JackWhite
Third Man
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,731
- Reaction score
- 369
- Points
- 73
Well, it was Nolan himself who invested so much in Imax. So he must play within its restrictions.
There is that too.
Well, it was Nolan himself who invested so much in Imax. So he must play within its restrictions.
What still puzzles me is that he identified what he thought was the single biggest problem most prequels make for themselves: "blowing up the balloon", as he put it. He vowed to not fall into the same pit; yet, here we are. There is a dissonance between his interviews and the bloated script and film. What the heck happened?
Thank you, Captain Obvious.That's more like your opinion, you know. Movie is another big success, like TDK. (minus Joker mania)
Movie is another big success, like TDK.
I find John Blake's character to be serviceable. But not really all that much more. I do wish they didn't say 'Robin' though - that kind of killed it for me. It was just too on-the-nose. Still, if we look at him as a police officer aiding Batman he's a pretty good character. Almost fills in the Harvey Dent role from the first half of TDK.
I think TDKR's problems come from the 8-year-hiatus more than anything. It is overdone, it prevents the story from gaining traction at first and it prevents us from seeing much of Batman himself. The reasoning for such a long hiatus isn't justified properly.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Obviously I was talking about its Box Office earnings, obviously.
Nolan's story was about Batman fighting with crime & corruption, making system work well, becoming a symbol for good people and leave it to good hands. This why he found Gordon & Rachel in BB, Harvey Dent was so heart of TDK, Johnny Blake is heart of TKDR. (so he is not a problem)It's not an opinion, it's true. Bruce Wayne's story is over, but the series didn't come to what most of us thought would be the natural conclusion, the people of Gotham would pull themselves out of decadence and no longer need their protector.
But at the end of the film, we see Robin "inheriting" the Batcave. That implies just as much, if not more storytelling potential than leaving Bruce as Batman.
Don't thank me yet, Sergeant Sarcasm.
I'm not talking about box office. It's has been major success for audience and critics.I would share even more info but your signature makes it useless. Even hardcore Spider-man fans would have difficult time to explain why they think ASM is better than TDKR. That's a sign of awful taste alone.
What still puzzles me is that he identified what he thought was the single biggest problem most prequels make for themselves: "blowing up the balloon", as he put it. He vowed to not fall into the same pit; yet, here we are. There is a dissonance between his interviews and the bloated script and film. What the heck happened?
I think TDKR's problems come from the 8-year-hiatus more than anything. It is overdone
Anyone who thinks Amazing Spider-Man and Avengers was better than TDKR probably wont see eye to eye with me on many things, on this forum lol. But there's no reason to say ''it's awful taste'', its just different taste.
I agree that John Blake is the root of YOUR problems with the film.
Pretty soon it's going to the be the makeup artist's fault for the movie being so terrible.
This thread is like the last gasps of the nitpicking movement after the movie's release.
Not a perfect movie, but it's like each week the board moves to another character/scene/etc. on which to blame and rationalize their disappointment.
Pretty soon it's going to the be the makeup artist's fault for the movie being so terrible.
Again, that's just ones opinion. I don't see it this way. Rises was ambitious but i didnt feel the execution was poor like a lot of you here. I can care less about comparing it to other Nolan films, and how it might stand up to those movies..i look at it for what it is and that's it. And i loved it for what it was.Depends on how you classify it all. Avengers wasn't trying to be anything other than a superhero spectacle, and it did that wonderfully. Amazing Spider-Man was trying to tell a more in depth superhero story, albeit one that we've seen before, and more or less succeeded. TDKR was trying to be so much more than a superhero movie like its predecessors yet was mishandled to a large degree. Do I think either of those two are better movies? Execution wise I think Avengers is, it is a simple film with not much story but it is done well and doesn't apologize for being what it is. Rises was ambitious, I'll give it that, but execution is what matters and the film lacks the typical polish you get with a Chris Nolan story.
I seriously love this post.John Blake worked. He symbolized and summed up everything about who Batman is under the mask. He's an angry orphan who never grew up and is still angry and decides to act upon it and help others. Most who have something traumatic in their formative years go good or bad. I know another guy who went through hell as well in childhood- he now spends his life knocking people down to feel better about himself. I aim to help people to feel better and important.
Basically John Blake is a very realistic character. And as an orphan, I look up to batman as the orphaned superhero. More than I do many incarnations of superman because he carries around the angst of it. And more expansive, I think John Blake represents non orphans too who despite the past look up to him as a symbol and role model. It was the essence of us looking up to him basically.
All the children entering Wayne manor? Still get emotional over that scene because he is the orphan hero to me. Who a lot of us are inside and why he is so inspirational- despite his anguish, he makes a difference. That means a lot. To other kids, it's as said still the role model thing (although I don't know how the orphan and non orphaned views on these characters compare...)
In short, John Blake is a perfect symbol of Batman's legacy in its world and in ours. As an orphan we don't really have the same kinds of role models others do, we have mentors and literature inspiration who we can look up to as being similar and having made it. So as that being what Batman represents to me, it made the series even that more powerful to end on that kind of note. On film it's the first hero series to really dive into that psyche and nod saying they know. Batman is real. He's inside of every child who's gone through some trauma and has despite all odds comes out stronger in the end. Basically, Nolan got it right.
As opposed to the movement of fans that attempt to dismiss any and all criticism of the movie as "nitpicking"? Seems like it's only fair to say there's plenty of rationalizing going on with that group as well.