Christopher Nolan - Overhyped?

[Mordar]

Hello all -

In two recent instances I have seen Christopher Nolan floated as a/the director people would most want to see on a Star Wars or Highlander film (new trilogy or reboot, as appropriate), and that spurred me to wonder if my opinion of him was in the minority and I'm really missing the boat, or if there's a vocal crowd that gives voice to NolanHype.

My opinion, for the record, is that I've liked (but not necessarily loved) all but one of his films that I have seen. I'm just not sure if it had anything to do with his direction. In order of viewing/release"

Momento - Very very clever movie, and he did the screenplay...but was it wondrous direction?
Insomnia - Reasonably enjoyable, but nothing spectacular.
Batman Begins - I think this is the first source of NolanHype. So much better than the Batman films of recent memory...but that's like saying a piece of JuicyFruit gum is better than being hit by a steamroller. Not hard to improve from Batman Forever or Batman and Robin, and the desperation for a good Batman movie set the stage for the NolanHype catalyst to come...
The Prestige - Again, clever and enjoyable. I liked The Illusionist better, but that's a different animal altogether. Still, nothing groundbreaking here.
The Dark Knight - This is the aforementioned catalyst. Ledger gives a great performance and dies between filming and release. Hype is turned up to 12...and hides several poorly-developed plot points, clunky scenes that are rife with holes, and a few leaps of logic that are bigger than even John Carter could make. [Note: Still enjoyed the movie...after all, it is neopulp!]
Inception - Didn't care for this one at all...I'm sure there is a tvtrope that describes the rookie suddenly being better than all the experienced practitioners, and that's one of the only things besides the effects I really remember about the film. Well, that and a rugpuller that was, I think, less effective that M. Night's similar efforts.
The Dark Knight Rises - My favorite of Nolan's Batmovies, but still featuring too many clunky scenes or leaps of logic (e.g. "Let's send *every* cop we can put in uniform into the sewers and search them brigade style...just so they can get cut off and be brought back later when I need them"). A nice effort at mixing Knightfall and No Man's Land, with some fanservice tossed in, but the good was mostly in the acting (Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway, not Bale...), I think.

So, in all I see some clever concepts/writing and the benefit of some good casting/acting (which I freely admit the director can impact)...but no great vision for the epic story, a compelling need to make every hero evidence a fatal flaw (which is great for humanist stories), and a history of trying to bring everything down to a common level. That's all fine for Insomnia and the Prestige...and playable with Batman, so long as you don't want to explore the DC universe.

But what is there that makes so many want to see him helm a Star Wars film? Are we that interested in how Obi-Wan's parents fought over sending him to Jedi Academy, and how that led to his blindspot for Anakin's descent to the Dark Side? Could we ever see a Justice League with Nolan as the defining voice for DC movies? Wonder Woman would be a WWE Diva and Green Latern's power ring would be, what, a taser? Will Superman be Superman, or will it be an exploration of Clark Kent's angst and trying to see how he fits in with the common man? See Note 1

What am I missing?

Thoughts from the Playground?

- M

1 - I recall Nicolas Cage wanting to play Superman long ago...I thought that a horrible choice.* It almost seems like it would be someone Nolan would consider if he weren't so desperately tied to actors from his previous films.

* - Detractors said Cage wasn't "heroic" enough. Proponents said "He's won an Oscar...he can play heroic." I said "Jessica Tandy won an Oscar. I'd rather see *her* as Superman!"

[Eldan]

Pretty much my thoughts. He makes nice movies. Not great ones. With maybe the exception of Dark Knight.

[Metahuman1]

He makes good movies of a certain fashion, but the problem is the flavor of Star wars and the Larger DC Universe do not fit that fashion. He'd be horrible for Justice League, though in a twist of Irony, he could probably assemble a solid cast for some of the roles. Even so, DC is still having to re-reboot Batman to make it fit in the Justice League just cause Nolanverse batman only works if he's the only cape out there, he can't co-exist with Superman, Wonder woman, Flash and Green Lantern. And Nolan Has shown that he has total disregard for anything that doesn't fit a certain school of though about the world, which is fine for batman but doesn't work for the others, and he knows he can't handle super powers, it's why Bane didn't have superhuman strength or durability or stamina, Why Ra's wasn't Immortal. He can't handle a universe were things are more then human.

It's also why he had such public disdane for robin and made up the adult cop John Blake who's real name was "Robin", he feels that sidekicks are the worst thing to happen to comics since Superpowers, and that Superpowers were a horrible thing for them. The Blake character was a "**** you" to all the fans that wanted Robin at some point in his movies, just like all but deleting Jim Gordon having a daughter and making Gordon's favorite his Son was a direct "**** You" at all the Batgirl/Oracla fans.

And the same goes for Starwars. He'd have been an improvement on Lucas for the prequels, but he's be way to far out of his element with everything else except maybe, MAYBE a Vong Trilogy.


And Because of the Immortal aspects, Highlander goes into that category.




It's not that he's bad at what he does, it's that what he does well doesn't suit those tasks. Wrong skill set for the job, square peg in round hole kinda deal.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

@Mordar: I actually love TDK Trilogy and Inception. They are, objectively, great movies. I haven't seen the other two, but my sister swears Memento was great. Prestige is...okay. I agree that Illusionist is better, but they're both decent. I don't think the Nolanhype is unearned.


It's also why he had such public disdane for robin and made up the adult cop John Blake who's real name was "Robin", he feels that sidekicks are the worst thing to happen to comics since Superpowers, and that Superpowers were a horrible thing for them. The Blake character was a "**** you" to all the fans that wanted Robin at some point in his movies, just like all but deleting Jim Gordon having a daughter and making Gordon's favorite his Son was a direct "**** You" at all the Batgirl/Oracla fans.

Well, let's be fair. He wasn't wrong. I personally dislike camp in Superhero movies (not always, but mostly), and Nolan seems to do brilliantly at realistic, gritty stuff.

While Star Wars needs a little grit, at it's heart it is a Black/White Space Opera. Moral Grayness is very rare. When Luke shows up in ROTJ he straight up Force Chokes people. That is not Lightside, and his wearing black seems to emphasize how dangerously close he is to Falling. And he gets called on it by Yoda, so there isn't the "Bad Actions for a Good Cause" thing that some people attribute to Batman.

And Justice League (and all of DC) is Camp Personified. As much as they like to dress up their characters in black and give them "edge", I can never take their characters seriously. Nolan's a bad fit for anything bigger than Batman DC-wise.

[Tavar]

Um...in Inception the rookies isn't strictly better. Her advantage is not being crazy, and thus not selfsabatoging herself. For everyone besides Leonardo, she does a different job, so I don't think we can really compare.


And I don't think those statements are as exact and firm as you seem to think they are. Different continuities lack those characters, and they aren't direct statements.

[small pumpkin m]

I think he's a wonderful director, and you're selling him short, I do however agree that a noticable part of the hype train around him is because of Dark Knight, and things that he didn't have that much control over, and that he would be a horrible choice for Star Wars/Justice League.

I'd be happy to see a Nolan Highlander movie, but that's partly because I can't see anybody really making a good Highlander remake without doing something weird and different with the franchise.

