manner imaginable.
It's actually not. The words themselves are on the dramatic side, but if you pay attention to the visuals, Nolan wraps up several subplots while Batman and Gordon are talking, and they all of them relate to the speech. It was a more economical way of doing it all at once rather than do it the way LOTR: ROTK did it, which was to take an extra 20 minutes wrapping everything up. :oldrazz:

Nolan may not be a very visual storyteller, but I just adore the way he's able to juxtapose timelines, images, and dialogue together to construct a story on screen. It's just really fascinating how he does it.

[SuperDaniel]

I think you guys are reading too much into what I'm saying. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a mythological element to a Superman movie--of course there should be, but not Jesus specifically.

Neo, Harry Potter, and Luke Skywalker are based on what Lord Raglan called the "Hero Pattern" and the story of Jesus fits the Hero Pattern as well, as do other religious figures like Moses, Buddha, and Muhammed, as well as mythological heroes like Hercules. Superman also fits the Hero Pattern, so of course there are similarities between Superman and Jesus, just as there are similarities between Jesus and Harry Potter, Neo, and Luke Skywalker, and just as there are similarities between Superman and Muhammed. Does that mean that Superman is an Islam analogy? Of course not. Superman isn't a Christ metaphor just as he's not a Muhammed metaphor. Superman is a hero that fits the common structure of most heroes, but he is his own hero. A movie shouldn't go out of its way to connect Superman to Jesus specifically because, yes, it "ruins" the movie, or more specifically, diminishes the amount of great story material that could be used that doesn't fit into a Jesus metaphor. Donner used the Jesus metaphor and Singer used it because he did whatever Donner did. I want something new, something better.

The most powerful, emotional, resonating dilemma for Superman to go through is not that of a god desiring to be human. Superman was raised on Earth by Earth parents and so he is human, emotionally speaking. He doesn't desire to "be human," necessarily, he simply desires to belong, to have purpose, which is a completely human desire that all of us feel--we don't need to be gods to feel that. Such a dilemma was explored to perfection in Superman For All Seasons and it's the dilemma that will make movie audiences fall in love with Superman again.
Very well said.

[Anita18]

I think we kind of agree here, but are just coming at this topic from different angles. You used the word "economy." I agree that's the right perspective in which to view TDK, but I would use a harsher word: lazy. "Economy" of storytelling in cinema is really a way of saying shortcuts. Shortcuts are lazy and uncreative because they are easy to think of--it's a lot easier to just write a monologue rather than constructing a progression of events that communicates the same point--and, worse yet, the audience doesn't feel shortcuts--they destroy emotion and audience investment.
Now that I've got a bit more time to read all your (very interesting!) points, I shall respond more accordingly, LOL.

TDK was edited with fairly quick, economical cuts to maintain a feeling of tension throughout the film, as well as to keep it intimate. The character explain a lot to each other, and thus, the audience. Some of it could have been cut, but the film is long enough, really. I think we can give him some slack in terms of using the word "economical" instead of "lazy." :cwink:

And I dunno if you're aware, but a good number of people here were confused over whether or not Joker lied about the locations of Rachel and Harvey, because Batman says nothing when he finds Dent at Rachel's location, and he doesn't tell anyone about it on-screen. :oldrazz: Even Gordon presumably finds out about the deception off-screen.

I agree that Nolan doesn't usually use visuals alone to tell the story, but he is a master of overlapping dialogue with visuals to really give a punch.

Case in point: The Prestige. Angier says, "Cutter knew. But I said it was too simple, too easy" when he discovers that Borden had been using a double in his magic trick all along. In response, Borden says, "Simple, maybe. But not easy." And we see in flashback, the finger-mangled Borden cutting off the identical finger on his twin. Bordon does not explain the flashback, but the audience understands his verbal correction in a different light because of that insert.

And also in the end, when Cutter is repeating the opening lines of the film, the audience understands it differently because of everything that has occurred. He says, "Now you're looking for the secret. But you won’t find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled." And the audience sees nearly a hundred of the Angier copies drowned in glass containers, which the voice-over renders even more shocking than it already is.

