The Dark Knight Rises Nolan...add Robin!!!!!!

[HarlequinOfHate]

LOL, you're silly.


~HoH~

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

ADDITION: If you'd like to talk about why I don't like Nolan, then all right. Lets. Ask me a question about it if you're curious. Though telling me my opinion is wrong doesn't really add any validity to my thoughts on what you might say in the future. Just for future reference.

If you don't want to talk about that... let's talk about how lame Robin has been! Pixie boots?! Really?! Truth be told, all I really want to see in a movie is a Robin that will take some names, and kick some... well... you know. Thugs?


~HoH~

 

[Melkay]

Fair enough: Why don't you like Nolan? (a.k.a. the most unanimously praised director in the bat films history), (<-- is that the cause?)

 

[Melkay]

Though telling me my opinion is wrong doesn't really add any validity to my thoughts on what you might say in the future.

That's why I argumented so much in my first post to you. You decided to keep that under sheets. Whatever works for you, kiddo.

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

That's why I argumented so much in my first post to you. You decided to keep that under sheets. Whatever works for you, kiddo.

Um...what? Under what sheets? And I'm not a kid, sweetheart. I'm Batman.


~HoH~

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

Fair enough: Why don't you like Nolan? (a.k.a. the most unanimously praised director in the bat films history), (<-- is that the cause?)

You want the honest truth? I didn't even like Nolan before Begins. I hated Memento. I think his visual style is bland, his stories are usually plothole central, and IF... IF they are able to capture me at all, it's usually the work of the actors, and not the film itself. I thought the Prestige was terrible, Insomnia was the perfect cure for it...and there's not really much else to reference past that point...

Batman Begins was awesome, don't get me wrong. But I'm biased towards it because it was Batman. And Batman done pretty decently, regardless of my feelings towards the director.
This new film really irritated me, however. I was bored so often... with the story, the look, and even the annoying new music...
TO ME, the most interesting parts were Joker just killing things aimlessly. Which, I know, is what he's supposed to be doing... but I wanted more. I wanted to love BATMAN in a Batman movie. Not really getting to do so was very upsetting to me. Thus me not really thinking TDK was so great, and why I expect better from the next film. Because this movie was such a success, there will be no lack of funding or necessities that will be denied to the new one. All I want is for it to be made better. For them to focus on the story.

This might sound silly... but I feel like I should've cried when Rachel died. Or at least gotten SAD. I didn't.
When Alfred says "Why do we fall?" in the elevator shaft in Begins? I almost well up every time... but there wasn't NEAR that level of emotionality in TDK. Which is sad, because there could have, and should have been.

But hey, maybe I'm expecting too much from THAT. It IS just Rachel, after all.

All that is putting aside what was visually done to the characters that I can't stand. x_x Batman's suit looks like the love child of the first one, and a transformer, and he sounds like a guy that's been smoking for thirty years.


~HoH~

 

[Alex Logan]

You want the honest truth? I didn't even like Nolan before Begins. I hated Memento. I think his visual style is bland, his stories are usually plothole central, and IF... IF they are able to capture me at all, it's usually the work of the actors, and not the film itself. I thought the Prestige was terrible, Insomnia was the perfect cure for it...and there's not really much else to reference past that point...

Batman Begins was awesome, don't get me wrong. But I'm biased towards it because it was Batman. And Batman done pretty decently, regardless of my feelings towards the director.
This new film really irritated me, however. I was bored so often... with the story, the look, and even the annoying new music...
TO ME, the most interesting parts were Joker just killing things aimlessly. Which, I know, is what he's supposed to be doing... but I wanted more. I wanted to love BATMAN in a Batman movie. Not really getting to do so was very upsetting to me. Thus me not really thinking TDK was so great, and why I expect better from the next film. Because this movie was such a success, there will be no lack of funding or necessities that will be denied to the new one. All I want is for it to be made better. For them to focus on the story.

This might sound silly... but I feel like I should've cried when Rachel died. Or at least gotten SAD. I didn't.
When Alfred says "Why do we fall?" in the elevator shaft in Begins? I almost well up every time... but there wasn't NEAR that level of emotionality in TDK. Which is sad, because there could have, and should have been.

But hey, maybe I'm expecting too much from THAT. It IS just Rachel, after all.

