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

[RustyCage]

As for adaptations and alternate visions, that's all well as good, but there will still be better and worse in this arena. Be it a personal preference or literal, objectively poorer or superior writing. Accepting something for what it is doesn't excuse it from valid criticism.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Sometimes the flaws aren't as obvious when you don't have a point of comparison to help expose them.

That's where we profoundly disagree. Movies are individual entities. If the flaws aren't apparent to the audience....then thats not a movie fault.

I would love to hear examples of movies you liked , then you saw other one and disliked the previous one (non-superhero movies , because these tend to be linked to how good or bad they were adapted from the source material vs their content as a single movie)

Time put a lot of things in perspective , especially things that are affected by the advent of technology. But that's not really the case in those situations.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

This just sounds like typical bandwagon fashion tbh. I can easily notice the flaws in Superman: The Movie or Spider-Man, but I still really love those films.

Off course. I loved Superman Movie , but i was always aware of its problems (or my own problems with it). I dont give a rat's ass about Man of Steel to formulate an opinion about another one made almost 40 years before. That's just madness !!

[Schrute]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

This just sounds like typical bandwagon fashion tbh. I can easily notice the flaws in Superman: The Movie or Spider-Man, but I still really love those films.

But that's just you. I really liked TDKR, noticed some flaws though, and after a while I just didn't think it was really as good of a film I thought it was. I just don't like it that much anymore, not because of bandwagon fashion, but because after repeat viewings I just don't. It happens.

[Schrute]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

Well but that situation has to do with being young , and how we saw things as kids. That was obviously not the people i was referring. That's very normal.

Well then who are you referring to? B/c there are young kids with this trilogy who may prefer the new films.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Schrute

But that's just you. I really liked TDKR, noticed some flaws though, and after a while I just didn't think it was really as good of a film I thought it was. I just don't like it that much anymore, not because of bandwagon fashion, but because after repeat viewings I just don't. It happens.

That's really not just me. There are a LOT that still enjoy a CBM even when a new reboot shows up while still acknowledging flaws.

My best example is Spider-Man. People just lash out on Raimi's trilogy because of TAS-M while some still actually like Raimi's films(well, the first two at least) even if a new reboot shows up. Although, I rarely see this happening with Batman, as '89 Batman is still loved, even by fans of Nolan's trilogy, as well as Batman Returns.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by Schrute

Well then who are you referring to? B/c there are young kids with this trilogy who may prefer the new films.

The new is better mentality that a lot of people get behind.

Its the topic title " how long before the fan community...."

I dont understand bringing kids to the equation. Offcourse we saw things very differently .

Although i have to say , i like most of the movies i liked when i was younger. And a lot of them for exactly the same reasons. Growing only helped me appreciate new things , it didnt deteriorate what i saw.

[Schrute]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

That's really not just me. There are a LOT that still enjoy a CBM even when a new reboot shows up while still acknowledging flaws.

My best example is Spider-Man. People just lash out on Raimi's trilogy because of TAS-M while some still actually like Raimi's films(well, the first two at least) even if a new reboot shows up. Although, I rarely see this happening with Batman, as '89 Batman is still loved, even by fans of Nolan's trilogy, as well as Batman Returns.

No I meant between you and I. You see the flaws in one film but can still enjoy it, I see the flaws in another film but don't really like it anymore. It's all about opinion.

And I'm not saying people don't enjoy a CBM with flaws when a reboot shows up, I was just arguing that it doesn't make someone an idiot to slowly outgrow an older film and prefer the new film more.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

That's where we profoundly disagree. Movies are individual entities. If the flaws aren't apparent to the audience....then thats not a movie fault.

They're individual entities, sure, but that doesn't mean they do things as well as they should, and sometimes when another movie does it better, that becomes more obvious.

It's just reality.

I would love to hear examples of movies you liked , then you saw other one and disliked the previous one (non-superhero movies , because these tend to be linked to how good or bad they were adapted from the source material vs their content as a single movie)

Uhh, well since the point of this discussion is that these movies are adaptations that adapt things well or poorly, that would be tough.

There aren't many 'reboots' that aren't based on a source material.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

That's really not just me. There are a LOT that still enjoy a CBM even when a new reboot shows up while still acknowledging flaws.

My best example is Spider-Man. People just lash out on Raimi's trilogy because of TAS-M while some still actually like Raimi's films(well, the first two at least) even if a new reboot shows up. Although, I rarely see this happening with Batman, as '89 Batman is still loved, even by fans of Nolan's trilogy, as well as Batman Returns.

^ Just wanna step up and say that I still enjoy Spidey 1 and 2 quite a lot despite my saying TASM portrayed a number of things better.