Curiously enough, there is another medium where the juxtaposition of dialogue and image can really affect how the viewer interprets the story. Comics. :yay: I felt that the scene in TDK where Gordon is organizing the bank seizures with Lau doing a voice-over, reminded me of comics more than any other comic book movie out there. Could they have separated the two? Yes, but it smartly binds the two related mini-stories together (cause Lau would have to explain the situation to the mob sometime anyway) in a very tension-laden scene.

The most powerful, emotional, resonating dilemma for Superman to go through is not that of a god desiring to be human. Superman was raised on Earth by Earth parents and so he is human, emotionally speaking. He doesn't desire to "be human," necessarily, he simply desires to belong, to have purpose, which is a completely human desire that all of us feel--we don't need to be gods to feel that. Such a dilemma was explored to perfection in Superman For All Seasons and it's the dilemma that will make movie audiences fall in love with Superman again.
:up: Very good point.


I don't think that a Superman movie needs a moment of heroic acknowledgment the way TDK did. In TDK, I felt it it had to end that way because we have to know that Gordon understands why Batman does what he does. He is the only witness to Batman's true heroism, and throughout the film, Gothamites have been on the fence as to whether or not Batman is actually doing good.

And I did feel that SR had a moment of emotion that was about on par with what we're discussing. When you see all of the well-wishers outside the hospital, it nearly brought a tear to my eye. Nearly, because we weren't shown enough contrast in the rest of the film to make that scene powerful. To really make that scene, Singer should have shown that Superman's return was actually unwelcome in the public. And THEN by having those well-wishers, the audience would be realize that Superman was accepted after all.

[SuperDaniel]

IMO, in SR, that scene had good potential but didn't work at all. It was just so brief and the story was more foccused in Lois and Jason than Superman as a hero.

[Reebee52]

I think you guys are reading too much into what I'm saying. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a mythological element to a Superman movie--of course there should be, but not Jesus specifically.

Neo, Harry Potter, and Luke Skywalker are based on what Lord Raglan called the "Hero Pattern" and the story of Jesus fits the Hero Pattern as well, as do other religious figures like Moses, Buddha, and Muhammed, as well as mythological heroes like Hercules. Superman also fits the Hero Pattern, so of course there are similarities between Superman and Jesus, just as there are similarities between Jesus and Harry Potter, Neo, and Luke Skywalker, and just as there are similarities between Superman and Muhammed. Does that mean that Superman is an Islam analogy? Of course not. Superman isn't a Christ metaphor just as he's not a Muhammed metaphor. Superman is a hero that fits the common structure of most heroes, but he is his own hero. A movie shouldn't go out of its way to connect Superman to Jesus specifically because, yes, it "ruins" the movie, or more specifically, diminishes the amount of great story material that could be used that doesn't fit into a Jesus metaphor. Donner used the Jesus metaphor and Singer used it because he did whatever Donner did. I want something new, something better.

The most powerful, emotional, resonating dilemma for Superman to go through is not that of a god desiring to be human. Superman was raised on Earth by Earth parents and so he is human, emotionally speaking. He doesn't desire to "be human," necessarily, he simply desires to belong, to have purpose, which is a completely human desire that all of us feel--we don't need to be gods to feel that. Such a dilemma was explored to perfection in Superman For All Seasons and it's the dilemma that will make movie audiences fall in love with Superman again.

Point I, about the hero, we are in complete agreement. That was my whole point. That he isn't 'Jesus' he's a 'messianic character.' People can identify that as Jesus if they so choose, he is by far the most famous messianic character, but it really fits in a lot of different mediums. It's the idea that one person was raised for a purpose grander than the person himself, and that they do it even though they don't always want to. I find it perfectly acceptable to have bits of a Christ allegory, not because I'm particularly religious, just because it makes a good story. Try not to think about it like it's supposed to hit you as religious, just think of it in terms of Superman. A father sends his son from a dying planet so that he may save another. That's a good story! Many of these types of heroes have backgrounds in prophecy, a sense of destiny that is inescapable. Superman's and Jesus's happen to be through their father (maybe Hercules too?). Harry Potter and Neo's come from oracles. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Don't think of it as a Christ figure, just as a Messianic one.

