The Dark Knight Rises The Christopher Nolan Thread

[Batville]

Quoted for truth.

Nolan is by far the most interesting mainstream/big budget director working today by my reckoning. I'd still put my excitement for a new Paul Thomas Anderson or Coen Brothers film above Nolan, but it's very clear that he already has an absolutely outstanding body of work.

I really hope he goes and makes something a bit looser after TDKR though. His screenplays are very portentous at times, and they lean on being exposition heavy because the scope of his story telling is always so ambitious. I'd love to see him do something where his characters have more room to breathe and interact with each other through more natural dialogue.

Same. And I love how you put it. Like Keys to the Street. That's no so ambitious. And its a female lead. That'll lighten things up. But I love that he has made ambitious films. We need those too.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

After watching the DGA 75th anniversary interview of George Lucas conducted by Christopher Nolan I can't stop thinking about a wholly original sci fi/space opera epic directed by Chris.

If anyone can give us the next groundbreaking sci fi film that changes everything in such a way that it becomes a global phenomena like Star Wars it's Chris Nolan. I'm not trying to disregard some recently great sci fi movies but if anyone can change the playing field so drastically like Star Wars did it'd be him.

I'm also just really damn curious as to what he could pull off. I'm dying to see it and I really hope he has something like that planned for the near future. Here's hoping.

I'm actually going to take the risk of getting heavily flamed, but I think Nolan should tackle an epic fantasy movie sometime in his career. That would be glorious to see.


IMO

 

[Sharkboy]

I'm actually going to take the risk of getting heavily flamed, but I think Nolan should tackle an epic fantasy movie sometime in his career. That would be glorious to see.


IMO

It would be quite a large jump out of his comfort zone. He just managed to get comfortable incorporating his vision and style to summer blockbuster action, fantasy is quite a leap. I would think sci fi is more his forte. I would love to see him do something akin to Blade Runner and then something like 2001 or Alien. After that I could see him sliding towards fantasy much easier.

 

[jacobed]

AFter The Dark Knight Rises, I hope he goes to something smaller like Insomnia, Prestige, and Memento.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Personally I don't want him doing a James Bond film. But maybe that's just me, it'd be too familiar with his Batman movies, unless, of course, he does something otherwise on a conscious level.

I'd love to see him doing a sci-fi somewhere down the line, but really nothing as heavy-hitting as Star Wars or Blade Runner - those really are science fantasies.

A war-film by Nolan would be interesting in an Apocalypse Now sort of way.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Yes, something on a smaller scale... would be great to see where he explores there.

 

[Fake Hero]

Shouldn't there also be an option for I don't like Nolan at all?

I am a huge Batman fan, but I am not a fan of what Nolan has done with the character.

I also don't like anything he's done with any of the villains, except maybe Scarcrow.

I hate that he took Henri Ducard, and then made him Ras Al Ghul. I also think that Ras is one of the greatest villains in the Batman mythos, and Nolan's interpretation of him was a joke.

The whole Rachael Dawes story line was bad. It did nothing for me as a viewer, and I think it added nothing worth while to the story.

I hated his interpretation of the Joker, and I didn't care for the make-up. I thought Tim Burton laid a great blueprint down for how find a balance between Clown Prince of Crime and homicidal maniac. Nolan's Joker never felt like the Joker to me.

The Dark Knight was also full of way too many random events and coincidences that had to happen in order for the Joker's plot to unfold. It was poor story telling to me.

I also didn't like the liberties he took with Dent/Two-Face's origin story.

It's almost like Nolan is making these movies with characters named after characters in my favorite comic series, but he's just making stuff up and writing his own story that has nothing to do with who these characters really are.

It's not near as bad, but in a way it is the same thing that GI Joe did. Took the name and characters of something popular, and then just made up a different story that doesn't follow any of the generally accepted mythos.

Now some of the stuff I'm reading about The Dark Knight Returns has me shaking my head as well.

I don't have a problem with an 8 year layoff in between movies, but I do have a problem with Nolan basically saying a big F-U to who the character is. No Dick Grayson? I get why Dick wasn't in the first two, but 8 years later? We're just supposed to accept that now Bruce never adopts the kid at all? Adopting Dick was a huge event in who Bruce is and who he becomes, to just completely disregard it disappoints me.