[Spuddles]

I think you are really, really selling Nolan short. The TDK trilogy and inception are masterpieces of cinematography and compelling story telling. The acting in the films was nothing short of great. Not only are his movies astoundingly well pt together on a visual, audial, and general cinematographic level, but his stories are engaging and nuanced. I think he does so well in telling stories because he's a world builder. He doesn't just come up with a cool idea and throw it at the screen, he takes the time to build movie reality around it. The Prestige and Inception are virtually metanarratives about movie making. How great is it that you can have a $100,000,000 blockbuster action/heist movie with a metanarrative about movies?

Personally, I'd like to see what he could do with the Star Wars universe. There's a ton of material to work with out there. I have sense that the feeling rone and visuals of the movie would be closer to David Lynch's Dune, but without being bad like Dune.

Out of curiosity, what do you guys who are poo-pooing Nolan consider great movies?

[Zrak]

Memento is probably his best movie, from a directorial standpoint, and I generally agree with Thomas Elsaesser's inclusion of it as one of the "mind game" films he wrote about. The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises were enjoyable enough, but a lot of that had more to do with the actors than any clear directorial vision, though I will admit directors certainly influence their actors. The Prestige was fun and required a little more directorial panache than his Batman trilogy, but a lot of what made it enjoyable came down to writing and acting, and the direction didn't have the same flair as Memento. I plain and simply couldn't stand Inception, at all. I still want to see his first movie, though.

[Kitten Champion]

I loath such questions, you move outside of the objective consideration of the work and into ineffable perceptions of a cultural community of which you can only guess about. It's a natural reaction to hedge your bets, particularly when the phrasing is so ambiguous. You think to yourself "perhaps I didn't enjoy or hate his/her work as much as I thought, I'm simply being influenced by a mob mentality" and doubt the veracity of your own opinions. "Maybe this isn't as bad as I thought? I should be more impartial, after all this person is defending/detracting from it." You can use it as a weapon against saints, or a defence for the rapacious -- because it's not about them, but us, and we're a fickle lot prone to misjudgments.

I have no idea if Nolan is over-hyped, I don't know of an accurate measurement for hype or where the red-line is that puts it into "over" territory.

I do believe he's one of the few directors out there who is excelling in his craft. He creates novel, visually appealing, and intellectually interesting works of cinema. They appeal to adults without the abuse of modern CG or sexual and violent imagery. His works contrast with the chaff of much of modern cinema and I've yet to regret paying the ticket price for admission to any of his films. What's more, and this the most important part -- I don't forget his films -- I can tell you about the plots and characters, I remember the startling images and plot twists.

That's really all I can ask.

[Dr.Epic]

The Dark Knight - This is the aforementioned catalyst. Ledger gives a great performance and dies between filming and release. Hype is turned up to 12...and hides several poorly-developed plot points, clunky scenes that are rife with holes, and a few leaps of logic that are bigger than even John Carter could make. [Note: Still enjoyed the movie...after all, it is neopulp!]
The Dark Knight Rises - My favorite of Nolan's Batmovies, but still featuring too many clunky scenes or leaps of logic (e.g. "Let's send *every* cop we can put in uniform into the sewers and search them brigade style...just so they can get cut off and be brought back later when I need them"). A nice effort at mixing Knightfall and No Man's Land, with some fanservice tossed in, but the good was mostly in the acting (Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway, not Bale...), I think.

:smallconfused:

Seriously? The best of the Nolan Bat-films? To me, that's like saying Return of the Jedi is the best original Star Wars film. Okay, you're going to have to elaborate on (1) the "poorly-developed plot points, clunky scenes that are rife with holes, and a few leaps of logic" and (2) why you pick Dark Knight Rises as the best of the three.

[Dienekes]

Probably, but that's because I don't think entertainment should be anywhere near as hyped as it is. Seriously, the folks get paid ridiculous amounts of money for something other than the necessities of life, and paparazzi follow them reporting on random crap, the whole system seems utterly ridiculous to me. But just basing it off his films, yeah, not all of them will appeal to everyone so that will count toward overhyping as well.

In any case, I really like Nolan's work. But I think he does big concepts and cool ideas far better than dialogue and plotting. Though for me that doesn't really bother me much and has not subtracted from my enjoyment from any one of his films (that I've seen anyway). Besides I will always respect the guy for being one of the few blockbuster directors who at least tries to take a step away from cgi where it is practical to do so.

[GolemsVoice]

I've seen allmost all of the movies you list, and I enjoyed them all very much, and would recommend them to my friends any time. To me, that means that he's a very good director. Is he overhyped? Maybe. Personally, I never met much hype about him outside of what I feel is deserved praise (or criticism, the last Batman wasn't as well received as the others). Of course, hype can spoil any director's works for you, but that's a problem with the fans, not with the man himself.

[Yora]

I'd say the movies are really really good, but of course it's not the second comming.
But the question is, what directors are there that are substentially better leaving Nolan behind in the dust?

It's not like he's the giant in a world populated only by dwarves, but I think it's fairly safe to rank him in the top tier of directors.

[Eldan]

Now you got me thinking what other directors would make weird Star Wars movies. Guillermo del Toro?

[The Glyphstone]

The only serious plot hole I'm aware of in Dark Knight was how the Joker smuggled all those explosives into the hospital. And Ledger sold that scene so well anyways that it got a pass.



Now you got me thinking what other directors would make weird Star Wars movies. Guillermo del Toro?

Michael Bay.:smallbiggrin:

[Weezer]

He's good at making movies that while still being accessable to a general audience have a modicum of directorial depth. He's no master of cinema, but he definitely makes the best directed blockbuster action movies (which isn't saying much)

[Metahuman1]

Now you got me thinking what other directors would make weird Star Wars movies. Guillermo del Toro?

That's one.

[Kitten Champion]

Now you got me thinking what other directors would make weird Star Wars movies. Guillermo del Toro?

Hideki Anno.

[Mordar]

Out of curiosity, what do you guys who are poo-pooing Nolan consider great movies?

It is certainly not my intent to poo-poo - please keep in mind I liked all of them except Inception, and I really liked Momento. I think I like his writing a lot...but to move it to stage I think he's a "Waiting for Godot" expert, not a "Les Miserables" expert.

It is very hard for me to distill out the impacts of direction vs. writing/script vs. acting at times, but I think he really excels at the writing as demonstrated by Momento.


Now you got me thinking what other directors would make weird Star Wars movies. Guillermo del Toro?

This would certainly be one of my picks...I think he's got a great ability to keep characters and stories intimate while still showing "epic" or the fantastic.


The only serious plot hole I'm aware of in Dark Knight was how the Joker smuggled all those explosives into the hospital. And Ledger sold that scene so well anyways that it got a pass.

Ditto the explosives on the boats...the fact that the hostages-dressed-up-as-bad-guys didn't just hit the floor during the breach...the scene in the limo with Marcone...all little things, I grant, but they distracted me from the story as I was watching. Another big one for me was actually Two-Face...the damage was just too much, given that we're supposed to be in a ultra-real-world Batman. I loved the makeup/effect, but it didn't hold with the rest of the setting. (If you read Walking Dead, I felt very much the same way when the Governor survived...given the internal logic/standards, it just wasn't possible).