As to your second point: Yes Superman is emotionally Human, but he understands he really isn't. No matter what he does, he won't be Human. Superman does what he does not because he has to, and not because he wants to, but because he feels it's his responsibility. While he could technically hang up his cape at any moment, he really can't, even though he may want to. He would love to get away and work on a farm (a la Kingdom Come), but he can't. Much like Jesus (just an example! not trying to make a point) asked his father to let him not be crucified, he knew that it was necessary for the good of everyone else. His personal responsibility to the rest of mankind outweighed his personal desire.
That's what Superman feels. He has Human emotions but a Superhuman destiny. How can he cope with that?

[The Guard]

It's actually not. The words themselves are on the dramatic side, but if you pay attention to the visuals, Nolan wraps up several subplots while Batman and Gordon are talking, and they all of them relate to the speech. It was a more economical way of doing it all at once rather than do it the way LOTR: ROTK did it, which was to take an extra 20 minutes wrapping everything up.

It being economical doesn't make it brilliant. Almost anyone worth their salt can slap dialogue that has some semblance of meaning over a visual. The reason you don't see more of it is that A, it's somewhat cheap a form of storytelling, and B, it's exposition, exposition, exposition.

Nolan may not be a very visual storyteller, but I just adore the way he's able to juxtapose timelines, images, and dialogue together to construct a story on screen. It's just really fascinating how he does it.

I know it's there. The relevance is there, because the relevance is obvious. It's economical, but it's just not that clever to me. If anything, it strikes me as comparatively lazy. As a director, he seems of late to be more interested in his little "flairs" than in actually resolving or exploring a concept. And that's fine, and it tends to work well enough, but it's like he thinks if he gives this random "pearl of wisdom" in dialogue, that you'll see how deep it is, when it's really a simple concept, or just stating the obvious. The whole "Dark Knight speech" is a prime example of this. An obvious visual meaning does not need to be accompanied by a similarly obvious, over expository speech, that at best, sounds like it belongs in a piece of musical theatre. My main issue is with the speech itself, not with the use of visuals or the timeline.

[DavidTyler]

It being economical doesn't make it brilliant. Almost anyone worth their salt can slap dialogue that has some semblance of meaning over a visual. The reason you don't see more of it is that A, it's somewhat cheap a form of storytelling, and B, it's exposition, exposition, exposition.



I know it's there. The relevance is there, because the relevance is obvious. It's economical, but it's just not that clever to me. If anything, it strikes me as comparatively lazy. As a director, he seems of late to be more interested in his little "flairs" than in actually resolving or exploring a concept. And that's fine, and it tends to work well enough, but it's like he thinks if he gives this random "pearl of wisdom" in dialogue, that you'll see how deep it is, when it's really a simple concept, or just stating the obvious. The whole "Dark Knight speech" is a prime example of this. An obvious visual meaning does not need to be accompanied by a similarly obvious, over expository speech, that at best, sounds like it belongs in a piece of musical theatre. My main issue is with the speech itself, not with the use of visuals or the timeline.

And here is why we don't have just one flavour of Ice Cream.

While this style of film-making leaves you a bit cold, to me it's more like reading a good book with illustrations.

Nothing wrong with you not liking that style and nothing wrong with me liking it. Just different tastes.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Exactly. So why did they feel the need to include so damn much of it?
Because it fit. Alot of great works in the post 90's cinema include dialogue heavy scripts. People enjoy it. By what means is it a negative? Maybe the most engaging scene in the film is dialogue heavy in the interrogation room. You act like it's a bad thing. If dialogue was a bad thing we wouldn't have movies like Pulp Fiction, etc.

[Anita18]

And here is why we don't have just one flavour of Ice Cream.

While this style of film-making leaves you a bit cold, to me it's more like reading a good book with illustrations.

Nothing wrong with you not liking that style and nothing wrong with me liking it. Just different tastes.
Yup. Just a different kind of filmmaking. Before sound, we had silent films and so stories had to be told entirely through images. But now we have sound, so why not use it? :yay:

It's just a different way of telling a story, but as long as a story is conveyed via moving images and/or sound (depending on the technology :yay: ) in real-time, it's all film.

