How long before the fan community turns on the Nolan films?

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by GothamInAshes

well to me, realistically, its gonna be the week of release when people actually see it. but seeing the polls i can understand that the announcements are when people will be unhappy as am i. especially when i heard they were making a new star wars trilogy....

point being, i think i'd change my vote towards the announcing of a reboot or JL. you cant beat the Chris Nolan Batman. nuff said.

Eh, people said the same thing about the Joker. "You can never beat Jack" and such. And then Heath came along.

Now, I do think this trilogy has left big shoes to fill, because it made three very quality films, but you never know. And as to the Star Wars thing...well, with Lucas only being involved in an advisory capacity, who knows? It might actually be good. It's not like it can get much worse then Eps 1 or 2.

[GothamInAshes]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

Eh, people said the same thing about the Joker. "You can never beat Jack" and such. And then Heath came along.

Now, I do think this trilogy has left big shoes to fill, because it made three very quality films, but you never know. And as to the Star Wars thing...well, with Lucas only being involved in an advisory capacity, who knows? It might actually be good. It's not like it can get much worse then Eps 1 or 2.

haha yeah i suppose. episode 1 was the worst. but i dunno, i still think that unless whoever makes the next Batman films keeps true to Nolan's, i think that youre right as far as having big shoes to fill. might be difficult to do, y'know?

[TheDevilIsMe]

I'm seeing more and more people slagging off 'TDKR' constantly in forums, article comments and such. But occasionally they'll bring in the whole trilogy as 'sucking', as well.

And what's unfortunate is that these are top rated comments that are slagging off 'TDKR' and the films.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/ar...s-interstellar

This article's comments for example. Quite a bit of slagging there.

The internet community sure turns on things fast.

[Majik1387]

I wouldn't say the trilogy sucked at all, but I don't find it to be the holy grail or the best adaptation of Batman at all.

Not everyone did, and the Nolanites refuse to accept it to the point that if someone disagreed with them, they're labeled as haters or turning on Nolan. It's ridiculous.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

I wouldn't say the trilogy sucked at all, but I don't find it to be the holy grail or the best adaptation of Batman at all.

Not everyone did, and the Nolanites refuse to accept it to the point that if someone disagreed with them, they're labeled as haters or turning on Nolan. It's ridiculous.

Yeah, it gets really annoying. There are things I like and dislike about it, but god forbid I talk about the negative aspects about the movies.

My biggest problem is that Bruce was only Batman for less than 2 years (maybe even less).

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Yeah, it gets really annoying. There are things I like and dislike about it, but god forbid I talk about the negative aspects about the movies.

My biggest problem is that Bruce was only Batman for less than 2 years (maybe even less).

That's such an insignificant gripe that i've heard. We don't know for certain how long he was batman for? but regardless if he was batman for 2 years or 20 we only see him as batman when he's on screen.

It doesn't matter what he might have done or not done as batman off screen because we as viewer do not see this. I know for some fanboys they like to imagine him fighting the penguin or riddler or what have you, but for the actual films themselves that makes little difference.

[theman]

well i personally was never nuts about the nolan films to begin with as im sure people here may know. i dont hate them, they are ok, but just ok. i prefer the original anthology (excluding B&R for the most part). i feel these films work better in a surreal comic book setting. the heavy handed realism just didnt cut it for me. interesting idea....but in the long run, aside from a few performances i think they are pretty unmemorable. people still look highly on 1989 Batman and i personally dont think nolans films will hold up well over time. they will probably go the way that the original superman films have gone, they were shot in the same world as the present day but because of that they look extremly dated now. burton was wise in that his films have a kind of 40's noir timeless setting that you cant quite place a time on it, and because of that it has aged better, especially Returns thanks to no Prince music.

[Majik1387]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Yeah, it gets really annoying. There are things I like and dislike about it, but god forbid I talk about the negative aspects about the movies.

My biggest problem is that Bruce was only Batman for less than 2 years (maybe even less).

That's definitely a problem I had, but it's just whatever at this point for me; Reboot will be coming soon enough anyway.

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

That's such an insignificant gripe that i've heard.

Example one of a dissatisfaction with the movies being called insignificant.
How dare we want Batman in our Batman movies.

We don't know for certain how long he was batman for?

Nah, we do actually.

but regardless if he was batman for 2 years or 20 we only see him as batman when he's on screen.

Kind of bull**** on this. Granted yes, we only see him as Batman when he's onscreen, but what happens off-screen is just as important to the character and his mythos as well, this is a section where Nolan failed.