He's good at making movies that while still being accessable to a general audience have a modicum of directorial depth. He's no master of cinema, but he definitely makes the best directed blockbuster action movies (which isn't saying much)

Spielberg and Cameron (though not always) have done some very good blockbusters as well, and I think it is worth pointing out that the best of them still brought the intimate forth in the spectacle, not just made big effects and adorable aliens.

@Dr. Epic: I think I liked Rises the best because of the really nice blending of Knightfall and No Man's Land (while I did hate that, once again, Bane is someone's flunky as opposed to the man that beat the Bat). TDK is number two as much as I loved the Joker...and Begins had me (I *loved* Crane/Scarecrow...) up until the microwave generator that vaporizes all the liquid in the water lines a hundred feet below...but doesn't seem to impact the 65%-water-people standing all around it. In the end, I'd rate them something like 7-8-8.5, with Joker/../Scarecrow/Catwoman*Bane as the actor/character order.

[Nameless]

Momento: Watched it a long time ago, so I don't remember much except that I enjoyed it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Nolan's story though, though I could be wrong.

Insomnia: Haven't watched it.

Batman Begins: It was reasonably enjoyable until he actually became Batman, after that it became pretty boring and I actually turned the film off towards the end.

The Prestige: Haven't watched it.

The Dark Night: Out of all the Nolan films I've seen, this is my favorite.

Inception: This was almost as over-rated as Avatar (Blue Smurfy cat people version). Nolan managed to get an interesting concept that could have been very clever and surreal, but dumbed it down into a standard Hollywood story whilst still trying to be clever and pretentious about it. The characters either appeared out of no where and weren't really explained, or they were as bland as rice crackers with little to no development. Even the protagonists back story felt half-arsed. the VFX students at my uni had a communal orgasm over the CG, but I didn't really see anything special about it. I was actually more impressed with the SFX they used.


The Dark Night Rises: Mother of spoons, don't even get me started about this abomination. This by far has got to be the worst Nolan film, nay, the worst Batman film I have ever had to sit through. Yes, even worse then Batman & Robin... at least that film didn't take itself so freaking seriously. At least it had interesting visuals. At least it had Arnold Schwarzenegger playing Mr. Freeze. At least it was entertaining.
This film had a group of bad guys faffing around for three months before an explosion. The story was inane, the villains barely even had a motivation, there were more plot holes then Swiss Cheese, and the dialogue.. I mean.. the dialogue... I was in the cinema with my friend and neither of us could stop laughing at how bad it was. Speaking of funnies, the Dubstep bike that Cat Woman was riding was hilarious. xD

Aside from that, it was just boring, by the time we got to the climax, I genuinely couldn't care less was happened to the characters. Cat woman was very disappointing and the resolution wasalso pretty disappointing (Or maybe I was just flat out bored by that point, I can't remember). However, I did like Bane.
It was also visually very dull and flat, it's like they didn't even bother with a colour script. The cinematography was nothing special either.

I kind of felt like I was watching a Parody of a Chris Nolan film. :smalltongue:

[DiscipleofBob]

I loved Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Inception, and The Prestige.

The Dark Knight Rises was good... but not good enough to lump it in with the above.

The impression I got from Nolan's storytelling is that his stories have several plot holes and logic leaps that, in his better works are only noticeable if you look. The Dark Knight is the best example of this. There are TONS of gaping plot holes like how the Joker supposedly didn't plan anything in that entire Xanatos Roulette or how he managed to sneak on dozens of barrels filled with explosives on passenger ships that were supposed to be filled to the brim with refugees. But the plot holes are easily overlooked because the story is just that good, and as long as you're sitting back and focusing on the plot points Nolan is telling you to focus on, they're enjoyable movies.

But then we have the Dark Knight Rises which was rife with even more obvious plot holes than before, but didn't have the substance to distract the viewers. As opposed to the previous movies, where the viewer enjoys the story and probably sees the plot holes afterwards when they give the movie a more critical look, a first viewing of the Dark Knight Rises reveals nothing but plot holes, for example one scene Bruce Wayne is in some undisclosed hovel in the middle east or asia with nothing but the rags on his back, the next he's Batman. No explanation of how he got back to Gotham and got his toys back.

I think the absolute worst part of tDKR for me was when he led an army of unarmed police officers VS a heavily armed group of criminals who had two tanks on their side. Because that's how Batman fights: with an army of unarmed meat shields in broad daylight. Not a week before I was playing Arkham City where I ran into a similar situation with Batman having to get to an area heavily covered by snipers, and as Batman should, I methodically and stealthily took down each thug one by one.

I get the impression that Nolan is going through the same things Shymalan and to a lesser extent Lucas did. where their first works were absolutely brilliant, but over time they followed the same formulas they were used to with not as much external critical input until they eventually end up putting out garbage. I hope Nolan doesn't go that route, especially since he's next on the chopping block for Superman.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Now you got me thinking what other directors would make weird Star Wars movies. Guillermo del Toro?

Hayao Miyazaki. :smallcool:

[Weezer]

Spielberg and Cameron (though not always) have done some very good blockbusters as well, and I think it is worth pointing out that the best of them still brought the intimate forth in the spectacle, not just made big effects and adorable aliens.

I don't really think of Cameron as a particularly good director, especially at this point in his career. His best movies were his earliest, Aliens and Terminator, most since hasn't been impressive, mostly run of the mill blockbuster fare. Spielberg is definitely one of the best 'approachable' directors out there.

[Dienekes]

I don't really think of Cameron as a particularly good director, especially at this point in his career. His best movies were his earliest, Aliens and Terminator, most since hasn't been impressive, mostly run of the mill blockbuster fare. Spielberg is definitely one of the best 'approachable' directors out there.

To throw in my agreement, the last of Cameron's movies I thought was even good was True Lies, and that was run purely on the fact Schwarzenegger was having fun in it.

[Metahuman1]

@Mordar: I actually love TDK Trilogy and Inception. They are, objectively, great movies. I haven't seen the other two, but my sister swears Memento was great. Prestige is...okay. I agree that Illusionist is better, but they're both decent. I don't think the Nolanhype is unearned.



Well, let's be fair. He wasn't wrong. I personally dislike camp in Superhero movies (not always, but mostly), and Nolan seems to do brilliantly at realistic, gritty stuff.

While Star Wars needs a little grit, at it's heart it is a Black/White Space Opera. Moral Grayness is very rare. When Luke shows up in ROTJ he straight up Force Chokes people. That is not Lightside, and his wearing black seems to emphasize how dangerously close he is to Falling. And he gets called on it by Yoda, so there isn't the "Bad Actions for a Good Cause" thing that some people attribute to Batman.

And Justice League (and all of DC) is Camp Personified. As much as they like to dress up their characters in black and give them "edge", I can never take their characters seriously. Nolan's a bad fit for anything bigger than Batman DC-wise.

Joss Whedon and all the directors form the five movies used to build up to the avengers would all beg to differ about having a touch of camp and not grey/black color in Superhero movies.