[The Guard]

It's not that there's dialogue, or that there's a lot of it...it's that the dialogue that IS there, is awkward, forced, etc, etc, etc. It doesn't flow, even though the movie does around it. And I find that, as a piece of writing, very awkward, and inappropriate for the moment.

[the GRIN Reaper]

It's not that there's dialogue, or that there's a lot of it...it's that the dialogue that IS there, is awkward, forced, etc, etc, etc. It doesn't flow, even though the movie does around it. And I find that, as a piece of writing, very awkward, and inappropriate for the moment.
I've head no one else complain about any "awkwardness" ... that scene's dialogue isn't forced at all. It fit thematically, and it was really elegant and fitting. The dialogue was what accentuated the powerful images in the scene. Together they played together to make a great UNIQUE Batman ending. Not just plain Batman standing on a rooftop of Gotham with heroic music in background plainly stating the obvious that Batman's a hero. We get an educated monologue driving home to the audience Batman is more than a hero. He's a symbol. For better or for worse. No matter the current popular opinion, he'll always be there. And the delivery from Oldman was out of this world. The dialogue could've very easily felt into an awkward feeling without Oldman's excellent delivery, accompanied along with the strong visual images.

[Motown Marvel]

I've head no one else complain about any "awkwardness" ...

then allow me to second the guard's opinion.

[the GRIN Reaper]

then allow me to second the guard's opinion.
2 people. 2 people who I might add think they're good professional screenwriters who can do it better than the pros.

:whatever:

[solidsnake86]

I really liked that final speech in TDK because I feel it seperates batman from the other heroes and really confirmed what he set out to do in the first one, become more than a vigilante, or a legend as AL Ghul said. Thats just my opinion of course. I also think your right GRIn Reaper. I know a lot of people who are usually in writing that rip apart literature or essays because they feel they can do better, and I think thats what you have with them, they "write" scripts or whatever it is they do and feel that they can do it better.

[Motown Marvel]

2 people. 2 people who I might add think they're good professional screenwriters who can do it better than the pros.

:whatever:

so our opinion is wrong?

[TheBatman1979]

Wow, you'd think the way people are moaning about the scene Guido had shot first, again.:whatever:

[Motown Marvel]

its greedo, man. not guido.

[bunk]

then allow me to second the guard's opinion.

Thirded. It also seemed out of character for Gordon.

[TheBatman1979]

its greedo, man. not guido.

Sorry, my star wars geek card has just been revoked.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Hell just froze over because I am almost totally on The Guard's side when it comes to this issue. When you are right your right, it doesn't matter who it's coming from.

[the GRIN Reaper]

so our opinion is wrong?
No not for your opinion. But the fact you always pick away at **** and act as if you could do it better. Guard as well. When you're sitting at home on a message board typing away like the rest of us, as opposed to writing a script for the most successful and best Batman / Comic Book movies to date. So yeah ... that's my point.

[Anita18]

Thirded. It also seemed out of character for Gordon.
Not really. There were several points in the film where he shows great, almost blind, admiration of Batman. He starts to doubt him during the last hostage situation, but Gordon definitely admires Batman more often than not.

- "I like to remind them that he's out there."
- All the instances where he lets Batman survey a crime scene before the MCU, even when Ramirez gets upset.
- "He's in control."
- "Well, maybe Batman will save you."
- "Thank you." "You don't have to thank me." "Yes, I do."
- "No, you can't. You're NOT."

[the GRIN Reaper]

It wasn't out of character from Gordon at all.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't know about it out of character but I just didn't dig it. At the end of the day it was a great movie and I had bigger problems with the film than that one little overly obvious speech at the end.

[the GRIN Reaper]

What was overly obvious about that speech? What's wrong with a speech? It was meant to be inspirational. Ideal. The images alone without the dialogue would've been as powerful, and would've drove hom the point of calling him "The Dark Knight"?

Probably not.

[The Guard]

We're in trouble when "Hero lied to his city about the truth and got himself in even more trouble for no apparent good reason than "drama" is considered "inspirational".

