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

Michael Caine's had some good ideas as well. Hope Nolan's not being pig headed there :ninja:
 
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.

Well, my article says "do not give EVERYTHING" not "do not give ANYTHING"...:woot:

Yeah, that brings up another typical problem with fanboys: they have such preconceived ideas of how a franchise should be handled that they won´t accept another take, no matter if well-executed. I heard so many fans demand a "Begins" kinda reboot for Superman and, to be frank, see the whole "Krypton explodes-Kal-Eel goes to Earth-Is adopted by Kents" all over again was the absolute last thing I wanted to see.
 
I heard so many fans demand a "Begins" kinda reboot for Superman and, to be frank, see the whole "Krypton explodes-Kal-Eel goes to Earth-Is adopted by Kents" all over again was the absolute last thing I wanted to see.

Absolutely. Its highly improbable that ANYONE could duplicate the quality of Donner's origin story, and while people may not like the new Superman, I have yet to find an intelligent argument that starting over was the right thing to do. Williams' music, Reeve's acting, the cinematography...none of that could have been approached much less surpassed.

And we're always talking about how good recycling is...that's what Singer is rightfully doing with the Superman franchise. :woot: Now with the next movie, it might be a good idea to listen to the fanboys so that we can see Superman being the Superman of the Donner movie(s).
 
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.

That´s what you read? What about all the parts where I talk about the importance of fans and listening to them? Who said anything about the director not listening to anything fans say? All people here are are Batman fans and you´re the only one who seems to think there aren´t fans who´re exaggerated or overzealous, but then again that´s EXACTLY what exaggerated and oversealous fans think.
 
Ultimatefan:

There's two kind of fans.
A.The educated (smart) fanboy
B. The dumbass

Nolan, listen to the smart guys and you'll do fine.
 
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.

Well, I just said I find the movie enjoyable, but not excellent, so how am I "if it doesn´t rock, it sucks"? The Venom portrayal was a particular point I didn´t care about, and I wasn´t the only one, you yourself don´t seem pleased with that.

Art is about personal expression. If a director works with something he isn´t passionate about, even when he´s skilled, it shows in some manner. Plus Venom´s explosion is one of those "comic book deaths" where you don´t see the dead body, I wouldn´t bet that he´s dead for good.
 
That´s what you read? What about all the parts where I talk about the importance of fans and listening to them? Who said anything about the director not listening to anything fans say? All people here are are Batman fans and you´re the only one who seems to think there aren´t fans who´re exaggerated or overzealous, but then again that´s EXACTLY what exaggerated and oversealous fans think.

I am not actually talking about fans like you and I. Rather, I am discussing the issue of directorial control vs studio interference. I think Chris Nolan is a first rate film maker, and he would not make The Dark Knight a bad film. He could, however, make it into a disappointing Batman film, by neglecting core elements of the tradition. I suggest only that he take soundings from those close to DC in order to avoid this.

He does so anyway, so this is hardly controversial.
 
One thing I hope they concentrate on. Detective work. the thing that I liked about the best Batman stories was the detective aspect of the character. The best Batman movie for me would be a really good mystery. of course I realize that's hard to do nowadays with all the press,the internet,digital cameras the size of a credit card carried by spies onto the sets revealing spoilers and such.
But a really good mystery with some stuntwork and cool gadgets and toys is the key to making a good Batman film to me. I always thought of Batman being a mix of Sherlock Holmes and James Bond with a touch of ninjatude.
 
Well, I just said I find the movie enjoyable, but not excellent, so how am I "if it doesn´t rock, it sucks"? The Venom portrayal was a particular point I didn´t care about, and I wasn´t the only one, you yourself don´t seem pleased with that.

Art is about personal expression. If a director works with something he isn´t passionate about, even when he´s skilled, it shows in some manner. Plus Venom´s explosion is one of those "comic book deaths" where you don´t see the dead body, I wouldn´t bet that he´s dead for good.


I clearly meant that you were exaggerating how poor Venom's portrayal was. He certainly was not the most uninteresting and dull villain on the big screen.

And you may not see Brock's dead body per say. But what you do see in the flash of the explosion is his bare skeleton with all of his flesh disintegrated off.

Really, Raimi should have destroyed the symbiote but let Brock live. Spider-Man separated Brock from the symbiote, in a way that I thought was very well done. Have him put in jail. Conner's still has a sample of the symbiote. So his return would be possible. And I guarantee you that if he did only this, even without giving Venom any extra screentime, there would be a substantially smaller backlash from the fans about Raimi's treatment of Venom. Instead Raimi chose to be a dick about it, plain and simple.

Look, I very much agree with the "thesis" of your article. I just think you chose a poor example of arguing it.
 
I am not actually talking about fans like you and I. Rather, I am discussing the issue of directorial control vs studio interference. I think Chris Nolan is a first rate film maker, and he would not make The Dark Knight a bad film. He could, however, make it into a disappointing Batman film, by neglecting core elements of the tradition. I suggest only that he take soundings from those close to DC in order to avoid this.