Nolandverse stuff has it's place, it's just that again, he really, really can't handle anything that doesn't have the street level Dark and Gritty of a semi realistic Batman. I shudder to Imagen what Green Lantern or Flash would look like under his workmanship, and I don't see good things for Superman, I hope I am surprised next year.

Wonderwoman would however, I think, benefit from his casting choices.

[Tavar]

Ditto the explosives on the boats...the fact that the hostages-dressed-up-as-bad-guys didn't just hit the floor during the breach...the scene in the limo with Marcone...all little things, I grant, but they distracted me from the story as I was watching.
Did you miss the part where the Hostages were tied up, specifically so they couldn't fall down?

Also, what was wrong with the limo scene?

[Mx.Silver]

One of Nolan's strengths that tends to get overlooked (rather than big picture cinematography and thematic storytelling - Dark Knight Rises gets rather more flak than it deserves, IMO, possibly because it's a more of thematic character piece than a plot-driven work, in contrast to its predecessors but that's neither here nor there) is that he has quite a lot of skill in getting his actors to perform. This often gets overlooked by the fact that these days he generally uses a lot of big name actors (where it's less obvious than in, say, Following) but even then there are times when you can notice it. Take Insomnia, for example.
Not one of his best, true, but generally seen as being pretty good as is everyone in it. Including Al Pacino who gave an effective performance. In 2002. Nearly ten years after Al 'godfather' Pacino had been replaced with Al 'SHOUTING certain words SEEMINGLY at RANDOM in every SCENE' Pacino. I am honestly struggling to think of any other Al Pacino films made since the early 90s where you could make a statement like that.
For another example, look at Anne Hathaway in The Dark Knight Rises, then compare that to Anne Hathaway in basically every other role she's ever had. She displays more range in her first few scenes in that film than she has in most of her previous career.
Yes, a great actor can do well regardless of direction, but in nearly all cases good direction will help with a performance. Nolan can definitely provide that.


As to whether he's right for every film he's been suggested for I'd be inclined to say no. Nolan seems to work best when he's doing projects that he actually wants to do and his sensibilities aren't going to mesh well with certain properties. I think the reason why he gets name-dropped a lot though is more because of what he represents, specifically the ability to make good, entertaining and serious films out of subject matter that might not seem best suited to that at first glance.

[Spuddles]

Now you got me thinking what other directors would make weird Star Wars movies. Guillermo del Toro?

The overt Lovecraftian tones would totally do it for me.

David Lynch, especially if he could somehow never watch the movies, or if he has, get a lobotomy to remove it.

Star Wars set in the 1950s with undertones of body horror and a distinct disgust with the flesh.


Joss Whedon and all the directors form the five movies used to build up to the avengers would all beg to differ about having a touch of camp and not grey/black color in Superhero movies.

Nolandverse stuff has it's place, it's just that again, he really, really can't handle anything that doesn't have the street level Dark and Gritty of a semi realistic Batman. I shudder to Imagen what Green Lantern or Flash would look like under his workmanship, and I don't see good things for Superman, I hope I am surprised next year.

Wonderwoman would however, I think, benefit from his casting choices.

Most people don't like superheroes because they're boring, unidimensional fools who get trope-raped, yet always win in the end because tropes. The successful superhero movies in the past decade have all broken from that mold. Nolan's Batman was successful because the batsuit didn't have nipples and the batcar wasn't some idiotic bat themed vehicle that jumped out of the 1950s.

Superman is easily the worst superhero ever. He has nothing going for him. He's practically brain dead. He oozes a masturbatory 1950s patriotism that's almost cute in how disgustingly naive it is. I sure as hell hope Nolan can make something even marginally better, than, well, superman.

[Scowling Dragon]

Is he a good director? Yes. Is he overhyped? Yes.

The Batman series is an example of that. Its a story that if you think about for a hour kinda falls apart. And thats OK if it didn't take itself too seriously.

Superheroes just don't work as a 100% "srs bro" type work. I like superhero works that work within their own universe. With their own slightly crazy semi suspension of disbelief logic.

And Dark Knight was an abomination. Its fault was that it finally accepted its own hype.

And Spuddles? Read some comics. Read some ACTUAL Superhero comics rather then reading a few notes off of 1950s wikapedia.

[Killer Angel]

Is he a good director? Yes. Is he overhyped? Yes.

All in all, I agree with this. Probably, the final result wouldn't be bad.



Superman is easily the worst superhero ever. He has nothing going for him. He's practically brain dead. He oozes a masturbatory 1950s patriotism that's almost cute in how disgustingly naive it is.

:smallsigh:

[Scowling Dragon]

If somebody writes stuff like that about superman its an easy tell they don't actually READ the comics.

[Spuddles]

If somebody writes stuff like that about superman its an easy tell they don't actually READ the comics.

Of course I don't read the comics. Superman sucks, hard.

[Scowling Dragon]

Yeah. Thought so. :smallsigh:

I could EASILY tell that you have no idea what your talking about. Go read Kingdom come. Or SuperMan Red Son. Or Watch JLAS.

Or just be quiet.

[Killer Angel]

Of course I don't read the comics. Superman sucks, hard.

So, you passionately criticize a comic, without actually knowing it? :smallamused:

[Spuddles]

So, you passionately criticize a comic, without actually knowing it? :smallamused:

A character, not a comic.

[Killer Angel]

A character, not a comic.

The distinction is moot. It’s a specific comic, based on a specific character, it’s not “I don’t read the Avengers comics ‘cause i don’t like Cap”.
That said, a character is boring and mono-dimensional, as long as its author writes it in that way. There are many stories about superman, where the man of steel is depicted in very interesting ways. SD just cited some of them.
If you don’t like a character but don’t know much about it, usually it’s a good idea to ask someone more informed, if there’s something worth your time.

[DiscipleofBob]

Of course I don't read the comics. Superman sucks, hard.

[citation needed]

[Fragenstein]

[citation needed]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYp90JkKQJCfRzi_3fR3FW_MFqMLqy9 TTzgCi0g4xZlcScAxCtvjOG_3LfUw

An entire planet's worth of atmosphere has got to take a lot of backpressure.

[Scowling Dragon]

How did you have that image on standby......:smalleek:

[Fragenstein]

How did you have that image on standby......:smalleek:

Would you mind if I sig'd that? :smallsmile:

[Scowling Dragon]

No I would not. :smallsmile:

[Fragenstein]

Would you mind if I sig'd that? :smallsmile:

Sweet..........

[DiscipleofBob]

...

"Things are really heating up here in the internet forums.

SPUDDLES tries for the blanket generalization, a dangerous move and one that sets himself up. Let's see how the opposition reacts.

Ooh, DISCIPLEOFBOB goes in for the challenge, baiting SPUDDLES to back up his generalization with a reference. A good, solid, strong play, and one that will be difficult to...

Wait a minute! FRAGENSTEIN comes out of nowhere with a Superdickery-level pic and a comment-reversal-suplex! He's done it! FRAGENSTEIN has won the Internet!"

[Gaelbert]

Now you got me thinking what other directors would make weird Star Wars movies. Guillermo del Toro?