I could give two ****s about whether anyone's complained about "awkwardness". I know that people have, because I've seen the threads where it was discussed. The scene's dialogue is forced, simply because it's not natural in the least. People do not talk like that. Gordon doesn't talk like that at any point in either previous movie. Hence...forced. It is also an element that is forced into the story. Completely shoehorned. There is no natural reason for Gordon to stop speaking like a human being, and to begin speaking like someone who is reading his lines from a prompter, written by a writer who doesn't have the first clue what "subtlety" is. At that moment, the character may as well wink at the audience and say "I totally know I'm in a movie".

What was overly obvious about the speech? Well, the main thing that makes me think this, I suppose...is that it clearly STATES THE OBVIOUS, because apparently Chris Nolan STILL thinks his audiences are just stupid, stupid, stupid and have to be TOLD what is going on at every step of the way.

"He's a watchful guardian. A silent protector. A dark knight".

No ****, Jim, thanks for telling us, as we've been seeing him do that for two films now. It becomes "showy" dialogue for the sake of it. Do we really need to see Gordon rattle of three completely random "metaphors" for what Batman is simply because it's the end of the movie?

Elegance is the attribute of being unusually effective and simple

The dialogue is not "elegant", because it's not simple, and it clearly isn't unusually effective, because apparently Gordon has to drive the point home with a long ass speech that essentially repeats it's concept. The delivery from Oldman, yes, that was ok, but decent at best. It's no great piece of acting, though.

But what's the point of arguing with people who have made up their minds that since THE DARK KNIGHT was a good movie that EVERY SINGLE PART of it must be nearly perfect? I'm not going to play that game, and I'm not going to sit here and argue about whether the dialogue was elegant, or thematically relevant anymore. Thematically relevant to what, exactly? An angle they forced on the character because they weren't respectful enough to figure out how they could play with the idea of a hero who was hunted and still have Batman be faithfully rendered and IN character?

Yeah. Ok.

So, Batman can take people not liking him because he was a dumbass and lied to cover up a murderer's actions so that the people of Gotham, instead of having real hope, could have some false hope for the sake of pointless melodrama? That's supposed to impress me? Sorry. It doesn't. Nor does a writer who thinks that all he has to do for a powerful scene is write a long line of obvious, over expository dialogue that simply says what things are instead of making any real, deeper exploration of a concept, and then juxtapose that with some images that make vague sense in context.

That said, it's not that bad. It's those who think it's sheer brilliance that makes it such a bummer.

[WormyT]

Superman, "I'm always around"

END

[bunk]

Not really. There were several points in the film where he shows great, almost blind, admiration of Batman. He starts to doubt him during the last hostage situation, but Gordon definitely admires Batman more often than not.

- "I like to remind them that he's out there."
- All the instances where he lets Batman survey a crime scene before the MCU, even when Ramirez gets upset.
- "He's in control."
- "Well, maybe Batman will save you."
- "Thank you." "You don't have to thank me." "Yes, I do."
- "No, you can't. You're NOT."

Not his feelings or view of Batman. The way he makes a speech about it.

[SuperDaniel]

Who gives a crap if it was forced or not? I loved it so I don't give a **** if people moan about it or not...

[Pickle-El]

Who gives a crap if it was forced or not? I loved it so I don't give a **** if people moan about it or not...

Welcome to the world of people who liked SR....:o

[the GRIN Reaper]

LOL @ Guard. Wow. What's the point in even discussing. From the sounds of it, TDK was one terrible Batman movie.

[The Sage]

Who gives a crap if it was forced or not? I loved it so I don't give a **** if people moan about it or not...

Most poignant post about this topic yet.

[SuperDaniel]

Welcome to the world of people who liked SR....:o

In the end, isn't it all like that? Plus i see no reason to discuss Batman here in a Superman forum and spend pages and pages and pages on it.

Ps: If you didn't like Dark Knight, you are part of a veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy small minority. If you didn't like Sr, you have brains!

LOL

*Just kidding

[solidsnake86]

I really don't think that scene would have been the same without it. I would even go so far as to say that it left some hope at the end of a somber movie.

[SuperDaniel]

^For sure. I thought the scene was great. Forced and cheesy? Yeah. But it worked!!

[BATZARRO WWD]

In the end, isn't it all like that? Plus i see no reason to discuss Batman here in a Superman forum and spend pages and pages and pages on it.