Also, any talk of Bruce retiring or dying at the end of the movie doesn't sit well with me. Bruce swore a life long commitment to fighting crime, not an 8-year stint.

I get that Nolan has a lot of fans, and you like what he's done with the character. I respect your opinions. People like different things. I think that Nolan did some really cool things with some of what he did in these movies, and if he would have kept those things, and just stayed more true to the characters and mythos, these could have been the best Batman movies ever.


I'll watch these movies in spite of Nolan's crappy interpretation of the characters, because I'll watch anything that has Batman in it, but I've never seen any other Nolan movies, and would never watch a movie just because he directed it.

Hopefully the next guy to take on the Batman franchise does a better job.

Until then Nolan will just be another director to me, in a long line of directors, who butchered the Batman character.

 

[Nevincer]

I also don't like anything he's done with any of the villains, except maybe Scarcrow..

But Nolan butchered Scarecrow, and this is coming from someone that likes the Director.

 

[Fake Hero]

But Nolan butchered Scarecrow, and this is coming from someone that likes the Director.

Well maybe what I should have said was I hated that interpretation the least. Maybe it's because Scarecrow isn't an A-list villain like Ras, Joker, and Two-Face that I was willing to cut him some slack on that one.

 

[Doc Samson]

Agreed, I don't understand why people underrate The Terminator. it's a bit slow at points and definitely reflects it's age too, but it's still brilliant for what it was as well as how it introduced the concept. T2 would by no means have been as cool without the strenghs of it's predecessor.

Btw, the tension felt during the scene where the Terminator crashes his car through the police building and begins the shootout is exactly the grim atmosphere I want to feel with Bane. An unstoppable physical menace.

Yup. I loved that scene, as well as the part where Reese is explaining just what Sarah is up against in the parking garage.

"Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."

That s**t gives me chills everytime I see it! That whole movie is just awesome, maybe even among my favorites of all time. If Bane can apply even half that tension, we're in for a fantastic ride

It's crazy how the drama in T1 echoes the drama in T2 - they are, structurally, the same story with the same beats. I think that's why I love watching them both together

But yes, Cameron is great and all but he is overrated. Though he does get credit for being a really original and imaginative thinker in Hollywood's mainstream. I like that he experiements with his movies. That's a good thing. The actual films, however, are okay. He's a weird guy to follow though - I love all his films, but not to the point of salivating awesomeness.

I can agree with this, at least as a writer. I think he's one of the greatest visionaries ever. I also love that he incorporates strong female leads in almost all of his films, it's a nice touch. But as a writer, in particular in terms of dialogue & characterization, he's definitely not anywhere near as talented as he is with the visuals.

 

[Sharkboy]

Shouldn't there also be an option for I don't like Nolan at all?

I am a huge Batman fan, but I am not a fan of what Nolan has done with the character.

I also don't like anything he's done with any of the villains, except maybe Scarcrow.

I hate that he took Henri Ducard, and then made him Ras Al Ghul. I also think that Ras is one of the greatest villains in the Batman mythos, and Nolan's interpretation of him was a joke.

The whole Rachael Dawes story line was bad. It did nothing for me as a viewer, and I think it added nothing worth while to the story.

I hated his interpretation of the Joker, and I didn't care for the make-up. I thought Tim Burton laid a great blueprint down for how find a balance between Clown Prince of Crime and homicidal maniac. Nolan's Joker never felt like the Joker to me.

The Dark Knight was also full of way too many random events and coincidences that had to happen in order for the Joker's plot to unfold. It was poor story telling to me.

I also didn't like the liberties he took with Dent/Two-Face's origin story.

It's almost like Nolan is making these movies with characters named after characters in my favorite comic series, but he's just making stuff up and writing his own story that has nothing to do with who these characters really are.

See, but that's the thing. There is no set rules for how these characters really are, there is a vague basic outline of who batman is, what he does, and how he does it, there is an established canon in the comics, but that changes ALL the time. Comic books themselves a just a massive mess of different interpretations, we wouldn't have year one or dkr if frank miller didn't "take bob Kanes character's and made stuff up and wrote his own story with them in it" we wouldn't have had some of the most seminal works in Batman's history. Comic books shouldn't be taken as some gospel to abide by. What works in the comics doesn't always work in movies, this is an old fanboy complain which you should have gotten over a long time ago. I'd take solace that there are directors who don't let fanboys direct their movies while they smile through their teeth at nerdcons trying their hardest to get the comic book fan vote.