All that is putting aside what was visually done to the characters that I can't stand. x_x Batman's suit looks like the love child of the first one, and a transformer, and he sounds like a guy that's been smoking for thirty years.


~HoH~

I'm not surprised to hear you say this about Batman Begins, the same thing happens to me.

I think you said yourself, it was just Rachel. Almost no one cared about her character. I'm also surprised to hear that you weren't touched by the ending of TDK. You didn't feel the same way when Two Face was about to kill Gordon's son?

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

I'm not surprised to hear you say this about Batman Begins, the same thing happens to me.

I think you said yourself, it was just Rachel. Almost no one cared about her character. I'm also surprised to hear that you weren't touched by the ending of TDK. You didn't feel the same way when Two Face was about to kill Gordon's son?

No, actually. Part of why I'm so bitter. I WANTED to be upset by it... I just didn't think it was handled in the best of ways. I think there was so much potential there that just didn't come off in the final product. At least for me, you know?

It almost felt rushed. The Two-Face thing, I mean. The strange thing is, I already care about this character from the comics, so you would think I would already have established a strong bond with him... but I was waiting to really FEEL for Eckhart's Harvey... and it really never came. Not sure why.


~HoH~

 

[Melkay]

You want the honest truth? I didn't even like Nolan before Begins. I hated Memento.

Hmmm, you hated one of the very best indie films in recent memory. Why doesn't that surprise me?

I think his visual style is bland, his stories are usually plothole central, and IF... IF they are able to capture me at all, it's usually the work of the actors, and not the film itself.

My goodness... where do we begin?

When you say "bland" I say subtle and rich in concept. But it's not bland, at all. Remember Memento's first images, the backwards motion, the image in the instant photographs, slowly fading away? We're talking about an indie here. But let's see some better funded projects of his:
Imsomnia: Remember the fog and the floating logs? The red light of Pacino's motel room, with him trying to shut all crevices? The whole concept of a noir crime thriller where settings are not dark and lugubrious but quite clear and clean, and still giving the same feeling? The photography trying to give a sense with clarophobia (as opposed to claustrophobia?)
Or the Prestige: The portentous images of stages and workshops, the rich reconstruction of places that are not commong for period settings, like the abandoned theaters or Tesla's retreat in Colorado? The funeral scene at the beginning? Do you call those things visually bland?

I can give you that he's a guy that usually reinforces the content instead of the style, but that's exactly what a title like Batman demands. In the comics, Batman may jump to one artist to another, each one having a different visual approach with diverse character designs... but the character's psychology and the themes of Batman's struggle doesn't change so much as the visuals.... which is why a director who is consistent with content is neccessary. One like Nolan.
In that sense, Nolan is quite the opposite of Burton, who is too self-índulgent when it comes to his visual monotony (which is quite rich, but redundant) and makes wild changes in the approach to the content (the Joker being the Waynes assasin, the Penguin being a mutant, Batman having no problem with the killing).

Nolan is the best director we've seen for this title.

I thought the Prestige was terrible, Insomnia was the perfect cure for it...and there's not really much else to reference past that point...

Here, see? Another unargumented opinion (you seem like a person who underestimates the power of reasons)... The Prestige... terrible? Did you not see the fabulous meta-text it was, talking about content, form and purpose in Fiction, and subverting known sci-fi canons like the timing of the suspension of disbelief and the interrelation between magic and science, building to a Brechtian jolt at the end designed to provoke controversy and analysis in the audience? Did you miss the other themes that are familiar to Nolan's filmography: obsession, death of the female element, deception and self-deception, etc.? Did you failed to see the wonderful examples it provided of the 'rivalry among siblings' which is a great topic in psychological fields? Did you miss the tone, the music, the photography, the acting (except for Johansson), the message?

The Prestige may very well be Christopher Nolan's best work to this date. You need to learn how to enjoy fantastic movies, right away.

Batman Begins was awesome, don't get me wrong. But I'm biased towards it because it was Batman. And Batman done pretty decently, regardless of my feelings towards the director.
This new film really irritated me, however. I was bored so often... with the story, the look, and even the annoying new music...

I get that you didn't like it, but I wanted EXPLANATIONS, causes, not a repetition of your dislike for the movie.

TO ME, the most interesting parts were Joker just killing things aimlessly. Which, I know, is what he's supposed to be doing... but I wanted more.