Star Wars Episode 7, as envisioned by Abbas Kiarostami:
A child wanders through the desolate Tatooine landscape. He is traveling to Mos Eisley, but we neither see him leave from his rural home or arrive in the city. The path zig-zags back and forth up a steep cliff face. The child converses with what we assume is a droid, but the companion is never shown on camera.

I'd watch that movie so hard.

[Dienekes]

To Spuddles, I can't really get annoyed at someone new coming in with blanket generalizations on Superman being a terrible, useless, stupid character. I've had those opinions myself when I was younger. However, I do ask that before you go on with a discussion on why something is terrible, you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Star_Superman) do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son) your (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXUu91JrpzA) research (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_5UwS57X8).

Then you can come back with good and knowledgeable arguments on the pros and cons of a character. 'Cause while I like Supes, he's not a perfect character and his style does not suit everyone. But at least an attempt at understanding the character and the other side of the argument was made.

[Sipex]

I don't know if Nolan would be a good director for the Star Wars series. While he could probably create some great, grittier sub-stories, the type of plot and flow the fans expect from a (base) Star Wars movie hasn't traditionally been his style.

Also, that was an amazing move there Fragenstein. Beautiful execution.

[Winter_Wolf]

Let me just say this about Christoper Nolan: I saw the thread title and I thought, "who the hell is Christopher Nolan?"

Because I just don't care who directed a film, as long as I enjoy it. Or even if I hate it. A crappy director might still get a good film with good actors, and a good director with crappy actors get a bad film. Then again I operate under the belief that actors are ultimately responsible for their acting.

[Dienekes]

Let me just say this about Christoper Nolan: I saw the thread title and I thought, "who the hell is Christopher Nolan?"

Because I just don't care who directed a film, as long as I enjoy it. Or even if I hate it. A crappy director might still get a good film with good actors, and a good director with crappy actors get a bad film. Then again I operate under the belief that actors are ultimately responsible for their acting.

I'm kind of the opposite myself. Not that I don't respect actors, I just don't follow them. A good director can make even Ben Affleck look decent, and the appropriate themes, cinematography, and even just choosing which take to use can make or break a picture no matter who the actors involved are.

So yeah, there's a reason why I have never missed a Nolan directed film, or a Tarantino and I can never say the same for any actor.

[Zrak]

Star Wars Episode 7, as envisioned by Abbas Kiarostami:
A child wanders through the desolate Tatooine landscape. He is traveling to Mos Eisley, but we neither see him leave from his rural home or arrive in the city. The path zig-zags back and forth up a steep cliff face. The child converses with what we assume is a droid, but the companion is never shown on camera.

I'd watch that movie so hard.

Oh, man, yes. About half way into the film, it becomes ambiguous if the droid is really a droid, or he is merely conversing with a child pretending to be a droid.

[Tavar]

Let me just say this about Christoper Nolan: I saw the thread title and I thought, "who the hell is Christopher Nolan?"

Because I just don't care who directed a film, as long as I enjoy it. Or even if I hate it. A crappy director might still get a good film with good actors, and a good director with crappy actors get a bad film. Then again I operate under the belief that actors are ultimately responsible for their acting.
Have you ever acted, either on stage or film? I've done a bit(high school level stuff), and I've followed some accounts of actual actors. And, my impression is very much the opposite of yours.

I think it's better to say that Actors are responsible for their own acting, but the director is responsible for making sure that each individual performance is woven into a whole. The lack of this can be seen in, say, the Star Wars prequels.

[McStabbington]

Well . . . isn't knowing the director a good predictor of knowing whether you'll think the film is good? Part and parcel of different directors is that they all have differing strengths and weaknesses that give movies their texture. If it's a Michael Bay film, I know that it's going to have a lot of incomprehensible CGI shots that are filmed too close and without proper perspective, and is going to make me grope any female characters with my eyes, which all in all leads to a bad moviegoing experience. Because that's what Michael Bay does. Similarly, Clint Eastwood is going to have a lot of pale and washed-out colors and long, still, meditative scenes, which I like because I like quiet, somber character pieces.

[Thinker]

I'm kind of the opposite myself. Not that I don't respect actors, I just don't follow them. A good director can make even Ben Affleck look decent, and the appropriate themes, cinematography, and even just choosing which take to use can make or break a picture no matter who the actors involved are.

I guess you haven't seen any Ben Affleck films in the last few years. He's a pretty good actor and director these days.

[Raistlin1040]

Nolan is an auteur. He takes a huge, active role in the creative process of his films, doesn't make movies that he's not interested in, and always has a vision. You can not like his movies, but I think he, along with Tarantino, is one of the few mainstream directors that almost always shoots for making art.

[Metahuman1]

This is kinda why I'm pissed that they've decided that the "Robin" that Noland made up and stuck into the end of Dark Knight Rises for no other reason what so ever then to say "**** You" to all the robin fans because of his hate for the character is now been announced to be the New Batman for the Justice League Movie. This is a crippling blow to the movie far as I'm concerned, and if they have literally one more thing screw up on it it's gonna be a disaster, and will only egg on the arrogance of all the people who don't read comics but "Know" that Marvel is of course "Better" then DC except maybe for Batman.

[Tavar]

This is kinda why I'm pissed that they've decided that the "Robin" that Noland made up and stuck into the end of Dark Knight Rises for no other reason what so ever then to say "**** You" to all the robin fans because of his hate for the character is now been announced to be the New Batman for the Justice League Movie. This is a crippling blow to the movie far as I'm concerned, and if they have literally one more thing screw up on it it's gonna be a disaster, and will only egg on the arrogance of all the people who don't read comics but "Know" that Marvel is of course "Better" then DC except maybe for Batman.
How was this a FU to the fans? Seriously, if he had a Robin in the vein of Syndrome from Incredible, I could see it, but this position really seems to be "every single change is a horrific slight to all of us"!

Hell, it's not like there's one, single Robin out there, or that Batman has always had the boy Wonder.

[Winter_Wolf]

Have you ever acted, either on stage or film? I've done a bit(high school level stuff), and I've followed some accounts of actual actors. And, my impression is very much the opposite of yours.

I think it's better to say that Actors are responsible for their own acting, but the director is responsible for making sure that each individual performance is woven into a whole. The lack of this can be seen in, say, the Star Wars prequels.

I have not. And I fully admit that I could be and probably am operating under a complete lack of understanding as to what a director is supposed to do. I'll even willing state that they're probably unsung heroes (the good ones anyway). I get that directing is an active participation in the movie making process.

It still doesn't change the fact that I just don't care who directed a movie. Like I said, I didn't even know who Christopher Nolan was until I read this thread, and I've enjoyed (or not) countless movies without knowing who directed them. I know who Peter Jackson is, but only because I've been pummeled by the name so much. I'll probably remember who Nolan is because of this thread, but not because I associate his name with anything he's directed. I sometimes remember who James Cameron is, but it takes a few moments to a few minutes.

On the other hand, I still think infinitely better of directors than I do of film critics.

[Metahuman1]

How was this a FU to the fans? Seriously, if he had a Robin in the vein of Syndrome from Incredible, I could see it, but this position really seems to be "every single change is a horrific slight to all of us"!