 

[Doc Samson]

See, but that's the thing. There is no set rules for how these characters really are, there is a vague basic outline of who batman is, what he does, and how he does it, there is an established canon in the comics, but that changes ALL the time. Comic books themselves a just a massive mess of different interpretations, we wouldn't have year one or dkr if frank miller didn't "take bob Kanes character's and made stuff up and wrote his own story with them in it" we wouldn't have had some of the most seminal works in Batman's history. Comic books shouldn't be taken as some gospel to abide by. What works in the comics doesn't always work in movies, this is an old fanboy complain which you should have gotten over a long time ago. I'd take solace that there are directors who don't let fanboys direct their movies while they smile through their teeth at nerdcons trying their hardest to get the comic book fan vote.

I don't know how many times I've had this same diatribe. I'm almost certain the Superman I grew up with, who I identify with (John Byrne's stuff) is nothing like the Superman in comics today. Doesn't make what happens today not good, it's just not my cup of tea.

So while I can respect anyone's opinion on Nolan and what he's done, to say it's bad because it's "not like the comics" really means "it's not what I like in the comics." Because the comics aren't the same from decade to decade in almost any case.

 

[TDK Joker]

See, but that's the thing. There is no set rules for how these characters really are, there is a vague basic outline of who batman is, what he does, and how he does it, there is an established canon in the comics, but that changes ALL the time. Comic books themselves a just a massive mess of different interpretations, we wouldn't have year one or dkr if frank miller didn't "take bob Kanes character's and made stuff up and wrote his own story with them in it" we wouldn't have had some of the most seminal works in Batman's history. Comic books shouldn't be taken as some gospel to abide by. What works in the comics doesn't always work in movies, this is an old fanboy complain which you should have gotten over a long time ago. I'd take solace that there are directors who don't let fanboys direct their movies while they smile through their teeth at nerdcons trying their hardest to get the comic book fan vote.

Bravo!

 

[Fake Hero]

I don't know how many times I've had this same diatribe. I'm almost certain the Superman I grew up with, who I identify with (John Byrne's stuff) is nothing like the Superman in comics today. Doesn't make what happens today not good, it's just not my cup of tea.

So while I can respect anyone's opinion on Nolan and what he's done, to say it's bad because it's "not like the comics" really means "it's not what I like in the comics." Because the comics aren't the same from decade to decade in almost any case.

That's a fair statement. It is probably what I mean to say. Nolan's interpretation is not my personal preference for an interpretation of Batman.

I don't think it's wrong for someone else to like, and I don't think someone should think I'm wrong should I choose not to like it.

 

[Sharkboy]

I don't know how many times I've had this same diatribe. I'm almost certain the Superman I grew up with, who I identify with (John Byrne's stuff) is nothing like the Superman in comics today. Doesn't make what happens today not good, it's just not my cup of tea.

So while I can respect anyone's opinion on Nolan and what he's done, to say it's bad because it's "not like the comics" really means "it's not what I like in the comics." Because the comics aren't the same from decade to decade in almost any case.

This is such an old fanboy problem that it's actually managed to make studios wuss out and make fanservicey comic book movies...when they should just take the leap of faith and make good FILMS first.

 

[Doc Samson]

That's a fair statement. It is probably what I mean to say. Nolan's interpretation is not my personal preference for an interpretation of Batman.

I don't think it's wrong for someone else to like, and I don't think someone should think I'm wrong should I choose not to like it.

Absolutely right. Personally, until I saw BB, I wasn't sure how this would work. But I can say now that most of his re-imaginings, especially Joker & Two-Face, I probably prefer more than any other interpretation. Likewise, Penguin in Arkham City is the only time I've ever found that character even remotely interesting, so it is indeed all about preference, and everyone should be entitled to their opinion.

I just bristle a little when the comic accuracy argument is the basis of someone's disdain, because things couldn't be anymore disjointed than they are in that medium. And chances are, whatever someone's preference from the comics are, by now, it's already changed.

This is such an old fanboy problem that it's actually managed to make studios wuss out and make fanservicey comic book movies...when they should just take the leap of faith and make good FILMS first.

This is probably why I like Nolan's interpretation even more, for sticking to his guns.

