|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 28, 2018 22:53:28 GMT
The impact that being Batman has on his life as Bruce Wayne is brought up many times throughout the trilogy. Bruce HAS no life outside of being Batman. Yeah, instead of proper conflict between them Alfred just walks away! And it only happens in the last movie instead of earlier! What, when she was used as a plot device for Dent? He was shown as being utterly incompetent at doing any of that until the League brought him in. He needed them. Stopping a chemical weapon is pretty grounded. If they'd tried to flood the city with Lazarus Pit stuff that would be wondrous. Because they fit his approach and anti-wonder ways of doing things. Like how he couldn't tolerate aliens being in Interstellar so he had the "Aliens" turn out to be Humans time-traveling or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 28, 2018 23:04:36 GMT
The impact that being Batman has on his life as Bruce Wayne is brought up many times throughout the trilogy. Bruce HAS no life outside of being Batman. Yeah, instead of proper conflict between them Alfred just walks away! And it only happens in the last movie instead of earlier! What, when she was used as a plot device for Dent? He was shown as being utterly incompetent at doing any of that until the League brought him in. He needed them. Stopping a chemical weapon is pretty grounded. If they'd tried to flood the city with Lazarus Pit stuff that would be wondrous. Because they fit his approach and anti-wonder ways of doing things. Like how he couldn't tolerate aliens being in Interstellar so he had the "Aliens" turn out to be Humans time-traveling or whatever. Part of the point of Bruce’s journey in TDK Trilogy was that being Batman was impacting his personal life, and that he wanted to eventually live a normal life, which culminated in him eventually getting his wish by the end of the trilogy. Rachel was Bruce’s love interest. Part of his character arc in TDK was that he wanted to eventually stop being Batman so that he could settle down with her, but her death prevented that from happening, which was partially what caused him to shut himself out from the world by TDKR. He wasn’t even utterly incompetent before the League trained him. Remember at the beginning of BB when he was beating up all those prisoners? A chemical weapon that spreads fear-inducing toxin isn’t the most grounded thing in the world. It was really no more grounded than the stuff we saw in the first IM. Nolan doesn’t have an anti-wonder way of doing things. Interstellar had time travel and Inception had people entering dreams. There’s no point in arguing about a hypothetical Nolan directed Cap or Thor film because Nolan never directed those kinds of films. He directed Batman films that weren’t part of any larger universe, hence why they were “grounded”. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 28, 2018 23:40:33 GMT
Bruce HAS no life outside of being Batman. Yeah, instead of proper conflict between them Alfred just walks away! And it only happens in the last movie instead of earlier! What, when she was used as a plot device for Dent? He was shown as being utterly incompetent at doing any of that until the League brought him in. He needed them. Stopping a chemical weapon is pretty grounded. If they'd tried to flood the city with Lazarus Pit stuff that would be wondrous. Because they fit his approach and anti-wonder ways of doing things. Like how he couldn't tolerate aliens being in Interstellar so he had the "Aliens" turn out to be Humans time-traveling or whatever. Part of the point of Bruce’s journey in TDK Trilogy was that being Batman was impacting his personal life, and that he wanted to eventually live a normal life, which culminated in him eventually getting his wish by the end of the trilogy. Rachel was Bruce’s love interest. Part of his character arc in TDK was that he wanted to eventually stop being Batman so that he could settle down with her, but her death prevented that from happening, which was partially what caused him to shut himself out from the world by TDKR. He wasn’t even utterly incompetent before the League trained him. Remember at the beginning of BB when he was beating up all those prisoners? A chemical weapon that spreads fear-inducing toxin isn’t the most grounded thing in the world. It was really no more grounded than the stuff we saw in the first IM. Nolan doesn’t have an anti-wonder way of doing things. Interstellar had time travel and Inception had people entering dreams. There’s no point in arguing about a hypothetical Nolan directed Cap or Thor film because Nolan never directed those kinds of films. He directed Batman films that weren’t part of any larger universe, hence why they were “grounded”. We're never going to reach an agreement on this, but the point I'm trying to make is that his approach to CBMs, copied again and again, has done more damage than good for CBMs in general. People watched his movies and felt HIS way was the ONLY way to do CBMs and that if you tried any other way like with actual superpowers it was doomed to failure. Hence why they tried to replicate Nolan's way with Superman and an extended Universe. And we know how that went. The MCU came along and challenged this approach with costumes and over the top stuff and superpowers and a greater universe that includes things like Aliens and Magic and everything. The MCU suffered HEAVY criticism for doing this, especially in how they wouldn't make the villains the core of everything and bothered making the Hero the actual lead character. In fact, despite all their success they still get criticized for this because Nolan's way (grounded approach, no wonder or comic book elements, villains the real driving force of the plot) had such a massive impact on things. That' what I'm getting at, that for all the MCU's success their way is still seen by a lot as "wrong" somehow and Nolan's way is seen as untouchable and correct. If it wasn't for the MCU Nolan's way would be the ONLY way and CBMs would continue to suffer for it. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 28, 2018 23:48:33 GMT
