The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - Part 140

[Alexei Belyakov]

Wallys comments were ridiculous tbh why even say anything?

Film is an art form and Pfister is an artist. Artists are perfectly entitled to disapprove or critique art.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Film is an art form and Pfister is an artist. Artists are perfectly entitled to disapprove or critique art.

 

[T"Challa]

Seamus McGarvey is a respected Oscar nominated and BAFTA winning cinematographer. There's just something outta line when you go after someone's work like that. "Appalling"..i mean really?

 

[Travesty]

Duh. Im talking about in their arguments. When it comes to "Avengers is a better success than Dark Knight Rises!!!". It's a team-up movie with 6 or 7 superheroes going up against a solo Batman film. It's a ridiculous argument. And they act as if it's just 1 marvel franchise versus 1 DC franchise. But it's really a dream-team squaring off against 1 player.

Who cares if there's an ensemble cast? I don't even know why you're trying to make that point or excuse? It doesn't matter if there's a "dream team" of superheros "against" a solo superhero movie. X-men and F4 prove that just because you have a group of superheros together doesn't mean it's going to break records. What matters is the quality of the film.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Seamus McGarvey is a respected Oscar nominated and BAFTA winning cinematographer. There's just something outta line when you go after someone's work like that. "Appalling"..i mean really?

Frankly, his work on Avengers was a huge step down from Atonement.

Whedon deserves some blame too though.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Seamus McGarvey is a respected Oscar nominated and BAFTA winning cinematographer. There's just something outta line when you go after someone's work like that. "Appalling"..i mean really?

Out of line? Are you kidding me? It's his own opinion.
It's only "out of line" because he criticized the Avengers. People really need to grow a back bone. People are not always going to agree on things. Just shrug it off. If you feel someone's opinion that a superhero movie had poor cinematography went over the line, then you need to revaluate your priorities.

And seriously. Whedon criticized Zak Penn's Avenger's script. But no one says that "went over the line" because no one actually cares about "the line" or in this case, most people don't like Penn's work so they agreed. They just don't want the stuff they like to be criticized.

EDIT: Also, where is this contract that professionals sign that it's 'tactless' or a 'out of line' to criticize other professionals work? Wally Pfister, an Oscar nominated cinematographer, doesn't have the right to criticize another's work, but all of us can voice our opinion freely? I mean, people blast both of these movies to hell on this message board alone. Why isn't that crossing the line? I mean, if an Oscar nominated cinematographer can't, then we definitely have no place.

 

[BatLobster]

if an Oscar winning cinematographer can't

Fixed.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Fixed.

He still was nominated though.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I already conceded that I agree with the general sentiment -- that of TDKR's superior photography to Avengers -- but the notion that someone who won an Oscar having an inherently unarguable opinion in that field is bull-*******-crap. It reveals on the part of those posters who champion it a profound ignorance of the seedier political underbelly of the Academy.

I mean, by that screwy logic, Pfisters opinion should hold automatic levity over Roger Deakins, **** that. By that dumb logic, Francis Ford Coppola's assessment of TDK not being all that should be upheld as objective fact because he has numerous Oscars while Nolan has none. It's simplistic thinking; because awards, especially the politically, advertisement charged Oscars, mean absolutely nothing, or shouldn't mean anything to anyone who appreciates art of any sort.

What was the film that won best cinematography the year before Inception again? Oh that's right, AVATAR!

 

[CConn]

Why bring up Avatar?

Anyway, I guess I technically agree. Although, Pfister does know more than anyone here because of his being an accomplished professional and us, well, are not.

 

[BatLobster]

It's got more to do with the fact that Wally is an awesome DP than the fact that he has an Oscar win. It's just one of those cases where him having the trophy is actually deserved and gives credence to him being a world class DP. I think people would respect his opinion just as much whether he had the Oscar or not- his work speaks for itself. Just like I respect Francis Ford Coppola's opinion on TDK, even though I don't necessarily agree with it. Wally's Oscar is just a nice notch in the belt. The Oscars are a lot of BS, but still a lot of talented people have been awarded for their work and Wally was lucky enough to have been one of those people.

 

[CConn]

Oh, and the Francis Ford quote also states that he finds I Heart The Huckabees a "remarkable film", so he's obviously gone senile.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I already conceded that I agree with the general sentiment -- that of TDKR's superior photography to Avengers -- but the notion that someone who won an Oscar having an inherently unarguable opinion in that field is bull-*******-crap. It reveals on the part of those posters who champion it a profound ignorance of the seedier political underbelly of the Academy.

I mean, by that screwy logic, Pfisters opinion should hold automatic levity over Roger Deakins, **** that. By that dumb logic, Francis Ford Coppola's assessment of TDK not being all that should be upheld as objective fact because he has numerous Oscars while Nolan has none. It's simplistic thinking; because awards, especially the politically, advertisement charged Oscars, mean absolutely nothing, or shouldn't mean anything to anyone who appreciates art of any sort.