Becaaaaussseeee?

Did I just asked you something that you can't explain?

I wanted to love BATMAN in a Batman movie. Not really getting to do so was very upsetting to me. Thus me not really thinking TDK was so great, and why I expect better from the next film. Because this movie was such a success, there will be no lack of funding or necessities that will be denied to the new one. All I want is for it to be made better. For them to focus on the story.

I want the same, but just for the purpose of improvemente. The did focus on the story in TDK, big time. Why do you think they didn't? And why didn't you care about Batman in this film? When he screams "Where are they?!" you would have to be a robot for not caring about him. When he mourns Rachel talking to Alfred, or runs injured from the dogs at the end, you would have to be a robot not to care about him.

Maybe you just had a bad day when you saw the movie, but I'd like a better explanation from you.

This might sound silly... but I feel like I should've cried when Rachel died. Or at least gotten SAD. I didn't. When Alfred says "Why do we fall?" in the elevator shaft in Begins? I almost well up every time... but there wasn't NEAR that level of emotionality in TDK. Which is sad, because there could have, and should have been.

Weren't you sad when Bruce lamented her death afterwards? When Alfred took and burned the letter? When Gordon broke the bat-signal? When Harvey looked at his coin in the hospital and screamed in agony? When he said later: "There's not escape from this? When Gordon pleads for his son's life?
You weren't sad?
Why? There are TONS of emotionality in those scenes.

All that is putting aside what was visually done to the characters that I can't stand.

Why? In what way? The only major changes are Batman's suit, which has a very fitting visual design (see my post in the first page of the suit thread), the Joker looks quite faithful visual wise and Two-Face may have been burnt with fire, but looks like if he was taken straight from a page of The Long Halloween.

x_x Batman's suit looks like the love child of the first one, and a transformer, and he sounds like a guy that's been smoking for thirty years.

His suit looks okay in the movie, the pros of his voice have been discussed to boredom in other threads, but let's say you were right about that.... are those things reason enough to dislike the whole film?

~HoH~

There is probably a cell in Arkham with those letters on the door.

 

[Melkay]

I was waiting to really FEEL for Eckhart's Harvey... and it really never came. Not sure why.

Thousands of movie-goers and dozens of critics felt touched by the performance. Maybe it was a problem about you and not about the film.
Maybe you just had a bad day when you went to see the movie.

... Just saying.

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

Melkay...

When I say "to me", "in my opinion", and "I think", don't tell me I'm wrong. That's impossible, as an opinion can not be wrong. As for this...

There is probably a cell in Arkham with those letters on the door.

Yeah, 0801. THE JOKER. But I've already told you that in PM.

Now, to answer your post.

My goodness... where do we begin?

When you say "bland" I say subtle and rich in concept. But it's not bland, at all. Remember Memento's first images, the backwards motion, the image in the instant photographs, slowly fading away? We're talking about an indie here. But let's see some better funded projects of his:
Imsomnia: Remember the fog and the floating logs? The red light of Pacino's motel room, with him trying to shut all crevices? The whole concept of a noir crime thriller where settings are not dark and lugubrious but quite clear and clean, and still giving the same feeling? The photography trying to give a sense with clarophobia (as opposed to claustrophobia?)
Or the Prestige: The portentous images of stages and workshops, the rich reconstruction of places that are not commong for period settings, like the abandoned theaters or Tesla's retreat in Colorado? The funeral scene at the beginning? Do you call those things visually bland?

First of all, Nolan has worked with some skilled DP's that have, on occasion, delivered some visually interesting shots. He is not a one man army, and he is not the sole creator of all of his films. He is a cog in the machine. And regardless of what you might say, I DO know how filmmaking works. See my profile. So just because other people tell him how to make something look pretty, doesn't mean he should get the credit.

HIS style, the shot to shot, moment to moment scenes that you mentioned? Stagnant. Dull. The only way he could make Memento interesting is by playing it backwards... which friends and I collectively joke was only done because the movie was so boring, it was the only thing they could do to save it.

I can give you that he's a guy that usually reinforces the content instead of the style, but that's exactly what a title like Batman demands. In the comics, Batman may jump to one artist to another, each one having a different visual approach with diverse character designs... but the character's psychology and the themes of Batman's struggle doesn't change so much as the visuals.... which is why a director who is consistent with content is neccessary. One like Nolan.
In that sense, Nolan is quite the opposite of Burton, who is too self-índulgent when it comes to his visual monotony (which is quite rich, but redundant) and makes wild changes in the approach to the content (the Joker being the Waynes assasin, the Penguin being a mutant, Batman having no problem with the killing).