Part of the point of Bruce’s journey in TDK Trilogy was that being Batman was impacting his personal life, and that he wanted to eventually live a normal life, which culminated in him eventually getting his wish by the end of the trilogy. Rachel was Bruce’s love interest. Part of his character arc in TDK was that he wanted to eventually stop being Batman so that he could settle down with her, but her death prevented that from happening, which was partially what caused him to shut himself out from the world by TDKR. He wasn’t even utterly incompetent before the League trained him. Remember at the beginning of BB when he was beating up all those prisoners? A chemical weapon that spreads fear-inducing toxin isn’t the most grounded thing in the world. It was really no more grounded than the stuff we saw in the first IM. Nolan doesn’t have an anti-wonder way of doing things. Interstellar had time travel and Inception had people entering dreams. There’s no point in arguing about a hypothetical Nolan directed Cap or Thor film because Nolan never directed those kinds of films. He directed Batman films that weren’t part of any larger universe, hence why they were “grounded”. We're never going to reach an agreement on this, but the point I'm trying to make is that his approach to CBMs, copied again and again, has done more damage than good for CBMs in general. People watched his movies and felt HIS way was the ONLY way to do CBMs and that if you tried any other way like with actual superpowers it was doomed to failure. Hence why they tried to replicate Nolan's way with Superman and an extended Universe. And we know how that went. The MCU came along and challenged this approach with costumes and over the top stuff and superpowers and a greater universe that includes things like Aliens and Magic and everything. The MCU suffered HEAVY criticism for doing this, especially in how they wouldn't make the villains the core of everything and bothered making the Hero the actual lead character. In fact, despite all their success they still get criticized for this because Nolan's way (grounded approach, no wonder or comic book elements, villains the real driving force of the plot) had such a massive impact on things. That' what I'm getting at, that for all the MCU's success their way is still seen by a lot as "wrong" somehow and Nolan's way is seen as untouchable and correct. If it wasn't for the MCU Nolan's way would be the ONLY way and CBMs would continue to suffer for it. Nolan’s approach hasn’t been “copied time and time again”. The only time you could make the argument that it was copied was with MoS. BvS was very much a Zack Snyder movie, and other reboots like Fant4stic were trying to copy other things besides Nolan’s Batman ( Chronicle in this case). Also, just an FYI, but The Amazing Spider-Man 2 tried copying the formula of the MCU, only to fail. While we’re at it, JL is a movie that is very much akin to the MCU, and it’s currently the lowest grossing movie in the DCEU. No, Nolan didn’t nearly destroy the genre. He helped bring back Batman’s credibility and gave us one of the most iconic villain portrayals in cinematic history (and no, it was not because Heath Ledger died). Also, the MCU did not invent this idea of superhero movies having costumes and other out there stuff from the comics. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies already did that. I’m not saying that the MCU hasn’t been a very significant milestone for CBMs, because it most certainly has been, but you’re making it sound like the genre was dying out before it, and that simply isn’t true. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 28, 2018 23:58:39 GMT
Nolan’s approach hasn’t been “copied time and time again”. Man of Steel, aspects of Batman v Superman, Fant4stic, the X-Men movies go for a similar approach and FoX-Men fans like to think Nolan was inspired by them, etc. Fans of the ASM series say that the first film was more like a Nolan movie and it was going against that which caused ASM2 to do less well. WW is the one most like an MCU film, which is probably why it's the best so far. Thanks to the MCU helping people realize that there's no shame in actual comic elements. We aren't going to agree on THIS. After Batman and Robin, many felt that costumes and colors and stuff were dead and gone and CBMs should never attempt stuff like that again. The Raimi movies also tried to be "grounded" as possible and when they brought in more comic elements in SM3 it was seen as bad. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jan 28, 2018 23:59:08 GMT
Its not about being grounded or fantastical, Nolan showed superhero films can be intelligent and aimed more at mature audiences instead of children. He brought in the notion that adults also can enjoy these portrayals of comic book heros, and its a big reason why adults still go to CBMs today for that alone.