What was the film that won best cinematography the year before Inception again? Oh that's right, AVATAR!

If you read what I wrote, I never said his opinion was unarguable or even correct. I said it was wrong that people were saying he shouldn't express his opinion or that he crossed some undefined line. From there I said hypothetically, if he shouldn't be able to express his opinion, then why do we get that privilege?

Although I wouldn't think it too far to say that I would take his thoughts with more credibility than I would an angry commenter saying "the avengers was awesome!"

 

[Brother Jack]

Film is an art form and Pfister is an artist. Artists are perfectly entitled to disapprove or critique art.

True, but using the word appalling to describe a peer's work is uncalled for. There was a better way to express that (educated) opinion.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

True, but using the word appalling to describe a peer's work is uncalled for. There was a better way to express that (educated) opinion.

I'd use the word "popcorn", but Pfister's clearly a bolder man than I am.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Pfist pump! Oh! Oh! Oh!

 

[redfirebird2008]

I disagree. A bit amateurish in places, but I just re-watched the battle royale of The Avengers right now and none of the camerawork there was off-putting or weird. I don't think Whedon was looking to ape the smooth, glossy look of the Nolan Batman films or even the first three X-Men films.

I will admit Pfister's work on BB and TDKR, looks-wise, beat McGarvey's Avengers by a country mile. But the filmmakers weren't aiming for a slick style anyway, and it worked for TA.

But it would've been interesting to see how Jack N. Green or Pfister (both film proponents) would've lit and shot The Avengers. But Pfister could've been more tactful about criticizing the camerawork, since the way he said it makes him seem jealous.

What is this "smooth, glossy" garbage? When I think of "smooth, glossy" cinematography, I certainly don't think of a guy who goes out of his way to avoid digital photography. If anything, the Avengers has a smooth and glossy appearance compared to what Pfister is known for in his work. Not to mention there are some amateurish shots in there. Couldn't believe the amount of distracting flicker in the scene where Natasha convinces Banner to join the team. Then the flicker got even worse during the scene where Thor/Loki/Iron Man/Cap are fighting in the forest. How many times has this cinematographer shot a feature film with digital cameras? It came across like he hadn't mastered it. They should have consulted David Fincher and his cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth.

 

[Black Narcissus]

How can you guys like Gosling as Batman? Bruce is a handsome guy, yes, but Ryan has some really feminine features, not to mention his high pitched voice. When I read the comics, I don't imagine Ryan, I imagine someone much more manly.

I'm not saying I hate Gosling, I'm a big fan, but he's wrong for Batman.

Have you seen Drive?

Gosling has the tools to make a great Batman/Bruce Wayne.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Didn't gosling say he'd never do a superhero movie?

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Didn't gosling say he'd never do a superhero movie?

Yep, and he never will.

 

[TheFuture]

Didn't gosling say he'd never do a superhero movie?

Yep, and he never will.

And thank **** for that.

 

[The Knight]

Why didn't Batman take military's help in the end? In the movie he basically takes down Bane's army with his own officers' army which acts as a distraction as in the backdrop Gordon jams the bomb. But when Batman proclaims his return(the burning bat scene),he risks Bane's detonation of the bomb in fear of failure of his plan at Batman's hands who could have stopped Bane.

So,in my opinion,the best and most logical plan for Batman would have been to explain to the Government the situation and to arrange for a cooperated attack. In this attack Batman would jam the device(instead of Gordon) and then signal the military to launch an attack(most probably aerial as the bridges were down). In this way,Bane would be caught off guard and chances of success would be higher if Talia's treachery is not taken into account which wasn't taken into account anyway by Batman when he made his plan.

 

[Marvolo]

What is this "smooth, glossy" garbage? When I think of "smooth, glossy" cinematography, I certainly don't think of a guy who goes out of his way to avoid digital photography. If anything, the Avengers has a smooth and glossy appearance compared to what Pfister is known for in his work. Not to mention there are some amateurish shots in there. Couldn't believe the amount of distracting flicker in the scene where Natasha convinces Banner to join the team. Then the flicker got even worse during the scene where Thor/Loki/Iron Man/Cap are fighting in the forest. How many times has this cinematographer shot a feature film with digital cameras? It came across like he hadn't mastered it. They should have consulted David Fincher and his cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth.

Might want to check your equipment. No flicker on my blu-ray.

As for Pfister's comments, i like his work but he is being a smug bastard. Promote your work but dont act like a child on the playground proclaiming your toy is better. It may be but its a little thing called humility.

 

[Uroboric Forms]

I really don't see how Ryan would make a good Batman based on the strength of Drive. Although its a good film, Drive seemed more made up of awkward pauses and creepy half-smiles than anything particularly 'intense'.

Now Nicolas Winding Refn as director, that I could see.

 

[The Joker]

Film is an art form and Pfister is an artist. Artists are perfectly entitled to disapprove or critique art.

Agreed. I think it's more the way he phrased it that is annoying some people.