Nolan is the best director we've seen for this title.

That may be... but that is like saying that the flu I just got over wasn't as bad as the first four I had all year. Again, this is all in my opinion.

Here, see? Another unargumented opinion (you seem like a person who underestimates the power of reasons)... The Prestige... terrible? Did you not see the fabulous meta-text it was, talking about content, form and purpose in Fiction, and subverting known sci-fi canons like the timing of the suspension of disbelief and the interrelation between magic and science, building to a Brechtian jolt at the end designed to provoke controversy and analysis in the audience? Did you miss the other themes that are familiar to Nolan's filmography: obsession, death of the female element, deception and self-deception, etc.? Did you failed to see the wonderful examples it provided of the 'rivalry among siblings' which is a great topic in psychological fields? Did you miss the tone, the music, the photography, the acting (except for Johansson), the message?

The Prestige may very well be Christopher Nolan's best work to this date. You need to learn how to enjoy fantastic movies, right away.

That's your opinion. I'm not wrong to have my own.

I get that you didn't like it, but I wanted EXPLANATIONS, causes, not a repetition of your dislike for the movie.

It bored me. I nearly fell asleep during it. I had to force myself to not think about what I wanted for dinner after we left the theater. The dialogue was TV show bad. Not QUITE soap opera... but almost... the acting was just awful, sans two or three people... I can keep explaining my reasons... but at the end of the day, it is just my opinion. It doesn't make it fact, and breaking it down won't make you understand where I'm coming from any more. Sorry.

I want the same, but just for the purpose of improvemente. The did focus on the story in TDK, big time. Why do you think they didn't? And why didn't you care about Batman in this film? When he screams "Where are they?!" you would have to be a robot for not caring about him. When he mourns Rachel talking to Alfred, or runs injured from the dogs at the end, you would have to be a robot not to care about him.

Guess I'm a robot. I'm sorry it bothers you so much, but even if I broke down everything I didn't like... all you would do was find reasons why you think I'm wrong. That's why opinions are dangerous.

Weren't you sad when Bruce lamented her death afterwards? When Alfred took and burned the letter? When Gordon broke the bat-signal? When Harvey looked at his coin in the hospital and screamed in agony? When he said later: "There's not escape from this? When Gordon pleads for his son's life?
You weren't sad?
Why? There are TONS of emotionality in those scenes.

He spent ONE scene being sad. And I spent none. As my husband just pointed out, Bruce is back to making jokes with Alfred RIGHT after she dies... if he can't take it seriously, how can I?

Why? In what way? The only major changes are Batman's suit, which has a very fitting visual design (see my post in the first page of the suit thread), the Joker looks quite faithful visual wise and Two-Face may have been burnt with fire, but looks like if he was taken straight from a page of The Long Halloween.

Two-Face was awesome. Joker's suit was awesome. Batman's suit was awful. I don't want to see S.W.A.T. Batman with a bendy straw neck. It's not even that it's armour... it's just that what they made was so ugly.

His suit looks okay in the movie, the pros of his voice have been discussed to boredom in other threads, but let's say you were right about that.... are those things reason enough to dislike the whole film?

I only discuss them here because you asked me. And no, but it doesn't help.


~HoH~

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

Thousands of movie-goers and dozens of critics felt touched by the performance. Maybe it was a problem about you and not about the film.
Maybe you just had a bad day when you went to see the movie.

... Just saying.

On a side note, I remember dozens of critics saying Harvey was a useless addition to the cast when the film came out... and I remember that, because it irritated me.


~HoH~

 

[WeaponXProject]

I'm not getting in the middle of this but Memento was written backwards so we feel as the main character feels: confused with only bits and pieces to remember. Jonathan Nolan wrote this and most of his brother's movies which are mostly well reviewed so I would say they are doing something right.

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

I'm not getting in the middle of this but Memento was written backwards so we feel as the main character feels: confused with only bits and pieces to remember. Jonathan Nolan wrote this and most of his brother's movies which are mostly well reviewed so I would say they are doing something right.