And Ironman 1, 2, Cap 1 and even Thor 1 and 2 followed the same tune as Batman begins, Spiderman 2, X2. Theres not much separating phase 1 MCU and Nolan, Raimi, Singer. Its only when disney took over and from Ironman 3 all the way to Ragnarok made MCU into a lighthearted sitcom comedy cheesefest and really dumbed down the product.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 29, 2018 0:03:41 GMT
Its not about being grounded or fantastical It's completely about that. Uh-huh, and apparently it's impossible to do that with actual comic elements like costumes and aliens and superpowers and magic. Thanks for proving my point about the damage he and Singer did. As for this "It's not a comic movie! It's transcended that!" stuff, that's a load of garbage. CBMs shouldn't be about "transcending" the genre they should be about elevating the genre so that moviegoers can appreciate them as much as any other kind of film genre. All "transcending" means is that the person making the film never cared about the source material and was just using it as a platform for some other story he wanted to tell. How? If by that you mean they aren't ashamed of the source material and bringing out it's more "out there" side, then yes. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 29, 2018 0:08:50 GMT
Nolan’s approach hasn’t been “copied time and time again”. Man of Steel, aspects of Batman v Superman, Fant4stic, the X-Men movies go for a similar approach and FoX-Men fans like to think Nolan was inspired by them, etc. Fans of the ASM series say that the first film was more like a Nolan movie and it was going against that which caused ASM2 to do less well. WW is the one most like an MCU film, which is probably why it's the best so far. Thanks to the MCU helping people realize that there's no shame in actual comic elements. We aren't going to agree on THIS. After Batman and Robin, many felt that costumes and colors and stuff were dead and gone and CBMs should never attempt stuff like that again. The Raimi movies also tried to be "grounded" as possible and when they brought in more comic elements in SM3 it was seen as bad. There was no widely held belief that comic book movies were something to be ashamed of before the MCU came along. Comic book movies were already thriving at the turn of the century thanks to Blade, X-Men, and Spider-Man. B&R was the movie that nearly killed CBMs, not Singer and especially not Nolan.
By the way, Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies really weren’t very “grounded”. They were full of comic book campiness, and drew a lot of inspiration from Christopher Reeves’ Superman movies. Seriously, are we really going to pretend that the first Spider-Man film wasn’t a massive ball of cheese with a bad guy in a silly costume, and lots of goofy one-liners? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 29, 2018 0:25:10 GMT
Man of Steel, aspects of Batman v Superman, Fant4stic, the X-Men movies go for a similar approach and FoX-Men fans like to think Nolan was inspired by them, etc. Fans of the ASM series say that the first film was more like a Nolan movie and it was going against that which caused ASM2 to do less well. WW is the one most like an MCU film, which is probably why it's the best so far. Thanks to the MCU helping people realize that there's no shame in actual comic elements. We aren't going to agree on THIS. After Batman and Robin, many felt that costumes and colors and stuff were dead and gone and CBMs should never attempt stuff like that again. The Raimi movies also tried to be "grounded" as possible and when they brought in more comic elements in SM3 it was seen as bad. There was no widely held belief that comic book movies were something to be ashamed of before the MCU came along. Comic book movies were already thriving at the turn of the century thanks to Blade, X-Men, and Spider-Man. B&R was the movie that nearly killed CBMs, not Singer and especially not Nolan.
By the way, Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies really weren’t very “grounded”. They were full of comic book campiness, and drew a lot of inspiration from Christopher Reeves’ Superman movies. Seriously, are we really going to pretend that the first Spider-Man film wasn’t a massive ball of cheese with a bad guy in a silly costume, and lots of goofy one-liners? Oh believe me, as someone who was there for those movies there very much were attitudes that stuff like aliens and magic and everything were stuff to be ashamed of and stuff that DEFINITELY should never be in a CBM. The only good CBMs, as far as people were concerned, were the "grounded" ones that avoided all that and made sure everything was either explained through science or had little to no power in the first place. Or were just using the names of character but were clearly not trying to do the stories and setting of the characters. Raimi's movies were campy, but moviegoers knew this going in so it wasn't a surprise. Notice how the bad guys in the first two were just normal humans augmented by technology while the bad guys in SM3 (seen as inferior to the prior two) were a human turned into something inhuman and an alien parasite? And how a big criticism was that they were too comic bookish for the movie's setting? Once Raimi started going into the really comic booky stuff that's when it was decided the film wasn't any good. |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jan 29, 2018 0:33:22 GMT
Man of Steel, aspects of Batman v Superman, Fant4stic, the X-Men movies go for a similar approach and FoX-Men fans like to think Nolan was inspired by them, etc. Fans of the ASM series say that the first film was more like a Nolan movie and it was going against that which caused ASM2 to do less well. WW is the one most like an MCU film, which is probably why it's the best so far. Thanks to the MCU helping people realize that there's no shame in actual comic elements. We aren't going to agree on THIS. After Batman and Robin, many felt that costumes and colors and stuff were dead and gone and CBMs should never attempt stuff like that again. The Raimi movies also tried to be "grounded" as possible and when they brought in more comic elements in SM3 it was seen as bad. There was no widely held belief that comic book movies were something to be ashamed of before the MCU came along. Comic book movies were already thriving at the turn of the century thanks to Blade, X-Men, and Spider-Man. B&R was the movie that nearly killed CBMs, not Singer and especially not Nolan.