Well, this IS a direct comparison thread. It can't go any other way! But I am surprised there's so many pages to what amounts to "can a Superman movie ever be as good as a single scene from TDK?" Come on, we don't even know who's directing acting and casting, and some of us are already wondering if it can be as good as a single speech? How about this: Let's not measure the next Superman movie on "Dark Knight" standards(whatever that means to you). Let's measure it on it's own, by it's on quality as a movie. When it's done. Not before.

[I Am The Knight]

I had more problems with the implications of the ending scene than with Gordon's speech, which was obvious and redundant, by the way, because Nolan feels like he needs to explain to the audience what we have just seen...And can digest and make up our own conclusions on the matter later...But I did like it. It's certainly not elegant, as one poster said, but somehow it worked for me.

[Anita18]

I could see how this whole "visual language" stuff could be confusing if you're not accustomed to thinking about cinema in these terms. If you want further explanation, you can check out my post on Jim Emerson's blog regarding M. Night Shyamalan. My post begins: "Ah, I didn't know that you actually read these posts." Here's the link: http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/06/whats_happening_in_the_happeni.html
Lucid seems to have gone AWOL, (which is a shame since I liked his/her posts) but I finally saw The Sixth Sense in its entirety on TV last night, and for being the best film for someone he touted as a "visual" director, there is a TON of dialogue exposition in that film. Most of it is exposition, actually. Moody exposition shots with long takes.

And it works for that movie, because it's a story about a disturbed little boy that nobody knows much about. The same treatment doesn't work for many other premises, which is what we discovered about Shyamalan as of late, unfortunately. :oldrazz: True, Shyamalan also conveys a lot of little, unconscious things visually, but so does any other director worth his salt, including Nolan. Shyalaman's directing style is best suited to extremely intimate situations filled with uneasy dread. Nolan's directing style is best suited to more immediate, kinetic, and tense situations.

Anyways, the moment of emotional punch in a Superman movie doesn't have to be on par with what we were given in TDK. It has to be on par with itself, so I hope we get a director who knows what the film is going to be and how to shoot it accordingly.

[drunkhomer]

oh man, the ending for the dark knight was just EPIC, it was sooo touching....

best movie ending ever!

soo nooo i dont think any superman scene ca be as goood

[El Payaso]

no it caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan't

[Anubis]

I'd end the movie like this.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/AnubisGOD/DC%20II/lexmanofsteel.jpg

[hatebox]

We'll never know of course, but it'd be interesting to see if all the people who disliked Gordon's speech in TDK would tolerate exactly the same dialogue in a comic book.

I personally felt like it was a speech that could have come straight out of a graphic novel. It's all inherently corny at heart, doesn't mean it can't be effective. And affecting.

[Crook]

How many of those scenes are there? I swear I just read like 3 different dialog exchanges with Lex in the same exact room talking to Supes on the other side of the glass. :dry:

[Anubis]

The ones in this thread? They're from the same story. Lex Luthor: Man of Steel.

Theres another one, from All-Star Superman. That one is awesome. I'll scan it when I get home.

[The Sage]

The ones in this thread? They're from the same story. Lex Luthor: Man of Steel.

Theres another one, from All-Star Superman. That one is awesome. I'll scan it when I get home.

Ah, the one when Lex blames Superman for preventing from saving the world?

[Anubis]

That's okay, but I prefer the one where he's in prison and Supes is dying and asks him why he didn't spend all of his time and genius trying to solve the worlds problems instead of trying to kill him. How they could have been friends. And then Lex just spits at him. Or is that the same scene?

[Anubis]

This one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/AnubisGOD/DC%20II/scan0001-1.jpg

[El Payaso]

^ :joker:

[SuperDaniel]

^That an awesome moment.

[The Sage]

Not trying to outdo Anubis, but I think this was a good moment as well.


http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6537/allstarsuperman01327821ni8.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=allstarsuperman01327821ni8.jpg)

[Anubis]

Yeah. ASS is just full of awesome s**t. (yes, i'm aware of how that sounds)

[The Sage]

^:lmao::lmao:

[maveholic31]

#2 on the unadjusted all time box office list

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

But fan boys will refuse to admit this

..so why dont you write to your congressman asking them to adjust EVERYTHING to Gone with the Wind days.