Hell, it's not like there's one, single Robin out there, or that Batman has always had the boy Wonder.

Because he made it very clear in a number of interviews before and after both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight that he doesn't like Robin, that Batman doesn't have a Robin, Doesn't Need a Robin, Doesn't Want a Robin, should not ever have a robin, and that the idea of a side kick was bad, the idea of a side kick that wasn't at least in his Mid Twenty's with professional combat training going in was unthinkable, and that as far as he was concerned, Sidekicks were among the worst things that ever happened to the franchise.


But Fans kept asking to see Robin, wanting to see Robin (and I should mention they also wanted Batgirl.), and when Dark Knight Rises came out, he decided to say "Hey, ya know what, ok, there's one way you could have a robin, and it's a bad way to do it and makes it clear I don't like the character, but here it is cause I don't have to deal with it after this movie anyway HAHAHAHAHA!"

And now "Robin" John Blake is gonna Be Batman for the Justice League Movie instead of Bruce Wayne cause of how much money the Noland Batman movies made and how much the Critics liked them. And the only Set Up Movie were getting apparently is now the Man Of Steel and the Dark Knight Movies.

So, yeah, I already see the failure here a mile away, and all that will come with it.

[Scowling Dragon]

....With that kind of attitude I don't have much hope for "Man of Steel".

Robin is there to prevent batman from drowning in his own mope, and guess what? Thats exactly what he did in the movies.

I mean sure hes a dark character but some contrast would be nice.

Without being able to accept the goofier more fun side of the characters is necessary and helps with suspension of disbelief.

[Metahuman1]

Pretty much.

And really, if realism was so very important, what was wrong with the idea that he picks up Tim Drake cause Tim was such a Prodigy that he figured out Bruce Was Batman With out getting into the accounting department of Wayne Enterprises?, and that he works in a fight cause he makes it a point to fight dirty and fight like he's playing for keeps, with the one cavet that he doesn't kill people?

Or having Cassie Cain show up, given that her whole back-story was she was pretty much trained by master assassins from birth?

Hell, get rid of the Circus aspect and fast forward over some time were he's training with Bruce, and **** Grayson would have been fine to have around. So would Barbara for that matter. You can get pretty proficient in eight years in a number of skill sets if your putting the hours and the effort into it.




I hope that because Superman is all about picking up buildings, flying around the world faster then most people can read a paragraph, and having tank shells hit him only for him to raise and eye brow wondering if that's the best they've got, Nolan won't apply the same Attitudes too it, but will have to wait and see.

[Bulldog Psion]

I'd say yes. The Dark Knight rates an 8/10 in my book, and I'm a highly demanding movie critic in my way, even if my tastes are very eclectic, also. Note, of course, that everything I say here is completely subjective opinion, so I'm not going to put in disclaimers every 2 seconds.

The Dark Knight seemed to be one of those "flint and tinder" moments -- it wasn't Nolan's standard, it was just a fortunate combination of script, director, and Heath Ledger that struck a spark of genius, despite the film's undoubted flaws.

(My flaws differ from other peoples' -- for example, I have no problem really with the idea that the Avatar of Insanity could come up with plenty of money, or a cadre of sadistic nutcases to do his bidding. The grossly overdone black eyeliner on most of the characters is another matter :smallbiggrin:)

The Dark Knight Rises isn't a bad film. It doesn't make you flee the theater or switch it off while fumbling for antacids. It's just extremely, extremely bland. It's the cinematic equivalent of octopus -- there's a tangible presence in your mouth, but with no flavor whatsoever, either good or bad. Washed out grey colors in the video mimic washed out grey colors in the plot, characterizations, and spirit of the film. You can't eve work up a good head of hatred for it.

The Dark Knight Rises like the distilled essence of "Meh". So I'm going to have to say that Nolan is a mediocre director who got lucky once -- in my opinion, of course.

[Yora]

I was rather bored by Batman Begins as well. And while I love The Dark Knight, all the interesting parts are about the Joker. Unless Batman was in a fight with him, the Batman scenes didn't do much for me and the Harvey Dent suff also bored me.

I love the Joker, but the rest of the Nolan Batman movies doesn't do it for me. Sure, they are well made, but I don't care for the plot or the characters. Just like pretty much every superhero movie except Iron Man.

[Weezer]

Let me just say this about Christoper Nolan: I saw the thread title and I thought, "who the hell is Christopher Nolan?"

Because I just don't care who directed a film, as long as I enjoy it. Or even if I hate it. A crappy director might still get a good film with good actors, and a good director with crappy actors get a bad film. Then again I operate under the belief that actors are ultimately responsible for their acting.

The thing about directing, it that it really does matter. The biggest example I can think of is Phantom Menace. A movie staring Neeson, MacGregor and Portman should be at least a good film, all three are accomplished actors. But guess what, all three gave some of the worst performances of their career. The reason for that comes ultimately back to the one thing that tied them all together in this movie: the directing.

[Yora]

Directing does matter, but for the enjoyment of a movie it does not matter if you know what other movies are by the same director. That information really becomes relevant only when you take conscious notice of the directing and want to see more of it or compare it with other directors academically.

[Scowling Dragon]

Or if you want to avoid it.

[Thinker]

In reference to Robin being Batman in a Justice League movie:


Well, when contacted by EW, a representative for Joseph Gordon-Levitt declares the report entirely false.

Source: http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/11/27/joseph-gordon-levitt-batman-justice-league/

[Tavar]

It still doesn't change the fact that I just don't care who directed a movie. Like I said, I didn't even know who Christopher Nolan was until I read this thread, and I've enjoyed (or not) countless movies without knowing who directed them.
Ok. That's not what I was really talking about. Yeah, knowing the director of a film isn't key to enjoying something, any more than knowing who the chef is key to enjoy a good dessert. You went a step farther, though, in saying 'Then again I operate under the belief that actors are ultimately responsible for their acting'. That is the part that my post was primarily directed at, the part that I view is very mistaken.


Because he made it very clear in a number of interviews before and after both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight that he doesn't like Robin, that Batman doesn't have a Robin, Doesn't Need a Robin, Doesn't Want a Robin, should not ever have a robin, and that the idea of a side kick was bad, the idea of a side kick that wasn't at least in his Mid Twenty's with professional combat training going in was unthinkable, and that as far as he was concerned, Sidekicks were among the worst things that ever happened to the franchise.
To be fair, he's at least partially right. I mean, assuming you're trying to be realistic, Robin as a kid essentially turns into a poorly trained child soldier. That's a pretty big negative for a hero.

Still, this doesn't prove that it was an FU to the fans: he said he wasn't going to include a child robin. Why then would the fact that he did not include a child Robin be either a surprise or some huge attack on the fanbase?



But Fans kept asking to see Robin, wanting to see Robin (and I should mention they also wanted Batgirl.), and when Dark Knight Rises came out, he decided to say "Hey, ya know what, ok, there's one way you could have a robin, and it's a bad way to do it and makes it clear I don't like the character, but here it is cause I don't have to deal with it after this movie anyway HAHAHAHAHA!"
Do you have a source for this, or is this just you irrationally attacking someone?