Had to get that out before I get accused of being on the 'traitor' bandwagon. lol

[Schrute]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

The new is better mentality that a lot of people get behind.

Its the topic title " how long before the fan community...."

I dont understand bringing kids to the equation. Offcourse we saw things very differently .

Although i have to say , i like most of the movies i liked when i was younger. And a lot of them for exactly the same reasons. Growing only helped me appreciate new things , it didnt deteriorate what i saw.

You basically said it is idiocy to like a film and then end up not liking it when a new version comes, so I talked about being young because does that make me an idiot for liking B&R at one point but not liking it anymore after I saw Begins?

I didn't really brings "kids" in at first, I brought myself in for example when you said you can't grasp someone not liking a film they once liked when a new film comes. I liked Batman and Robin and Batman Forever at one point, saw Batman Begins, and revisited B&R and BF and realized they weren't as great as I thought they were.

And I agree that it is dumb to bash a film you liked when a new film comes out without seeing the new film yet....but I don't think it's idiocy to see a new version, revisit the old film, and not really think it is that great anymore is all

[BatLobsterRises]

I think certain things just need to be respected. Like Star Wars, the original trilogy. Even if someone doesn't like those films (God knows why), it's pretty much objective that they were a huge pop culture phenomeon and I've talked to people who respect their place in movie history even if they're not particularly huge fans of it.

I'd argue that The Dark Knight Trilogy has earned a similar type of cinematic/pop culture signficance. And yes, Batman was and will always be an iconic character...but these films really just brought it to the masses in a way that had never been done before and became a phenomenon. Their cultural impact really can't be replaced, just like Batmania 89 was its own phenomenon that can never be replicated.

It's about reverence, not necessarily saying something is perfect and can't be improved upon in any way.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I think certain things just need to be respected. Like Star Wars, the original trilogy. Even if someone doesn't like those films (God knows why), it's pretty much objective that they were a huge pop culture phenomeon and I've talked to people who respect their place in movie history even if they're not particularly huge fans of it.

I'd argue that The Dark Knight Trilogy has earned a similar type of cinematic/pop culture signficance. And yes, Batman was and will always be an iconic character...but these films really just brought it to the masses in a way that had never been done before and became a phenomenon. Their cultural impact really can't be replaced, just like Batmania 89 was its own phenomenon that can never be replicated.

It's about reverence, not necessarily saying something is perfect and can't be improved upon in any way.

This is a valid and beautiful perspective that often gets overlooked.

Whenever I reflect on '89 and Returns, I always plug my brain into the context of the time they came out.

I do the same thing playing NES games.

Feel sorry for anyone who missed out on the old Batmania and will never know the gravity of Burton's films... Time is cruel!!

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I think certain things just need to be respected. Like Star Wars, the original trilogy. Even if someone doesn't like those films (God knows why), it's pretty much objective that they were a huge pop culture phenomeon and I've talked to people who respect their place in movie history even if they're not particularly huge fans of it.

I'd argue that The Dark Knight Trilogy has earned a similar type of cinematic/pop culture signficance. And yes, Batman was and will always be an iconic character...but these films really just brought it to the masses in a way that had never been done before and became a phenomenon. Their cultural impact really can't be replaced, just like Batmania 89 was its own phenomenon that can never be replicated.

It's about reverence, not necessarily saying something is perfect and can't be improved upon in any way.

Very much agree with this.

I really doubt we see another epic Batman/Bruce Wayne character arc like this done to film again.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

They're individual entities, sure, but that doesn't mean they do things as well as they should, and sometimes when another movie does it better, that becomes more obvious.

It's just reality.

So you're saying that after you see Man of Steel , you might change your personal opinion of 1978 (!!!) Donner movie ? I can say i dont live in that reality. It sounds like madness.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Uhh, well since the point of this discussion is that these movies are adaptations that adapt things well or poorly, that would be tough.

There aren't many 'reboots' that aren't based on a source material.

But i dont think that's the point. When did movies get evaluated by being good or bad adaptations ? That's very reductant. It's always extreme talking about one of the most phenomenal fillmmakers , but Stanley Kubrick all his life adapted materials from other authors , and his movies existed way beyond the original works. A lot (where i am included) will defend they are much better than the source. That's why movies are individual entities. And should be evaluated as such.

Originally Posted by Schrute

You basically said it is idiocy to like a film and then end up not liking it when a new version comes, so I talked about being young because does that make me an idiot for liking B&R at one point but not liking it anymore after I saw Begins?

We were discussing a particular phenomenon that happens. I dont understand why you keep referring a perfectly normal situation. That was not the point.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

So you're saying that after you see Man of Steel , you might change your personal opinion of 1978 (!!!) Donner movie ? I can say i dont live in that reality. It sounds like madness.