By the way, Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies really weren’t very “grounded”. They were full of comic book campiness, and drew a lot of inspiration from Christopher Reeves’ Superman movies. Seriously, are we really going to pretend that the first Spider-Man film wasn’t a massive ball of cheese with a bad guy in a silly costume, and lots of goofy one-liners? You seem to be flipping sides in your own post bro. Are you arguing with your self? |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 29, 2018 2:04:57 GMT
There was no widely held belief that comic book movies were something to be ashamed of before the MCU came along. Comic book movies were already thriving at the turn of the century thanks to Blade, X-Men, and Spider-Man. B&R was the movie that nearly killed CBMs, not Singer and especially not Nolan.
By the way, Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies really weren’t very “grounded”. They were full of comic book campiness, and drew a lot of inspiration from Christopher Reeves’ Superman movies. Seriously, are we really going to pretend that the first Spider-Man film wasn’t a massive ball of cheese with a bad guy in a silly costume, and lots of goofy one-liners? Oh believe me, as someone who was there for those movies there very much were attitudes that stuff like aliens and magic and everything were stuff to be ashamed of and stuff that DEFINITELY should never be in a CBM. The only good CBMs, as far as people were concerned, were the "grounded" ones that avoided all that and made sure everything was either explained through science or had little to no power in the first place. Or were just using the names of character but were clearly not trying to do the stories and setting of the characters. Raimi's movies were campy, but moviegoers knew this going in so it wasn't a surprise. Notice how the bad guys in the first two were just normal humans augmented by technology while the bad guys in SM3 (seen as inferior to the prior two) were a human turned into something inhuman and an alien parasite? And how a big criticism was that they were too comic bookish for the movie's setting? Once Raimi started going into the really comic booky stuff that's when it was decided the film wasn't any good. Again, the Raimi Spider-Man movies really weren’t all that grounded. They had a lot of comic book silliness in them and they were huge hits. The reception to SM3 had nothing to do with it being too “comic booky”. The movie got the kind of reception it had because it threw everything and the kitchen sink at people. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 29, 2018 2:06:23 GMT
There was no widely held belief that comic book movies were something to be ashamed of before the MCU came along. Comic book movies were already thriving at the turn of the century thanks to Blade, X-Men, and Spider-Man. B&R was the movie that nearly killed CBMs, not Singer and especially not Nolan.
By the way, Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies really weren’t very “grounded”. They were full of comic book campiness, and drew a lot of inspiration from Christopher Reeves’ Superman movies. Seriously, are we really going to pretend that the first Spider-Man film wasn’t a massive ball of cheese with a bad guy in a silly costume, and lots of goofy one-liners? You seem to be flipping sides in your own post bro. Are you arguing with your self? What are you talking about? I was pointing out that CBMs were already experiencing success before the MCU, and that goofy movies like the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies were proof that even before the MCU, people accepted campy CBMs perfectly fine. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 29, 2018 3:02:11 GMT
Oh believe me, as someone who was there for those movies there very much were attitudes that stuff like aliens and magic and everything were stuff to be ashamed of and stuff that DEFINITELY should never be in a CBM. The only good CBMs, as far as people were concerned, were the "grounded" ones that avoided all that and made sure everything was either explained through science or had little to no power in the first place. Or were just using the names of character but were clearly not trying to do the stories and setting of the characters. Raimi's movies were campy, but moviegoers knew this going in so it wasn't a surprise. Notice how the bad guys in the first two were just normal humans augmented by technology while the bad guys in SM3 (seen as inferior to the prior two) were a human turned into something inhuman and an alien parasite? And how a big criticism was that they were too comic bookish for the movie's setting? Once Raimi started going into the really comic booky stuff that's when it was decided the film wasn't any good. The reception to SM3 had nothing to do with it being too “comic booky”. The movie got the kind of reception it had because it threw everything and the kitchen sink at people. The criticisms I heard were that the symbiote and Sandman were too unbelievable for the Spidey movies. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 29, 2018 3:31:58 GMT