And now "Robin" John Blake is gonna Be Batman for the Justice League Movie instead of Bruce Wayne cause of how much money the Noland Batman movies made and how much the Critics liked them. And the only Set Up Movie were getting apparently is now the Man Of Steel and the Dark Knight Movies.

So, yeah, I already see the failure here a mile away, and all that will come with it.
Considering that, from a cursory Internet search, those positions don't appear to be true(or, at least, are not entirely confirmed), I think you're really overreacting here.

[Dienekes]

As to Robin being an attack on the fanbase, that's really not true. In fact as a lot of things in the movie Blake was an amalgamation of stuff from the comics. Essentially, he has ****'s ideals and role as successor, (one of) Jason Todd's backstories (though I don't think it's his current one), and discovered who Bruce was like Tim Drake. I think he was supposed to be an homage to Robin in an attempt to put the character in a way that makes sense for the setting that BB and TDK had created.

Now though I can't back this up, I have a feeling that revealing his first name to be Robin was a decision made for 2 reasons. 1) Because the majority of his audience are not comicbook aficionados and so revealing his name to be ****, Jason, or Tim would have no effect on them at all. And 2) I think he thought he was being clever that his amalgamation of all the Robin's was just named Robin. Now personally I thought it was cheesy, but not something to get enraged by.

[Winter_Wolf]

Ok. That's not what I was really talking about. Yeah, knowing the director of a film isn't key to enjoying something, any more than knowing who the chef is key to enjoy a good dessert. You went a step farther, though, in saying 'Then again I operate under the belief that actors are ultimately responsible for their acting'. That is the part that my post was primarily directed at, the part that I view is very mistaken.

And I own up to my ignorance of what a director actually does in a later post. But what can I say? I avoid theatrical stuff and acting for realz (I'll pretend to be interested in things I don't care about, but that's a really different beast from acting as an actor, innit?) so maybe I just can't appreciate what a director does.

Regarding Portman, I don't see her as a good actor. At all. The only thing I liked her in was Léon: the Professional (she would have been about 12-13 years old). I don't see how a director could make her better, but if there is a director who can, she should only do movies with that director because everything I've seen her in since Léon she hasn't been knocking my socks off. And I actually didn't see a problem with Neesan or McGregor in the prequels. I just assumed that Obi-Wan was kind of a major A-hole when he was younger. :smallwink: I'm not a huge theater buff though, so I probably don't have those tooth-grinding episodes that people more in the know have.

[The Glyphstone]

And I own up to my ignorance of what a director actually does in a later post. But what can I say? I avoid theatrical stuff and acting for realz (I'll pretend to be interested in things I don't care about, but that's a really different beast from acting as an actor, innit?) so maybe I just can't appreciate what a director does.

Regarding Portman, I don't see her as a good actor. At all. The only thing I liked her in was Léon: the Professional (she would have been about 12-13 years old). I don't see how a director could make her better, but if there is a director who can, she should only do movies with that director because everything I've seen her in since Léon she hasn't been knocking my socks off. And I actually didn't see a problem with Neesan or McGregor in the prequels. I just assumed that Obi-Wan was kind of a major A-hole when he was younger. :smallwink: I'm not a huge theater buff though, so I probably don't have those tooth-grinding episodes that people more in the know have.

I guess you haven't seen Black Swan then? She won Best Actress at the Academy Awards for the role.

[Bulldog Psion]

And I actually didn't see a problem with Neeson or McGregor in the prequels. I just assumed that Obi-Wan was kind of a major A-hole when he was younger. :smallwink:

I just had to quote this, because it basically sums up my own conclusions about it (both the "major a-hole" part and not seeing a problem with Neesen or McGregor in the prequels). In fact, I thought it added a bit to the story to have Obi-Wan come across as a complete jackass most of the time. :smallbiggrin:

As for Portman, I'm kind of neutral about her. She's there, I don't rave in delight or curse to the heavens, but just view the film and leave it at that.

[VanBuren]

Have you ever acted, either on stage or film? I've done a bit(high school level stuff), and I've followed some accounts of actual actors. And, my impression is very much the opposite of yours.

I think it's better to say that Actors are responsible for their own acting, but the director is responsible for making sure that each individual performance is woven into a whole. The lack of this can be seen in, say, the Star Wars prequels.


The thing about directing, it that it really does matter. The biggest example I can think of is Phantom Menace. A movie staring Neeson, MacGregor and Portman should be at least a good film, all three are accomplished actors. But guess what, all three gave some of the worst performances of their career. The reason for that comes ultimately back to the one thing that tied them all together in this movie: the directing.

^This. So much.

The difference between a good and a bad director makes all the difference in the world. It's hard to describe the relationship exactly without making the director seem useless or making the actors seem completely interchangeable, but it's a difference you would know instantly.

I've worked with one particular director a couple of times, and he's fairly good at the other stuff, but both were large-cast shows, and that's where his weakness in directing acting performance really shows. He would focus on the leads, and leave the secondary characters to to their own devices. I did get one of my best performances from that show, but it was very much an uphill battle. With a better director, I could have achieved that state much quicker and easier, and perhaps could have been even better still.

[Metahuman1]

Ok. That's not what I was really talking about. Yeah, knowing the director of a film isn't key to enjoying something, any more than knowing who the chef is key to enjoy a good dessert. You went a step farther, though, in saying 'Then again I operate under the belief that actors are ultimately responsible for their acting'. That is the part that my post was primarily directed at, the part that I view is very mistaken.


To be fair, he's at least partially right. I mean, assuming you're trying to be realistic, Robin as a kid essentially turns into a poorly trained child soldier. That's a pretty big negative for a hero.

Still, this doesn't prove that it was an FU to the fans: he said he wasn't going to include a child robin. Why then would the fact that he did not include a child Robin be either a surprise or some huge attack on the fanbase?



Do you have a source for this, or is this just you irrationally attacking someone?


Considering that, from a cursory Internet search, those positions don't appear to be true(or, at least, are not entirely confirmed), I think you're really overreacting here.

He doesn't have to be a kid. Again, Tim Drake was older then **** Grayson was when he first got the position, and the New 52 made Grayson's start point 16, the idea that either an intellectually or athletically highly gifted individual at 16 could with some luck and training be helpful to Batman is entirely plasuable. Also remembering that part of the idea is that while Robin is very capable, he is usually functioning with Bruce to watch his back and is not outright as good as Bruce. And I'm not expecting Him to beat Bane or anything THAT over the top.

As for it not being a shot at the Robin Fanbase, if he had not wanted to touch it, all he had to do was let John Blakes name be "John Blake", or anything other then Tim, ****, Daimian, Jason or Robin, and he would have successfully left it alone. But he couldn't resist.



As for not being confirmed, I keep seeing it everywhere I turn around, endless goings on about a Joseph Gordon Levitte Batman movie carrying on the Nolandverse Legacy, and about how he's gonna be Batman for Justice League. If you can show me that this is not the case, I'd actually appreciate it.

I mean, the Actor could do Bruce/Batman, And could do it well. And I'd be very up for seeing him do it, in a none Nolandverse setting. Let him do a slightly different take on the character, one that would actually mesh with a universe where Flash, Superman, Green Lanturn, Aquaman and Wonder Woman are running around.