He does so anyway, so this is hardly controversial.
Fair enough.
 
I clearly meant that you were exaggerating how poor Venom's portrayal was. He certainly was not the most uninteresting and dull villain on the big screen.

And you may not see Brock's dead body per say. But what you do see in the flash of the explosion is his bare skeleton with all of his flesh disintegrated off.

Really, Raimi should have destroyed the symbiote but let Brock live. Spider-Man separated Brock from the symbiote, in a way that I thought was very well done. Have him put in jail. Conner's still has a sample of the symbiote. So his return would be possible. And I guarantee you that if he did only this, even without giving Venom any extra screentime, there would be a substantially smaller backlash from the fans about Raimi's treatment of Venom. Instead Raimi chose to be a dick about it, plain and simple.

Look, I very much agree with the "thesis" of your article. I just think you chose a poor example of arguing it.

Well, what I felt is what I felt, keep in mind I´m not a Venom fan myself, but we can agree that Raimi´s portrayal of Venom was not one that satysfied fans, and that´s the main point here.
 
Ther are some good ideas that have come from fanboys, but for the most part, I have to agree with the this opinion. There are probably only about .001% of fanboys that actually know what it takes to make a film. You simply cannot include every little detail.
 
good points there Ultimate, but god knows you've just given more ammo to revisionistic Hollywood.
 
Well, what I felt is what I felt, keep in mind I´m not a Venom fan myself, but we can agree that Raimi´s portrayal of Venom was not one that satysfied fans, and that´s the main point here.


The danger of fanboy opinions stems from their tendency to demand that onscreen adaptation of characters maintain strict adherence to their comicbook depictions, and that creative decisions need to be grounded in comicbook precedent in order to be acceptable.

There is nothing unreasonable about simply wanting to see a certain character in a movie. Unless, of course, that character happens to be inherently problematic, the best example being Robin. But there is nothing problematic about the character of Venom.
 
good points there Ultimate, but god knows you've just given more ammo to revisionistic Hollywood.

I don´t think so, I make it very clear that the fans´point of view is important, I just think there is a right way and a wrong way to listen to fans. Venom was put in Spider-Man 3 only because fans asked for it and it still didn´t work.
 
good points there Ultimate, but god knows you've just given more ammo to revisionistic Hollywood.

I don´t think so, I make it very clear that the fans´point of view is important, I just think there is a right way and a wrong way to listen to fans. Venom was put in Spider-Man 3 only because fans asked for it and it still didn´t work. It has been proven a number of times that you CAN find a balance between what the fans want and what the movie needs.
 
The danger of fanboy opinions stems from their tendency to demand that onscreen adaptation of characters maintain strict adherence to their comicbook depictions, and that creative decisions need to be grounded in comicbook precedent in order to be acceptable.

There is nothing unreasonable about simply wanting to see a certain character in a movie. Unless, of course, that character happens to be inherently problematic, the best example being Robin. But there is nothing problematic about the character of Venom.

There´s nothing wrong with wanting a character, but there´s something wrong when producers like Arad push the director to throw in a character that doesn´t fit a story he worked on for a long time and that he doesn´t care about just because he assumes the fans will be okay with a half-assed portrayal of the character just because they wanna see him. I´d rather they waited till the next sequel so Raimi or a replacement could take the time to actually come up with a storyline where Venom would be a more central character, that would have been much better for the movie and for Venom fans. The article isn´t meant to tell fans not to ask for what they like, is to tell studios and filmmakers to be careful how they want to answer to fans demands.

And frankly, from my perspective there´s a NUMBER of problems with Venom, but that´s not the point of the article.
 
BTW, before this goes on, some people really seem to be misinterpretating some aspects of the article, so just to reassure:

a) I´m NOT saying that fans wanting the movies to try to get as close to possible to the comics is wrong, just that often fans have unrealistic demands and expectations on how close is possible to get and still make the movie work AS A MOVIE. It´s important that studios listen to the fans will, but that they don´t compromise storytelling just to shove in what they think the fans want. That´s marketing, not filmmaking.

b) I´m NOT saying filmmakers are supposed to just ignore the fans, just that they´re also artists and fans in their own right, so they will have their own preferences and their own take on the character. Comic book fans don´t always agree with each other, they shouldn´t expect filmmakers to do something that every fan will agree with.
 
ultimatefan said:
If you overall feel that Nolan is doing a great job with the Batman franchise – and most fans seem to believe so – you have to deal with the fact that he may not share all the same fanboy fetishes and obsessions regarding the world of the character as you do. And you have to accept that his job is not to just put the comic book pages on the screen.
IF... well, I feel that Nolan is doing a good job; therefore—under the conditions of the argument as presented—I am under no obligation to “deal” with or “accept” anything.

Damn loopholes!
 