It doesn't matter what he might have done or not done as batman off screen because we as viewer do not see this. I know for some fanboys they like to imagine him fighting the penguin or riddler or what have you, but for the actual films themselves that makes little difference.

Except for that fact that it does make a difference. If a Batman movie barely has Batman onscreen, it's a problem.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

That's such an insignificant gripe that i've heard. We don't know for certain how long he was batman for? but regardless if he was batman for 2 years or 20 we only see him as batman when he's on screen.

Its not an insignificant gripe, it is a legitimate complaint. The Dark Knight was set about 2 years after Batman Begins, so you figure it out. He wasn't Batman for that long. Then, he quits for 8 years, puts on the costume again, then retires (or dies, that is still a possibility).

It doesn't matter what he might have done or not done as batman off screen because we as viewer do not see this. I know for some fanboys they like to imagine him fighting the penguin or riddler or what have you, but for the actual films themselves that makes little difference.

I completely disagree with this.

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

That's definitely a problem I had, but it's just whatever at this point for me; Reboot will be coming soon enough anyway.

Example one of a dissatisfaction with the movies being called insignificant.
How dare we want Batman in our Batman movies.

Nah, we do actually.

Kind of bull**** on this. Granted yes, we only see him as Batman when he's onscreen, but what happens off-screen is just as important to the character and his mythos as well, this is a section where Nolan failed.

Except for that fact that it does make a difference. If a Batman movie barely has Batman onscreen, it's a problem.

You seem to be confusing 2 different things. The amount of time batman has spent being batman has little to do with how much of him you see on screen. You think that if he was said to have been batman for 10+ years that automatically equal more screen time?

Also i'm thinking in terms of enjoyment of the films themselves. If you want to bring up mythos that's one thing but this was Nolan's take on batman and what he put on screen i think was great.

Again the idea that if nolan threw in a line about him being batman for 10 years that would somehow improve the movies? seems very petty to me.

[Majik1387]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

You seem to be confusing 2 different things. The amount of time batman has spent being batman has little to do with how much of him you see on screen. You think that if he was said to have been batman for 10+ years that automatically equal more screen time?

I'm not confusing two things at all, in fact I respond to two different things in two different parts of my post in response to the two different things. I didn't mash them together.

Also i'm thinking in terms or enjoyment of the films themselves. If you want to bring up mythos that's one thing but this was Nolan's take on batman and what he put on screen i think was great.

TDK wasn't enjoying in any sense other than the bank robbery and the Joker chase. Other than that, it was overrated boring scenes of pure exposition and less than subtle 'symbolic' dialogue. That's partially why I prefer TDKR to TDK, it managed to be more enjoyable while taking more inspiration from the Batman mythos that has made him so popular.

Again the idea that if nolan threw in a line about him being batman for 10 years that would somehow improve the movies, seems very petty to me.

I didn't say anything about one line being thrown in saying Batman being there for 10 years, those are your words, let's make that clear. However, references to Batman cleaning up streets, helping Gotham PD, etc. You know, some build up or a nod of presence of Batman in Gotham would most likely have pleased everyone.

I think it's you who is confusing two things into one.

[Picard Sisko]

Speaking of symbolism, I don't understand why so much of the dialogue has to be poetic. It gets irritating after a while. As nostalgia critic said in his review, the Nolan Batman movies overanalyze everything.

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

I'm not confusing two things at all, in fact I respond to two different things in two different parts of my post in response to the two different things. I didn't mash them together.
TDK wasn't enjoying in any sense other than the bank robbery and the Joker chase. Other than that, it was overrated boring scenes of pure exposition and less than subtle 'symbolic' dialogue. That's partially why I prefer TDKR to TDK, it managed to be more enjoyable while taking more inspiration from the Batman mythos that has made him so popular.
I didn't say anything about one line being thrown in saying Batman being there for 10 years, those are your words, let's make that clear. However, references to Batman cleaning up streets, helping Gotham PD, etc. You know, some build up or a nod of presence of Batman in Gotham would most likely have pleased everyone.

I think it's you who is confusing two things into one.

I was saying i didn't see how your argument about batman not having much screen time had anything to do with how long he was batman in the movie mythos?

If you didn't like TDK that's on you not everybody likes everything but you can'y deny that it was a very well received movie. I don't like every well received movie out there but i don't let my personal opinion cloud myself into saying it therefore must have been a bad movie just because i didn't like it.

