The Dark Knight My new article on BOF... Regarding Nolan and fanboy demands...

[ultimatefan]

This should be the one that gets me a couple assassination threats...t:
http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_nolan-fanboys_awinckt_2007.html

 

[Eggyman]

No assassination threats from me, mate -- that was very articulate and very true. Fan boys are hard to please and all have different tastes -- you can't please everybody, the best course of action is for the director to follow his instincts . . . that is, of course, why they are director.

And don't let the orange men ruin the show.

 

[DieSmiling]

Granted most of that is just common sense, but I agree with the article.

 

[Excel]

Fantastic as usual, ultimate.

 

[ultimatefan]

Thanks guys, we try.

 

[ultimatefan]

Granted most of that is just common sense, but I agree with the article.

Well, yeah, but I think part of the point is that fanboys too often don´t listen to common sense...t:

 

[Van Petrol]

Excellent article ultimate!

 

[sasquatchs]

Good stuff. If I was the studio I'd give Nolan pretty much free reign. At the end of the day he's going to make a decent film no matter how close it is to our perfect versions. Besides, I don't really want my perfect version, better to suprise me with something I haven't thought of. I doubt Nolan particularly knows or cares what anyone else thinks, he doesn't make films by committee. He's just trying to get a film made like any other, just happens to appreciate the source material.

 

[Ecstasy]

Very true. Good article.

 

[Two-Face]

Very good article, It is very hard to please fanboys some like it some don't that's the way it goes. I personally love BB and I like director's adding own version also follow the source material.

 

[dark_b]

i dont agree that a director should have 100% control.
than you get superman returns.

 

[Two-Face]

i dont agree that a director should have 100% control.
than you get superman returns.

Depends how the director handle's production. if you give to director like Nolan you get BB.

 

[Nepenthes]

^ except Nolan originally wanted the Scarecrow without a mask and I'm sure there are other instances like that we haven't heard of from BB. Rumor is that Nolan also wanted a more hideous cut-face Joker and WB refused; if that's true it's another example where even a great director should occasionally heed advice.

 

[Miranda Fox]

^ except Nolan originally wanted the Scarecrow without a mask and I'm sure there are other instances like that we haven't heard of from BB. Rumor is that Nolan also wanted a more hideous cut-face Joker and WB refused; if that's true it's another example where even a great director should occasionally heed advice.

Nolan never said anything about the Scarecrow not having a mask - he wanted an explanation for him having it since Batman hadn't got started yet. That's all.

 

[Paradoxium]

Wouldn't this be a fanboy demand in itself? Isn't Goyer a fanboy as well?

As for the 100% control and Singer thing. That is a different story. There is nothing wrong with that. It's just that some people didn't like Singer's proposal and "vision" before anything was even done.

I think the greatest irony between the Batman franchise the Superman franchise is that the general public expected a reboot (does not necessarily mean a full blown origin film) from Superman and a loose sequel from Batman. But in the end, they got the reverse.

I am expect TDK to make more money because the public now know its not a prequel but a restart with a completely different and stronger foundation.

 

[Nepenthes]

Nolan never said anything about the Scarecrow not having a mask - he wanted an explanation for him having it since Batman hadn't got started yet. That's all.

Okay. But still point remains that no single director is completely beyond reproach when they're dealing with a long-running franchise and mythology. Don't get me wrong I love what Nolan's done but of course there's room for error even with the best intentions. I hope he's changed the way the fight scenes are shot in TDK, for example.

 

[mad-sci]

After this recent release, there are now 3 classic examples of extreme situations leading to 3 different, but ultimately unsucessful situations...


(1) When studio demands conflict with the director's vision, with emphasis on the product and NOT the fanbase - Batman & Robin.



(2) When studio requests conflict with the director's vision, with emphasis on the result derived from the majority of the fanbase - Spider-man 3.


(3) When the director is given almost complete control, with little to no studio interference - Superman Returns (& Jackson's King Kong).


The best films (X2, BB and SM2) happen when both studio and filmmakers work together, i.e. on the same page. And the truth is that studios are a necessary evil, with certain control necessary on their products (the best films ever made are mostly in situations where filmmakers HAVE to be creative, by budget limitations and lack of time).



TDK is NOT in situation 1 (NO chance!), OR situation 2 (both Nolan and Goyer have already announced their intentions - with their message on the Absolute 'The Long Halloween' graphic novel, and the end of BB).


It's possible for Nolan to get in situation 3, but:-

a) he's never exceeded a budget of $150M, and is unlikely to start now, and

b) Unlike Singer, he hasn't made enough films to prove he's a successful mainstream director, so WB WILL remain involved in production.