There´s nothing wrong with wanting a character, but there´s something wrong when producers like Arad push the director to throw in a character that doesn´t fit a story he worked on for a long time and that he doesn´t care about just because he assumes the fans will be okay with a half-assed portrayal of the character just because they wanna see him. I´d rather they waited till the next sequel so Raimi or a replacement could take the time to actually come up with a storyline where Venom would be a more central character, that would have been much better for the movie and for Venom fans. The article isn´t meant to tell fans not to ask for what they like, is to tell studios and filmmakers to be careful how they want to answer to fans demands.

And frankly, from my perspective there´s a NUMBER of problems with Venom, but that´s not the point of the article.


Venom was not a last minute addition forced by the studio. Raimi had plenty of time to substantially develop the character of Venom in the script if he cared to.

However, lack of screentime aside, it seems to me that most fans feel that Raimi actually portrayed Venom quite well. Although there was a lot of criticism at first, most fans have come to feel that Topher Grace was inspired casting. His performance was great, and Venom looked pretty badass visually. The only major complaint, really, is that he did not refer to himself in the plural or call himself "Venom." And, of course, that he died. Like I said, if Raimi had simply let Brock survive, even just that would have been a big improvement.

You realize I don't mean problems with personal taste, right? Putting aside your indifference toward the character, what are these number of problems with Venom? What problems does his character pose that characters like Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, and Sandman don't?

Robin, for example, is an inherently problematic character for a serious Batman film, because the notion of Batman hunting down psychotic serial killers and mob bosses with an adolescent (named after a bird, no less) at his side is ludicrous.

Venom, on the other hand, is an entirely feasible character within the world of Raimi's Spider-Man movies.
 
You realize I don't mean problems with personal taste, right? Putting aside your indifference toward the character, what are these number of problems with Venom?
For me, it has to do with the fact that the character isn't particularly interesting as presented by Raimi. He starts off as a standard jerk who deserves everything he gets and then becomes a standard "I'm pure evil" kind of villain, and that's just dull. There's nothing complex about his villainy. Similarly, his character doesn't do anything interesting, either. How about Venom becoming a competing superhero to spite Spider-man/Peter Parker, but quickly becoming a more violent and dangerous threat? That's a more interesting idea than any development in SPIDER-MAN 3, if you ask me.
 
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.
To me, the greatest irony between the new Batman and Superman movies is that the veteran Hollywood director ran amok with his vast budget and made stupid decisions, while the indie director (who was a complete newbie at working with any budget north of $100 million) made a pretty damn good $150 million film for any director.

I never quite understood people who hated certain comic books or comic book movies since they weren't true to the character's history. Many of these characters have existed for decades, and have undoubtedly changed during that time. Different writers and artists naturally have their own interpretations of these characters, and not ALL of it can be true. After all, these characters are not real, and even actual biographies (of people who actually lived) can have different slants depending on who writes it.

What's more important to me is that the writer/artist/director have respect for the character's essence, and to use that respect to tell a good story.

ETA: I'm not saying that comic book directors should ignore the source material - it's great seeing where the inspiration came from. But if they put in nods to the books, there had better be a reason other than, "Oh, the fanboys will love this!"
 
Well I gave your article a whirl, and for the most part I can agree with it. However, just like anything there needs to be checks and balances. The best of anything, is the things that are balanced. Directors shouldn't always be given absolutely dominating creative control ala Batman Returns, and the movie shouldn't be entirely dictated by the studio either ala Forever and B n R. It takes imput from all sides.

Your stance on SM3 taking WAY TOO much criticism is right on point. I've been preaching this as well, along with fanboys ridiculous "it rocks or it sucks cock" p.o.v. SM3 is right there in the middle. It did however have the ultimate potential to be the best of the series, given the themes and material they were working with.

I also find it ashame you don't understand what makes Venom such a great character. Especially because normally I would consider you one of the few bright people on these boards. Venom is in fact one of the greatest in the lore, I'd go out on a limb and say he is the actual greatest villain to Peter's hero. And there is a whole slew of reasons why he is so popular. It's the simpletons who actually find him nothing more than a "cool image."

Fact is, Venom could have easily have carried a whole movie as the "go-to villain". I do agree with you however that he was forced in there, so as a combination of being an obligation, compounded with Raimi's lack of interest in the character ... he came out looking like a lame superficial shell of what he could and SHOULD be.
 
I think you're missing the entire picture completely. The problem with comicbook movies like SP3 & X3 wasn't adhering to fanboy demands, but rather both movies were clearly studio products that had been kidified over-commercialized bloated and cutted to maximize returns on profit. This is your typical Hollywood's big budget features with more flash than substance and why people hated hack/MTV video director & studio man like Michael Bay or coughBrettRatnercough.

My slogan for The Dark Knight & other comicbook movies is: Power to the People and Down with the Tyrants & evil Studio Heads! give free reigns with financial constraints to inspired directors like Sam Raimi & Chris Nolan and they will continue to produce some more movie gems.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"