Oh, I know. We just make the joke anyway because we don't like it. Although, in all fairness... I don't like the main actor. So it already had that going against it.


~HoH~

 

[Melkay]

in all fairness... I don't like the main actor. So it already had that going against it.

Sounds like you. I'm beginning to know you better, Harl. If only I were an anthropologist, I could include that in my resume.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Quite a engrossing debate. I'm on Melkays side here though. Not just because I like TDK and Nolans other work but because he seems to be explaining his opinions better. And he is right, some opinions can be wrong if not fully explained or explained poorly. It's like me walking up to a complete stranger and saying to him "In my opinion, you are a tosser! I've never met you before but I think you're a tosser! But I'm allowed to do that, because it's my opinion."

And Harley, you don't like Guy Pearce? He is a fantastic actor, my favourite choice to play Riddler if he is included in the next film.

 

[Gianakin_]

We have to consider how amazing the coincidence is. Robin is there and suddenly the tone is lighter, funnier and less essential to a dark Batman.

Yes, we do have to consider that. We have 2 or 4 movies involving Robin (if you count the 2 animated ones). 3 of them had a lighter tone, yes. Return of the Joker was pretty dark and the main reason for that was Robin himself and what the Joker did to him.
Eventually, I really (want to) believe it's a coincidence.

Thing is that Robin found his place when the tone got lighter. That's where he belongs.

And I must say that in BF, Dick Grayson was done amazingly serious.

Hm, do you think that if BF had a more serious tone then Robin would have no place in it? Playing it again in my head, keeping the basic story elements but a different tone/approach, Robin had a very good reason to be in it.

In B&R they did an effort to portray the issues the Batman-Robin relationship could have to explore.

Again, it was the tone that killed it. Well, not the tone alone. Many parts of the script were horrendous. But the main elements of their relationship were the only decent thing in the movie (theirs and the Bruce/Alfred scenes).

Well, we can't judge BR's Robin since it was never done. But if they really wanted to have Robin in the movie they could have asked for a re-writing. Just as Nolan, Burton never found a place for him. Batman, a love interest and the villiains were always enough and good enough.

I can't judge Robin in BR per se, but I can judge the concept. Same way I judge (and love) the way he was introduced in Dark Victory. Surprisingly, the worst thing in that story was 2Face and not Dick/Robin.
And the problem with Robin in BR wasn't that he brought a lighter tone at all. It was just not interesting to me.

All in all, I do believe that Robin can work cinematically, albeit with changes from his comic book counterpart. Whether it's age, suit, origin or whatever that has to be changed, is up to the director/writer.
But Bruce's relationship with Grayson was always an interesting one to me, especially after Dick started to grow up and defy his mentor.
There is potential there and the tone can stay the same, imo. Just don't make Robin hip to appeal to kids who don't like him that much to begin with. Batman-ize him (like the comics have done already) and you're on the right path, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea i think Robin can be adapted to suit these films. Just because he is included doesn't automatically mean it's going to get all light hearted and silly. I would love to see how the Nolans would portray Robin in this universe, I think if done right, it could sway a lot of peoples opinions on him.

 

[mrbrownie]

If I could transfer you my stamina and patience to help you on your righteous crusade I would, Melkay. But at least you have my...

AXE!

 

[louiebling$]

I agree

 

[Melkay]

If I could transfer you my stamina and patience to help you on your righteous crusade I would, Melkay. But at least you have my...

AXE!

I am honored to accept this mighty gift, which I will bear with pride while I'm alive.
Now I go back into battle:

Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!

(what? I'm a geek too)

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I agree

HAHAHA SICK AVVY!!

"Ohhh.......a fellow nun-chukker ay?!?"

 

[AceOfKnaves]

You people are just ridiculous. Seriously. All of you. Trolls. You are the reason the internet sucks. I can't come on the side of anyone that uses namecalling as their explanations. You kids should play nice.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

You people are just ridiculous. Seriously. All of you. Trolls. You are the reason the internet sucks. I can't come on the side of anyone that uses namecalling as their explanations. You kids should play nice.

I hope you ain't talking to all of us. I haven't resorted to name calling.

 

[AceOfKnaves]

No, I'm not talking to you. But I am confused how you can back that guy. All of you that said that the original poster was too nasty is totally overlooking this guy. I just don't get it.