I'm already aware of improvements I would make on Donner's Superman, as much as I love it.

But this isn't to say that Man of Steel couldn't open my eyes to other improvements that I hadn't considered before.

Must be strange having a 'perfect' opinion at all times, being incapable of evolving your perspective. What does that feel like?

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I'm already aware of improvements I would make on Donner's Superman, as much as I love it.

But this isn't to say that Man of Steel couldn't open my eyes to other improvements that I hadn't considered before.

Must be strange having a 'perfect' opinion at all times, being incapable of evolving your perspective. What does that feel like?

Its not a perfect opinion , or not able to evolve it. But its not another movie that will trigger that. It will be my own judgment . I've changed my opinion on some movies as i saw them over and over. That's the point !!.

Man of Steel has absolutely no relation whatsoever to a movie i have seen dozens and dozens of time. A 40 year old work. Zero relation.

[RustyCage]

That's why movies are individual entities. And should be evaluated as such.

That's a cop-out. They're individual and should be judged with this in mind, but this does NOT exempt them from legitimate comparative criticism.

If something is poorly interpreted, it's poorly interpreted. Period. That's just the reality of adaptations. Some things aren't perfectly translated, and it's okay to recognize that and suggest better ideas.

This is how things progress and improve in all walks of life. If you want to stunt the growth of the film industry by not allowing it to be criticized and thus given a lens with which to rectify itself, that's your business. Don't insist everyone else do what you do.

Meanwhile, I will continue advocating higher standards that will hopefully combine with the feedback of others to result in higher quality movies in the future.

In case you've forgotten, this behavior you're trashing on is what CREATED Batman Begins.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

Man of Steel has absolutely no relation whatsoever to a movie i have seen dozens and dozens of time. A 40 year old work. Zero relation.

Except, obviously, they're both direct adaptations of Superman.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

That's a cop-out. They're individual and should be judged with this in mind, but this does NOT exempt them from legitimate comparative criticism.

If something is poorly interpreted, it's poorly interpreted. Period. That's just the reality of adaptations. Some things aren't perfectly translated, and it's okay to recognize that and suggest better ideas.

This is how things progress and improve in all walks of life. If you want to stunt the growth of the film industry by not allowing it to be criticized and thus given a lens with which to rectify itself, that's your business. Don't insist everyone else do what you do.

Meanwhile, I will continue advocating higher standards that will hopefully combine with the feedback of others to result in higher quality movies in the future.

In case you've forgotten, this behavior you're trashing on is what CREATED Batman Begins.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Stunt the growth , higher standard , etc , etc.

But a poor interpretation of someone else's work , doesn't mean a bad movie. The best example is Shining. King always felt Kubrick's work wasn't faithful to what he tried to achieve. It is a poor interpretation. But it's a fabulous movie , and much better than the original source.

I think im starting to understand your preference tends to be correlated with the faithfulness of the adaption. I dont give a rat's ass about it. Cinema is a different medium. What matters is what's on the screen. Not the basis .

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Except, obviously, they're both direct adaptations of Superman.

And........................?

They are completely different movies. What the hell does another man's job have to do with this ? Absolutely nothing. It's so crazy the notion you will evaluate Donner's work 35 years before because of.....Zack Snyder work 35 years after !! It's quite a crazy concept.

They are completely individual. As such , they should be evaluated like that.

In the end i might prefer one over the other.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

But a poor interpretation of someone else's work , doesn't mean a bad movie.

Of course not. This is dependent on the quality and relevance of what is being invented for the films.

Look at Nolan's Batman films. They made good changes, and poor changes. They fumbled a couple of things here and there that the books ultimately did better, but alternately, they also improved upon a few things that even ended up making the -books- re-evaluate and improve themselves accordingly.

The best example is Shining. King always felt Kubrick's work wasn't faithful to what he tried to achieve. It is a poor interpretation. But it's a fabulous movie , and much better than the original source.

This is also comparative criticism. As stated above, it works for positive and negative.

You're not being very consistent here as someone who doesn't want films to be compared to what they're adapted from, but then turning around and doing exactly that.

I think im starting to understand your preference tends to be correlated with the faithfulness of the adaption.

Not even remotely true. This is a shallow generalization. My preference revolves around maintaining what works in the original piece, possibly improving it, and discarding what didn't work in the original piece.

Batman Begins was an alternate take on Year One, but many of the changes it made were beautifully executed and maintained honor.

I dont give a rat's ass about it. Cinema is a different medium. What matters is what's on the screen. Not the basis .

It matters when the basis is superior in some cases.

And........................?

They are completely different movies. What the hell does another man's job have to do with this ? Absolutely nothing. It's so crazy the notion you will evaluate Donner's work 35 years before because of.....Zack Snyder work 35 years after !! It's quite a crazy concept.

