The Dark Knight The Realism Debate thread

[trustyside-kick]

I never listen to critics or read their reviews when I am thinking about watching a movie. If it interests me, I'll check it out. Those guys are just trying to be asses anyway if they don't like one small part about it.

 

[itsthebatman]

To be honest, I pay attention to critics, especially the Guardian's Peter Bradshaw and also Roger Ebert, along with (to a lesser extent) Total Film, for films in general. I find I agree most of the time with their views, and when I see a film they've alted, it's usually poor. There are always going to be critic-proof movies, but that doesn't mean they're not crap.

 

[Mercurius]

A box office success is important to films like the first of the the series.

Moreover, a box office gross, especially to a heavily marketed film will usually give us a indication on how most people viewed the film. A good word of mouth or a bad one.

Also, who give a damn about critics nowadays anyway? From box office gross, I guess we DO have a clear indication on how the public view POTC and how the critics viewed it.

The Box Office is important for the studio, for possibilities of making a numbah 2. But NOT for the movie's quality.

What major audiences think (IF they do) don't matter for the quality of a movie, or we could just watch romantic comedies.

Critics make ridiculous mistakes many times, like every other human being in this particular planet, but sometimes they point to things that can enlighten common ignorance on movie matter.

Common moviegoers don't mind eating trash. That's their staple. t:

If this is your personal way of establishing what matters, and what doesn't matter, you're pretty confused, mate.

 

[thegameq]

It's a shame when a 1993 movie has better T-Rex CG than a 2005 movie. Not that the CG was KK's biggest problem. And people dubbed this a classic.... What has cinema sunk into?

Kong was a work of art.

Other works of art:

Star Wars first trilogy
LOTR films
Indiana Jones
Burton Batman films
Donner's Superman films
Spider-man films
Sin City
300

Notice a certain...something the above films embody or capture?

That's what many fans wanted and expected for this newest version of Batman. NOT ANOTHER BATMAN VARIANT.

And I'm sure someone will point out the comics have had their various interpretations of the character(s), but even so, the characters never stray far from the concept, i.e., Batman and his world is still stylized and noir.

Honestly, was it just to much to ask for?

Now if you tell me this "realistic" variant of Batman is a direct response to the Schumacher films I can partially buy it. But a stylized noir version of Batman, like TAS, done not so much panel for panel like Sin City/300, but in terms of art style, would have been great way to re-introduce the character in more serious tone and erase the bad taste of Batman and Robin. While at the same time actually be a true Batman movie.

Ah nuts..........we're stuck with this version of Batman for a while (again), so as my friend (whom I thought would love this version of Batman because it has more "nods" towards the comics) says: just ride it out until the next reboot.

 

[ray243]

The Box Office is important for the studio, for possibilities of making a numbah 2. But NOT for the movie's quality.

What major audiences think (IF they do) don't matter for the quality of a movie, or we could just watch romantic comedies.

Critics make ridiculous mistakes many times, like every other human being in this particular planet, but sometimes they point to things that can enlighten common ignorance on movie matter.

Common moviegoers don't mind eating trash. That's their staple. t:

If this is your personal way of establishing what matters, and what doesn't matter, you're pretty confused, mate.

And yet most audience does not buy King Kong with all the heavy advertisim. Why?

People LIKED certain movies which critics hated, and usually it is because those movies are FUN to watch, and do NOT need to be very deep at times.

When the audience went to watch comedy, they like it because it is funny, NOT because it has a first rate story or anything.

The average movie viewers are NOT that dumb, just that they like what they want to watch and KNOWS what to expect, as compared to critics.


The movie main goals it to ensure the viewers or most of them LIKED the film. King Kong failed because it failed to interest the average joe, and NOT the major movie fans on boards or anything.



DO NOT think yourself as being above an average viewer. It's just that you don't agree with other people's view...or a majority. A good 'POPCORN' film can prove its worth with its box office.


And one last note, just because you think KK is a good film does not mean everyone MUST share your opinion, or the majority needs to.