 

[Batville]

Watching Batman Begins. Thinking do people realize that Far Oldman and Liam Nesson is in this movie? I love me some RSS al ghul.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

And yet Nolan's interpretation of Batman is the most faithful when it comes to the comics. Any creator has the right to take liberties with the work at hand, but what I believe that most fans of Batman adore about Nolan is that he took those liberties while still being as close as he could to the comics at large. At least if you consider the characterisations (not visual cues), the events, and even the themes, those are very much akin to what we've seen before.

You can always dislike his interpretation, and that's the beauty of it. But despite the changes in design and appearance, his comics-to-film transition of the characters has been, at their core, maintained.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Personally, I think I'd love to see Nolan continue to make more period pieces for some reason. His work in The Prestige kind of proves how his vision works when it comes to literary adaptations.

And most of those crazy epistolary novels did have the whole story within a story within a story vibe that the man is so fascinated by

It's weird how among all the adaptations, it was the Nolans who focused on that structural aspect of a novel for the film itself.

 

[KRIM]

And yet Nolan's interpretation of Batman is the most faithful when it comes to the comics. Any creator has the right to take liberties with the work at hand, but what I believe that most fans of Batman adore about Nolan is that he took those liberties while still being as close as he could to the comics at large. At least if you consider the characterisations (not visual cues), the events, and even the themes, those are very much akin to what we've seen before.

You can always dislike his interpretation, and that's the beauty of it. But despite the changes in design and appearance, his comics-to-film transition of the characters has been, at their core, maintained.

No, I fully believe the Batman films being well written and not containing too many deviations that were deemed sacrilegious -- gave the impression of faithfulness.

I don't for one second think adherence to the source can be quantified, much less accurately gauged, to the point where it effects the merits of the movie.

 

[doobie]

I'm sick of people underrating T1 - its far more gripping and memorable than the other 3 IMO. I found the kid too anoying and the liquid terminator too "fantasy" in T2.

 

[lordofthenerds]

No, I fully believe the Batman films being well written and not containing too many deviations that were deemed sacrilegious -- gave the impression of faithfulness.

I don't for one second think adherence to the source can be quantified, much less accurately gauged, to the point where it effects the merits of the movie.

It depends on which Batman source you're talking about. The campy comics from 60's are much different than the dark 80's/90's interpretations. If Nolan used material from the campy, earlier Batman comics as the basis for his movie, it would make for a movie like Batman & Robin.

 

[KRIM]

Even when compared to the modern era of Batman, Nolan has made numerous alterations. Plenty of which people would easily condemn on paper, but on film have ignored or given a pass. Which is a good thing, given that it is likely they care more about execution.

Simultaneously however the standards of faithfulness can simply not be held onto these films. It easily fails.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

No, I fully believe the Batman films being well written and not containing too many deviations that were deemed sacrilegious -- gave the impression of faithfulness.

I don't for one second think adherence to the source can be quantified, much less accurately gauged, to the point where it effects the merits of the movie.

I wasn't trying to quantify them though, merely saying that the essence of the characters have indeed been preserved in a way that hasn't been in live-action before.

A well-written franchise yes, but also a film-adaptation. One cannot ever forget the importance of the latter.

Even when compared to the modern era of Batman, Nolan has made numerous alterations. Plenty of which people would easily condemn on paper, but on film have ignored or given a pass. Which is a good thing, given that it is likely they care more about execution.

Simultaneously however the standards of faithfulness can simply not be held onto these films. It easily fails.

He has, and for the better. But those alterations were more at the outer rims of the story, such as designs or plot-to-plot continuity etc. The essence of the characters and the stories remained.

It is possible to regard them as unfaithful but that doesn't mean their faithfulness should be denied.

 

[KRIM]

I wasn't trying to quantify them though, merely saying that the essence of the characters have indeed been preserved in a way that hasn't been in live-action before.

Essentially you're saying it was different? Isn't this expected of any director that comes in to adapt?

Unless you mean the amount of essence being captured. In which case, then you are quantifying it.

He has, and for the better. But those alterations were more at the outer rims of the story, such as designs or plot-to-plot continuity etc. The essence of the characters and the stories remained.

There are more comic book adaptations that this can be applied to, than those that can't. The significant difference being quality of directing, writing, and acting.

It is possible to regard them as unfaithful but that doesn't mean their faithfulness should be denied.

That is a clash of terms. By having several instances of infidelity, by very definition it cannot be deemed faithful.