They are completely individual. As such , they should be evaluated like that.

In the end i might prefer one over the other.

You realize that's a complete hypocrisy, right?

"TO COMPARE THEM IS LUNACY, but in the end, I might compare them and prefer one over the other."

[Tequilla]

I have no idea if you're misreading or interpreting completely different the words i'm writing. Maybe its my broken english

In a very clear way.

Object A . You evaluate it. Object B . You evaluate it. Both processes of evaluation are completely independent . Whatever grade you evaluated A , doesn't interfere in the process for B. Why , because the objects are individuals.

In the end you might like B more than A. This is the comparison. The evaluation still is strictly individual.

With this in mind :

Originally Posted by RustyCage

This is also comparative criticism. As stated above, it works for positive and negative.

You're not being very consistent here as someone who doesn't want films to be compared to what they're adapted from, but then turning around and doing exactly that.

I am completely coherent. My opinion on the book , didn't interfere with my opinion of the movie. The author felt it was a poor interpretation, yet to me it's a fabulous movie. I prefer one over the other . The enjoyment i got from Kubrick's work , didn't influence my enjoyment from King's work.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

It matters when the basis is superior in some cases.

It doesn't matter to me. If the movie is good...is good. If its bad...its bad. If the basis is superior .... whatever.

The tasm example. I love Spidey comics. TASM is a piece of ****. Yes , i prefer the comics to Webber movie. But , TASM is a horrible film not because it pales in comparison to the original ...but because it really is a horrible film from every way i look at it.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

You realize that's a complete hypocrisy, right?

"TO COMPARE THEM IS LUNACY, but in the end, I might compare them and prefer one over the other."

What hypocrisy ? The problem isnt comparing them , its one influencing the evaluation of another. That's the point.

Again , the Man of Steel. You will change your opinion of the Donner movie , made 35 years ago , because of what will Snyder do....in the Summer of 2013 ?!!? Sorry i cant grasp that concept. Its just crazy thinking about it.

Following your line of thought , every time you watch a new movie probably you put every other opinion you have of a motion picture on hold ? Because that's the follow up to that.

[RustyCage]

I'm not going in circles with this.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

I have no idea if you're misreading or interpreting completely different the words i'm writing. Maybe its my broken english

In a very clear way.

Object A . You evaluate it. Object B . You evaluate it. Both processes of evaluation are completely independent . Whatever grade you evaluated A , doesn't interfere in the process for B. Why , because the objects are individuals.

In the end you might like B more than A. This is the comparison. The evaluation still is strictly individual.

With this in mind :



I am completely coherent. My opinion on the book , didn't interfere with my opinion of the movie. The author felt it was a poor interpretation, yet to me it's a fabulous movie. I prefer one over the other . The enjoyment i got from Kubrick's work , didn't influence my enjoyment from King's work.



It doesn't matter to me. If the movie is good...is good. If its bad...its bad. If the basis is superior .... whatever.

The tasm example. I love Spidey comics. TASM is a piece of ****. Yes , i prefer the comics to Webber movie. But , TASM is a horrible film not because it pales in comparison to the original ...but because it really is a horrible film from every way i look at it.



What hypocrisy ? The problem isnt comparing them , its one influencing the evaluation of another. That's the point.

Again , the Man of Steel. You will change your opinion of the Donner movie , made 35 years ago , because of what will Snyder do....in the Summer of 2013 ?!!? Sorry i cant grasp that concept. Its just crazy thinking about it.

Following your line of thought , every time you watch a new movie probably you put every other opinion you have of a motion picture on hold ? Because that's the follow up to that.

It's pretty simple:

You experience a product. You like the product. A few years later someone else releases a new take on the same product, and you go "I like this better then the first. I wish the first had done this." And your opinion on the original product changes because you've seen it done better. You no longer hold the same opinion of the product.


I don't see why that's a weird concept.

[Tequilla]

Infinity9999x , i think it's pretty easy to answer.

Does Zack Snyder work in this Summer affect your opinion on Richard Donner 1978 Superman ?

If you say yes...i disagree with you.

If you say no....i agree.

That's really it. Nolan didnt change what i thought about Tim Burton's Batman. I still like them. I still see the same flaws. Time maybe wasn't kind to some of its aesthetics , but that is an aspect inherent to filmmaking. It certainly wasn't because of Nolan , that some of the movie sets look dated.

A motion picture is not a gadget. In the exercise i made , the objects being evaluated are movies.

[The Guard]

Look at Nolan's Batman films. They made good changes, and poor changes. They fumbled a couple of things here and there that the books ultimately did better, but alternately, they also improved upon a few things that even ended up making the -books- re-evaluate and improve themselves accordingly.

Like what?