Let's hope the script is good, because that's the main worry...

 

[Paradoxium]

Nolan was given just as much control as Singer was. The only major demands were PG-13 and a love interest, which are reasonable and realistic. I am pretty sure he will have more creative control on TDK, than a Singer led Superman sequel.

Mad-Sci you haven't accounted for 300. That's a case where Synder had no serious clout, made a film against studio expectations and demands, and the studio ended up loving it.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Okay. But still point remains that no single director is completely beyond reproach when they're dealing with a long-running franchise and mythology. Don't get me wrong I love what Nolan's done but of course there's room for error even with the best intentions. I hope he's changed the way the fight scenes are shot in TDK, for example.

I wasn't disagreeing with that, just tired of that somewhat untrue statement popping up.

Truthfully, it's all too easy to screw up. Nolan is certainly not beyond that.

 

[Nepenthes]

^ King Kong is a great example. That movie could have awesome, a modern classic but Jackson seemed overly concerned with eye-candy and shallow grandeur. Also the studio should have pressed for someone else to re-write the script, it barely scratched the surface of what the themes and characters are all about.

 

[Nepenthes]

I wasn't disagreeing with that, just tired of that somewhat untrue statement popping up.

Truthfully, it's all too easy to screw up. Nolan is certainly not beyond that.

Yeah no just reiterating. And shucks I almost quoted you on that Scarecrow bit I swear I read it from you in the first place! Guess not

Come to think of it I've never been too worried about Nolan running away with TDK. Truthfully the only slight concerns I can think of would be the fight scenes and a carved Joker...and on a more technical level the dialogue editing and delivery. Imo it's often too easy to miss key dialogue in Nolans movies.

 

[mad-sci]

Mad-Sci you haven't accounted for 300. That's a case where Synder had no serious clout, made a film against studio expectations and demands, and the studio ended up loving it.

300 was NOT a $100M+ tentpole flick. The film had a $60M budget, and was expected to make Sin City type numbers (e.g. 60-70 million dollars Domestic total). Due to the action, Snyder cast little known actors for the main parts. AND if WB had known the film would have caught the public eye as well as it had, they would NOT have released it in March, but pushed it to May as a summer blockbuster.

 

[Leon the Professional]

This should be the one that gets me a couple assassination threats...t:
http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_nolan-fanboys_awinckt_2007.html

I completely agree with your point that the movies are adaptations of the comicbooks, and that directors shouldn't concern themselves with fanboy ranting. But I disagree with how you argue this.


I have to point out, you seem to be guilty of the same "if it doesn't rock it sucks" mentality of fanboys:

"I can’t think of a less interesting, more dull villain [than Venom] on the big screen"

Really? Venom was portrayed that badly?

I think the general consensus, as in what the majority feels, is that Venom was pretty great but the problem is that he was short-changed with screen time.

Now to your point that Venom shouldn't have been forced on Raimi for the sake of what the fanboys wanted.

Even great directors are not infallible, and comicbook movies don't come out nearly as often as comicbooks themselves. So if Raimi was reluctant to bring in arguably the most popular villain of Spider-Man's out of simply personal bias, then I think Arad and the studio were right in pressuring him to bring him in.

This wasn't the first Spider-Man movie, it was the third, so Raimi already made two movies with exactly the characters he wanted. And he was still using another of his favorite "old-school" Spider-Man villains for SM3, the Sandman.

So Arad and the studio told him, "Listen, don't be selfish." So what is so unreasonable about Raimi adding Venom? Especially since he was already planning on having two villains. And the other villain he wanted to have was the Vulture. I mean really, the Vulture instead of Venom? That is just ridiculous.

The fault doesn't lie with fans pushing for Venom. It lies with Raimi. He begrudgingly agreed to bring in Venom, and it seems he just wasn't mature enough about it as a director to give Venom the role he deserves.

And then, as if to give Venom fans the finger, Raimi unnecessarily kills him off. He has Spider-Man pull Brock out of the symbiote, so that it can be destroyed without Brock being killed, so there is still the possibility of Venom returning at the hands of future directors who may actually care about the character. But no. He has Brock jump into the explosion.

A better director would have brought in Venom and done him justice, even if the character didn't appeal to him personally.

 

[dark_b]

you have a point. raimi was not forced to make spidey 3 with venom.

 

[regwec]

It's a childish caraciture of people who actually like Batman, and furthermore I think the call for a free reign for the director is slightly ignorant. Of course creative control has to reside with Nolan, but as with all leaders, he should listen to others. "Fanboys" like Goyer should be amongst them.