 

[Gianakin_]

gameq: I think this is the first post that I disagree with 100%. Well, not 100% since you mentioned some real works of art (Oh, and you forgot the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars). Just watch the original King Kong, you'll see what I'm talking about when I refer to the new piece of overrated-because-of-LotR cinema.

 

[ray243]

Kong was a work of art.

Other works of art:

Star Wars first trilogy
LOTR films
Indiana Jones
Burton Batman films
Donner's Superman films
Spider-man films
Sin City
300

Notice a certain...something the above films embody or capture?

That's what many fans wanted and expected for this newest version of Batman. NOT ANOTHER BATMAN VARIANT.

And I'm sure someone will point out the comics have had their various interpretations of the character(s), but even so, the characters never stray far from the concept, i.e., Batman and his world is still stylized and noir.

Honestly, was it just to much to ask for?

Now if you tell me this "realistic" variant of Batman is a direct response to the Schumacher films I can partially buy it. But a stylized noir version of Batman, like TAS, done not so much panel for panel like Sin City/300, but in terms of art style, would have been great way to re-introduce the character in more serious tone and erase the bad taste of Batman and Robin. While at the same time actually be a true Batman movie.

Ah nuts..........we're stuck with this version of Batman for a while (again), so as my friend (whom I thought would love this version of Batman because it has more "nods" towards the comics) says: just ride it out until the next reboot.

We will have to wait until the film audience decided to change their taste of films version. Right now, people are going for a more down to earth version of movies mostly...

 

[Crook]

The average movie viewers are NOT that dumb, just that they like what they want to watch and KNOWS what to expect, as compared to critics.

The movie main goals it to ensure the viewers or most of them LIKED the film. King Kong failed because it failed to interest the average joe, and NOT the major movie fans on boards or anything.

Kong WAS liked by the majority. A heavily marketed film with a moderate opening weekend, does not reach 218 million if it's disliked or has bad word of mouth. If that were the case, it would have dropped like a tank ala Hulk. It didn't.

By your logic, BB was an instant failure, since it only gathered in a measly 205 million. Yet we know that word of mouth helped that film slug along. Pretty much the same thing happened with Kong, since it's opening weekend wasn't that far ahead of BB.

As for it's artistic merit, I personally feel the art design and cinematography was pure perfection, and a great ode to the original classic. I have my problems with the script (mostly in the first half), but on technical value, it is top-notch and I applaud Jackson and WETA.

 

[thegameq]

Kong WAS liked by the majority. A heavily marketed film with a moderate opening weekend, does not reach 218 million if it's disliked or has bad word of mouth. If that were the case, it would have dropped like a tank ala Hulk. It didn't.

By your logic, BB was an instant failure, since it only gathered in a measly 205 million. Yet we know that word of mouth helped that film slug along. Pretty much the same thing happened with Kong, since it's opening weekend wasn't that far ahead of BB.

As for it's artistic merit, I personally feel the art design and cinematography was pure perfection, and a great ode to the original classic. I have my problems with the script (mostly in the first half), but on technical value, it is top-notch and I applaud Jackson and WETA.

I agree.

The only consistent complaint about Kong was of course the running time. Otherwise most people view the film favorably.

Of course not everyone would appreciate the artistic merits, as with most such films.

 

[mcflytrap]

I never listen to critics or read their reviews when I am thinking about watching a movie. If it interests me, I'll check it out. Those guys are just trying to be asses anyway if they don't like one small part about it.

Critics view a film from a neutral standpoint and take into account the things that matter in a film...like characters, story, as well as the technical aspects like cinematography, etc. Some critics certainly are asses, but many look at films in ways that your average moviegoer does not. Theirs should be a considered and valued opinion based on what you know about the critic and the film...but not the word of god.

To dismiss them entirely is foolish, and you'll find you'll miss out on a lot of good films, as well as waste your money on a lot of crappy ones.

 

[mcflytrap]

Kong was a work of art.

Jackson's King Kong was a pompous bloated mess. Same with the LOTR films, although to a lesser extent.