So yeah, a None Nolandverse Batman reboot would be great for Justice League. And hey, since it's a slightly less realistic and dark variant, we could have some of his inner circle in the movie. I personally love the idea of Tim drake and Cassie Cain as Batgirl and Robin and of Nightwing and Oracle in there just starting to branch out on there own. And Oracle could even be used in a similar fashion to Nick Fury to help Link the league up for the movie.

[Tavar]

He doesn't have to be a kid. Again, Tim Drake was older then **** Grayson was when he first got the position, and the New 52 made Grayson's start point 16, the idea that either an intellectually or athletically highly gifted individual at 16 could with some luck and training be helpful to Batman is entirely plasuable. Also remembering that part of the idea is that while Robin is very capable, he is usually functioning with Bruce to watch his back and is not outright as good as Bruce. And I'm not expecting Him to beat Bane or anything THAT over the top.

As for it not being a shot at the Robin Fanbase, if he had not wanted to touch it, all he had to do was let John Blakes name be "John Blake", or anything other then Tim, ****, Daimian, Jason or Robin, and he would have successfully left it alone. But he couldn't resist.
It's still reckless endangerment of a minor. And it doesn't change the rather larger history(what, upwards of 40 years?) when Robin was younger.

The fact that he's operating with Batman watching his back is actually something of a black mark. If you put a child on the battlefield, but justified it because there were navy seals watching his back, people wouldn't really buy that.

Finally, again, I fail to see how adding a different take on a character is an Insult. This is an Adult figure taking on Batman's legacy: there is nothing in that which leads to an insult. And nothing in the movie touches on these themes you bring up as for why it's an insult. Unless you're going to say that there's only one true Robin, and all others are insults to him(in which case you must utterly loathe the comics/other works, what with the 6 versions out there at the least).

As for not being confirmed, I keep seeing it everywhere I turn around, endless goings on about a Joseph Gordon Levitte Batman movie carrying on the Nolandverse Legacy, and about how he's gonna be Batman for Justice League. If you can show me that this is not the case, I'd actually appreciate it.
One post above mine.

In reference to Robin being Batman in a Justice League movie:



Source: http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/11/27/joseph-gordon-levitt-batman-justice-league/

Also, several entries on Google. Yes, many think it would be a good idea. The people who would actually be involved in this(including Joseph Gordon Levitt and Nolan) seem to all have responded in the negative, though.


Ranting on Nolanverse/Justice League connections
Ok. Is there anything that implies that there will be these connections you fear? Because so far, nothing seems to say that there will, and it's noted that Nolan himself wanted the Nolanverse Batman movies to be self-contained. So far, you biggest rant, that JGL would be Nolanverse batman, appears to be utterly refuted(as shown in the first couple of hits on a google search of 'is joseph gordon-levitt going to be batman in justice league'), as well as that link you seem to have ignored.

[Metahuman1]

It's still reckless endangerment of a minor. And it doesn't change the rather larger history(what, upwards of 40 years?) when Robin was younger.

The fact that he's operating with Batman watching his back is actually something of a black mark. If you put a child on the battlefield, but justified it because there were navy seals watching his back, people wouldn't really buy that.

Finally, again, I fail to see how adding a different take on a character is an Insult. This is an Adult figure taking on Batman's legacy: there is nothing in that which leads to an insult. And nothing in the movie touches on these themes you bring up as for why it's an insult. Unless you're going to say that there's only one true Robin, and all others are insults to him(in which case you must utterly loathe the comics/other works, what with the 6 versions out there at the least).

One post above mine.


Also, several entries on Google. Yes, many think it would be a good idea. The people who would actually be involved in this(including Joseph Gordon Levitt and Nolan) seem to all have responded in the negative, though.


Ok. Is there anything that implies that there will be these connections you fear? Because so far, nothing seems to say that there will, and it's noted that Nolan himself wanted the Nolanverse Batman movies to be self-contained. So far, you biggest rant, that JGL would be Nolanverse batman, appears to be utterly refuted(as shown in the first couple of hits on a google search of 'is joseph gordon-levitt going to be batman in justice league'), as well as that link you seem to have ignored.

Counter point, I'm not ignoring it, I'm relieved by it, cause I didn't want it to happen. Believe me, if it doesn't, I'll be much happier.



And It's not that I lothe the idea that there's been more then one Robin, I lothe the idea that with 5-6 fairly solid characters to choose from, he opted instead to just invent one and only use him for a cameo at the end of the movie. I've lost count of the number of people I know who have asked me to tell them all about the John Blake Robin because they'd never heard of him but he must be better then the circus brat, and now want to tell me upon learning that he never existed before TDKR that that just shows that the movie was better then the comic it was based on.

[Tavar]

So....you loathe the fact that he made an adaptation? Again, you must hate quite a bit of the comics/movies/shows then, because they tend to make quite a few adaptations.


And, if you're not ignoring it, why did you ask for evidence saying JGL wasn't going to do Batman? That's what the link says!

[Bulldog Psion]

Even if you like the idea of Robin, I don't see why Nolan's choice not to use a specific character should be interpreted as a deliberate insult to the fanbase or the original comic. :smallconfused: To the best of my knowledge, other Batman movies have also been produced without Robin. Though I haven't been a fan of the comics and other adaptations, I'm reasonably sure that there have been interpretations of the Bat which have omitted the character.

Since Robin was mostly introduced, according to his creator, as someone for Batman to talk to, and since this is much more of a necessity in a years-long comic than in a movie that lasts a couple of hours.

The more gritty approach that the movies take would probably be disrupted by the presence of a high-voiced super-kid in a 1950s clown costume, anyway. :smallbiggrin:

[PlusSixPelican]

I like Robin! ALL THE ROBINS.

Anyways, it wasn't that big a 'doodle to the face' of Robin fans in my opinion, just how Nolan can fit the idea of a Robin into his setting: An adult who takes the role as of the successor. He's focusing on a more recent (comics-wise) version of the concept, where Robin's not a kid no more and is eyeing the mantle a little bit. The fact that it wasn't a major plot is a little unfortunate, and he *did* give Bats Catwoman as a sidekick/lancer instead. (which was interesting, although he REALLY played down her feline nature, which was...kinda meh, Catwoman needs to own a kitty, if not make cat-puns.)

Robin as child-fighter is, when implications come in, too dark for the Nolanverse. Movin' on~

I did *like* John Blake, his story was pretty interesting and he's certainly the most heroic character in the setting. Yes, I said that. To clarify, Bats goes morally compromised and hides inside for eight years while Gotham gets into some situations that feel a bit close to reality. Jim Gordon was lying about several crimes he was aware of, including the high-profile death of Harvey Dent, not only for political ends, but as the CHIEF OF POLICE. That's like, the kind of thing you lose your shield for. I think he was called out on it in-story. His only competition after that is Alfred, and while I lubbs Micheal Cain (he reminds me of my grandpa), he did lie to his employer about that letter, which probably violates his contract.

Anyways, I like that Nolan made Batman cool again. I also don't like it, because meh, the mainstreaming of nerd culture is a mixed package.