Whether it's a line or a reference or a nod I still stand that on the actual film itself the idea of how long batman has been batman is far from super relevant. Especially if that is your one main gripe with the film.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

If you didn't like TDK that's on you not everybody likes everything but you can'y deny that it was a very well received movie. I don't like every well received movie out there but i don't let my personal opinion cloud myself into saying it therefore must have been a bad movie just because i didn't like it.

Just because a movie is well received doesn't mean its a great film necessarily. It just means a lot of people enjoyed it. You have to think for yourself, and form your own opinion.

So if you really dislike a movie, but it has a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, are you going to force yourself into saying its good?

[TheDevilIsMe]

I'm no 'Nolanite' or what have you. I think this is the best live action set of films of Batman, though.

That does not mean I don't have my issues with them or gripes - or believe they could be better because they could've. So can anything, for that matter.

What some get annoyed with is that something so popular becomes popular to be maligned. It becomes trendy.

Especially with those that used to love it but then simply do a 180 to fit in - saying they thought that all along.

Internet commentators' consensus shifts with the wind, it seems. They're so fickle and they're very fickle with films (TDKR, Avatar, IndyIV, Iron Man II, you name it). Granted they're such a small fraction of people, but still. I'd rather not read their drivel.

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Just because a movie is well received doesn't mean its a great film necessarily. It just means a lot of people enjoyed it. You have to think for yourself, and form your own opinion.

So if you really dislike a movie, but it has a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, are you going to force yourself into saying its good?

No, but i'm not going to generally say it was bad or un-enjoyable either. I would pre-face both by saying "for me".

The thing about the anti-nolan people or at least anti-TDK trilogy people is the amount of attempts they try to make to convince the majority of people who enjoyed the movies that they were actually bad or not well done. Yes i can see the opposite as well going on but when you're in the minority opinion for things that is typical of what happens.

[Picard Sisko]

I take the general consensus or opinion of a movie with a grain of salt. I see a movie, and create my own thoughts and feelings about it. That's what matters in the end, for everyone.

[TheDevilIsMe]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

No, but i'm not going to generally say it was bad or un-enjoyable either. I would pre-face both by saying "for me".

This. This is the exact attitude people lack on the net discussions and in general.

Too many times I see a well received film get comments like 'Yeah...that movie sucked so bad! They should listen to us fans 'cause it sucked and everyone knows it!' when in actuality the film got really good reviews from critics and fans currently holding a RottenTomatoes score ranging from 78% to 99%.

Some people act as if their opinion is the be-all-end-all majority opinion and not just theirs.

Some films I don't like are quite beloved to many and were well received - I'll be humble and say it's just my opinion and that it's not a bad film, it's just not my type of film that I could enjoy.

There's nothing wrong with what BruceMalone is saying.

What we're going to see here is that 'TDKR' will soon be on lists of 'Movies that aren't as bad as everyone says' and such. It will gain the reputation of being a mixed-reviewed/polarizing/disappointing film. Mark my words.

It's already on course for it. The vocal minority have taken over the tearing the film to shreds routine which makes the film look 'hated'.

Of course, the only place it'll have that reputation is on the internet. The movie-going public and the masses will love it all the same and not know of that reputation. Which means it doesn't really matter. But still, it doesn't deserve that.

[Majik1387]

Sorry I don't feel the need to state "for me" "imo" etc when the post I make should state it enough. Unlike Nolan's scripting issues, I don't need to detail every intricate thing about me stating an opinion. Personally I find it annoying when people post "imo" or "imho" in their posts, but you don't see me b****ing about it until this post you're reading.

If other posters can't tell the difference between someone stating their opinion and someone stating a fact, that's on their reading comprehension skills.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by theman

well i personally was never nuts about the nolan films to begin with as im sure people here may know. i dont hate them, they are ok, but just ok. i prefer the original anthology (excluding B&R for the most part). i feel these films work better in a surreal comic book setting. the heavy handed realism just didnt cut it for me. interesting idea....but in the long run, aside from a few performances i think they are pretty unmemorable. people still look highly on 1989 Batman and i personally dont think nolans films will hold up well over time. they will probably go the way that the original superman films have gone, they were shot in the same world as the present day but because of that they look extremly dated now. burton was wise in that his films have a kind of 40's noir timeless setting that you cant quite place a time on it, and because of that it has aged better, especially Returns thanks to no Prince music.