 

[Figs]

Critics view a film from a neutral standpoint and take into account the things that matter in a film...like characters, story, as well as the technical aspects like cinematography, etc. Some critics certainly are asses, but many look at films in ways that your average moviegoer does not. Theirs should be a considered and valued opinion based on what you know about the critic and the film...but not the word of god.

To dismiss them entirely is foolish, and you'll find you'll miss out on a lot of good films, as well as waste your money on a lot of crappy ones.

Yes, but that so called "neutral standpoint" is a doctored way of thinking in most cases. It's the people that go to film school and other such classes where they force feed you how to think and how to watch. Seriously before that, people would watch a film as is and then decide if they liked it or not without any sheep like guidelines to follow. Most reviewers follow those guidelines like sheep being told how to watch, what to think, what to look for instead of sitting back and just taking it in. Films are entertainment, I believe the film industry started to die or weaken when pretentious people started calling entertainment art.

Don't get me wrong, there can be artistic merit and influence in films, music and even video games but I think it's crap that people actually consider them outright works of art.

 

[Gianakin_]

Jackson's King Kong was a pompous bloated mess. Same with the LOTR films, although to a lesser extent.

You speak words of wisdom.
Although I disagree with you about the critic angle.

 

[thegameq]

We will have to wait until the film audience decided to change their taste of films version. Right now, people are going for a more down to earth version of movies mostly...

hmmmmmmm......

I think Batfans have been traumatized by Schumacher. As a result have possibly gotten conservative when it comes to a vision for Batman on film.
Also, some are just glad to have the character back in a positive light, even if it is a variant of the character and his world.

I wonder how big a role WB played in deciding the tone and vision for this new Batman.

 

[thegameq]

gameq: I think this is the first post that I disagree with 100%. Well, not 100% since you mentioned some real works of art (Oh, and you forgot the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars). Just watch the original King Kong, you'll see what I'm talking about when I refer to the new piece of overrated-because-of-LotR cinema.

I'm a little iffy on the prequel trilogy.....didn't outright hate them as some do, but yeah, they were art.

 

[Figs]

As for the talk about people are liking Nolan's version simply because there conservative since Schumacher's crap. I like Nolan's for my own personal reasons, one of which is that it is fairly more accurate than the others. Since we've only seen BB and not TDK, another reason I liked it was that it showed his training and what drives him. No version from anyone will ever be perfect, and to be honest I believe it's all in the eye of the beholder in terms of style. I don't see detective/crime noir in every issue of Batman. It has changed over time, maybe it was more noir like in the past but not as much in the last few decades.

 

[Gianakin_]

Considering that it was Batman Begins that made me a hardcore Bat-fan, no, it wasn't relief from the Schumacher films that made me overreact into how muc I like Nolan's Batman.

 

[thegameq]

As for the talk about people are liking Nolan's version simply because there conservative since Schumacher's crap. I like Nolan's for my own personal reasons, one of which is that it is fairly more accurate than the others. Since we've only seen BB and not TDK, another reason I liked it was that it showed his training and what drives him. No version from anyone will ever be perfect, and to be honest I believe it's all in the eye of the beholder in terms of style. I don't see detective/crime noir in every issue of Batman. It has changed over time, maybe it was more noir like in the past but not as much in the last few decades.

FigmanJ, do you think a stylized noir (300/Sin city, TAS) version of Batman could work on film? Why? Why not?

Would it limit the films appeal to only hardcore fans and those who appreciate such stylized films and thusly the box office?

Not singling you out, just read your reasonable post and thought I'd pose the question is all.

 

[Figs]

FigmanJ, do you think a stylized noir (300/Sin city, TAS) version of Batman could work on film? Why? Why not?

Would it limit the films appeal to only hardcore fans and those who appreciate such stylized films and thusly the box office?

Not singling you out, just read your reasonable post and thought I'd pose the question is all.

I think it could work on film since I believe there should be no right or wrong vision when it comes to film making. It would be a new style for a Batman film. If kept close to the comics and not screwing with the characters too much I would most likely enjoy that as well. I'm a fan of both Burton and Nolan's versions.