So Batman 89s 40's feel is timeless (and 80s Prince)...but ur saying TDK Trilogy will be dated because it was set in our world? I dont buy that at all.

If anything Burtons artificial looking Gotham is dated. And Returns looks like an early 90s Burton movie not even a Batman movie. The 40s hats and coats, "acting" by the cops,etc AND soundtrack that you talk about? That's all pretty dated nowadays. Nolans never went into detail with what year it was, they just showed Iceland (as a fill-in for China), India and various American cities. These cities have looked this way for a while and will continue to look like this for decades. It's not like the architecture will change drastically or the mountains and desert will leave or suddenly flying cars will enter these cities. Not in my lifetime.

We also didn't hear any music from the "bands of the era". Like Burton, Shumacher, Marc Webb liked to use. Their films will never be as timeless for that very reason.

I like some fantasy and comic book elements in Batman. A gothic Gotham here....a Mr. Freeze there....but i think Batman BELONGS in a more real world. He doesn't have superpowers, his greatest psychological villains are barely far-fetched. It wasn't til the 50s where we really started seeing fantastical elements being used in a big way. And for the next 20 years it wasn't even used well. Here we are 75 years into it and i still dont feel we have classic comics with these fantastical characters. The ODD Mr. Freeze or Clayface depiction and it's usually in other forms of animation. It's very rare, and i dont personally believe that it represents Batman to the fullest.

The level of acting, filmmaking, the exclusive soundtrack , how it was more relatable for human beings than any of the other past Batman movies. All of this will make the trilogy more timeless. For all the liberties Nolan took with changing the characters, they still reference more individual comic stories than anything thus far.

(PS: NO im not saying future movies can't do it better than Nolan. It probably will happen. At least in terms of accuracy to the source material. Im just comparing it to the past)

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

Sorry I don't feel the need to state "for me" "imo" etc when the post I make should state it enough. Unlike Nolan's scripting issues, I don't need to detail every intricate thing about me stating an opinion. Personally I find it annoying when people post "imo" or "imho" in their posts, but you don't see me b****ing about it until this post you're reading.

If other posters can't tell the difference between someone stating their opinion and someone stating a fact, that's on their reading comprehension skills.

The fact is though 80-90% of the time someone on a forum like this, when someone makes a claim about X movie sucking or being bad they are actually trying to say the movie in general was bad and it was not just their opinion.

So sometimes it does help to clarify whether or not you simply didn't enjoy a movie yourself or you actually believe it was a poorly made movie.

I can argue for example that i didn't enjoy the godfather but i'm not going to go and say it wasn't a good movie or it was poorly made.

[Squaremaster316]

Nolan's films have a timeless quality to them that will carry over to the next century and beyond.

Burton's overblown set designs are horribly dated just over two decades later and are being regarded by more and more people everyday as poorly written emo wet dreams with bland characters and cheesy stroylines. Even Elfman's music doesn't hold up and sounds more campy with each passing year.

Batman 89 and especially Returns have been thoroughly beaten down by good taste and pop culture, and, to be fair, so has the rest of his overrated filmography.

[Agent Orange]

This "Nolanite" nonsense is beyond irritating.

[TheDevilIsMe]

Originally Posted by shauner111

AND soundtrack that you talk about?

That score for 'Batman Returns' is brilliant, in my opinion. Simply amazing music to it.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Speaking of symbolism, I don't understand why so much of the dialogue has to be poetic. It gets irritating after a while. As nostalgia critic said in his review, the Nolan Batman movies overanalyze everything.

I wouldn't say BB and TDK were overanalyzed. I don't think Batman Begins had too much of a poetic dialogue. I thought it was fairly balanced and did a good job of mixing poetic dialogue with normal dialogue. In fact, I would say BB could've dropped most of the corny one-liners completely. TDK, on the other hand, did have a lot of poetic and complex dialogue but I personally think that it worked 100%. There was a lot going on in the movie and I don't see any room for dialogue that could've been dropped.

TDKR though has tons of overanalyzed dialogue and that really bugged me because I felt that it didn't need it in a lot of places. The plot of TDKR is pretty paper thin if you sit down and think about it. A lot of people just don't realize this because the dialogue is so detailed and complex thus it makes the movie's plot sound a lot more intelligent than it actually is. I actually think the dialogue in TDKR is one of the main reasons to why many people label TDKR as a masterpiece of a film. Remove it or tone down the overanalyzed poetic language and the thin paper plot is more visible.