I don't think it would limit the appeal to only hardcore fans at all, movies like 300 and Sin City have shown that the general audience also like something visually different. I was overall simply stating that to be a so called "true Batman film" it wouldn't need to be filmed in a noir style. Personally although it's not perfect I heavily enjoy Nolan's version and can't wait to see TDK.

 

[thegameq]

I think it could work on film since I believe there should be no right or wrong vision when it comes to film making. It would be a new style for a Batman film. If kept close to the comics and not screwing with the characters too much I would most likely enjoy that as well. I'm a fan of both Burton and Nolan's versions.

I don't think it would limit the appeal to only hardcore fans at all, movies like 300 and Sin City have shown that the general audience also like something visually different. I was overall simply stating that to be a so called "true Batman film" it wouldn't need to be filmed in a noir style. Personally although it's not perfect I heavily enjoy Nolan's version and can't wait to see TDK.

Perhaps a nugget of wisdom....

 

[Tournée d'adieu]

For some reason I went back and read Roger Ebert's review of Batman Begins, and this quote caught me eye:

"The movie is not realistic, because how could it be, but it acts as if it is."

In this sense, I think some of the more outlandish things (i.e. Joker being perma-white) could become plausible if the movie convinces us it's a realistic thing to do. In other words, if the Joker has the proper motivations, is characterized in the right way, we might believe there was no other way to go than applying multiple layers of make-up. At the very least, it might mean him having bleached skin in any form can be considered realistic even though it isn't...realistic.

It's a matter of how the film presents it. I don't think Nolan is unaware of that.

 

[Hole Shot]

Just want to chime in and say you guys listen to Randal too much

LOTR is AWESOME!!! One the tops in my book.

 

[Penismightier]

FigmanJ, do you think a stylized noir (300/Sin city, TAS) version of Batman could work on film? Why? Why not?

Would it limit the films appeal to only hardcore fans and those who appreciate such stylized films and thusly the box office?

Not singling you out, just read your reasonable post and thought I'd pose the question is all.

300 isn't noir. Stylized noir doesn't really work since the whole point of noir is that it's a very "bare bones" style of filmmaking. The real reason they are so high contrast is that they had very little money to pay for lights. It's not supposed to be slick, it's supposed to be gritty. TAS was noir because of the protagonist that refused to play by the rules, and because it brought the film and lighting techniques into animation. I can't make my mind up about Sin City. I mean, all of the elements of noir are there, but the essence seemed to be lacking.

 

[thegameq]

300 isn't noir. Stylized noir doesn't really work since the whole point of noir is that it's a very "bare bones" style of filmmaking. The real reason they are so high contrast is that they had very little money to pay for lights. It's not supposed to be slick, it's supposed to be gritty. TAS was noir because of the protagonist that refused to play by the rules, and because it brought the film and lighting techniques into animation. I can't make my mind up about Sin City. I mean, all of the elements of noir are there, but the essence seemed to be lacking.

Okay...,do you think such an approach on film could work for Batman, without limiting the characters appeal to general audiences?

...you see, again, it just raises a huge question mark with me and I would imagine other fans as well--to say nothing of being fustrating. After close to a twenty year hiatus (during which the stellar BTAS to many nailed Batman and his world damn near perfectly), we thought we were going to see a real Batman movie--especially after the great treatment Raimi gave Spider-man....

Instead we got another variation on Batman with a few nods here and there to the fans...why? Why is this character so hard to bring to film properly? Where's the daring vision we've been waiting for? Nolan's film isn't bad by any means, but it's still just another alternate version of Batman.

I can all but guarantee you that by the third film, Nolan will continue the current trend and move further from the source material. Why? We already had a Batman variant in the 80s-90s. Why another one?

It's just very disappointing to see such a great fantasy character with so much visual potential distilled into.......what we got.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Realism (or in this girtty/grown up tone) works and its the contemporary for the quality within the genre now