The reception to SM3 had nothing to do with it being too “comic booky”. The movie got the kind of reception it had because it threw everything and the kitchen sink at people. The criticisms I heard were that the symbiote and Sandman were too unbelievable for the Spidey movies. The real criticisms were that the film was clittered with too many villains and an unfocused narrative. Also, the dance scene. Venom and Sandman were no more ridiculous than sentient metal tentacles, or a guy who shoots spider webs from his wrists. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 29, 2018 13:42:19 GMT
The criticisms I heard were that the symbiote and Sandman were too unbelievable for the Spidey movies. Venom and Sandman were no more ridiculous than sentient metal tentacles, or a guy who shoots spider webs from his wrists. Apparently, yes they were. The criticisms I heard was that nothing about Sandman made sense compared to Doc Ock (just a human with an exoskeleton) or the Goblin (strength enhancing chemical treatment) and that Venom was too hokey (the meteor landing near Peter). Science augmenting people a little is good and grounded, science making a guy into living sand and an alien is too "out there". Let me put it this way, there's no way they'd have gotten away with Ego the Living Planet as a villain in ANY CBM back then. He'd be derided as too un-grounded. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 29, 2018 18:38:45 GMT
Venom and Sandman were no more ridiculous than sentient metal tentacles, or a guy who shoots spider webs from his wrists. Apparently, yes they were. The criticisms I heard was that nothing about Sandman made sense compared to Doc Ock (just a human with an exoskeleton) or the Goblin (strength enhancing chemical treatment) and that Venom was too hokey (the meteor landing near Peter). Science augmenting people a little is good and grounded, science making a guy into living sand and an alien is too "out there". Let me put it this way, there's no way they'd have gotten away with Ego the Living Planet as a villain in ANY CBM back then. He'd be derided as too un-grounded. The criticisms I heard were that the film was cluttered with too many villains and plot points. That had nothing to do with it not being “grounded” enough. SM3 wasn’t some victim of the big bad critics who wanted a “grounded” CBM, it was the victim of executive meddling from a studio that decided to force Sam Raimi to include Venom in the film, despite the latter’s dislike for the character. The film had an unfocused narrative, hence why it was criticized for it. That’s all. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 29, 2018 22:01:10 GMT
Apparently, yes they were. The criticisms I heard was that nothing about Sandman made sense compared to Doc Ock (just a human with an exoskeleton) or the Goblin (strength enhancing chemical treatment) and that Venom was too hokey (the meteor landing near Peter). Science augmenting people a little is good and grounded, science making a guy into living sand and an alien is too "out there". Let me put it this way, there's no way they'd have gotten away with Ego the Living Planet as a villain in ANY CBM back then. He'd be derided as too un-grounded. The criticisms I heard were that the film was cluttered with too many villains and plot points. That had nothing to do with it not being “grounded” enough. SM3 wasn’t some victim of the big bad critics who wanted a “grounded” CBM, it was the victim of executive meddling from a studio that decided to force Sam Raimi to include Venom in the film, despite the latter’s dislike for the character. The film had an unfocused narrative, hence why it was criticized for it. That’s all. It was a combo of both. They didn't like there being too many unconnected plots/villains, but they didn't like the type of villains either for not "fitting" Doc Ock or Green Goblins' type (grounded). Even if they'd found a way to connect the narrative better together, Sandman and Venom (or, if they cut Sandman out and just had Venom and Harry be the villains) would still get derided as not being grounded enough and being just too bizarre even for Sam Raimi. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 29, 2018 23:32:59 GMT
The criticisms I heard were that the film was cluttered with too many villains and plot points. That had nothing to do with it not being “grounded” enough. SM3 wasn’t some victim of the big bad critics who wanted a “grounded” CBM, it was the victim of executive meddling from a studio that decided to force Sam Raimi to include Venom in the film, despite the latter’s dislike for the character. The film had an unfocused narrative, hence why it was criticized for it. That’s all. It was a combo of both. They didn't like there being too many unconnected plots/villains, but they didn't like the type of villains either for not "fitting" Doc Ock or Green Goblins' type (grounded). Even if they'd found a way to connect the narrative better together, Sandman and Venom (or, if they cut Sandman out and just had Venom and Harry be the villains) would still get derided as not being grounded enough and being just too bizarre even for Sam Raimi. I highly doubt that. You know what other genre was thriving in the 2000s? The fantasy genre. Harry Potter and LotR aren’t grounded at all, and they did just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 29, 2018 23:37:35 GMT
It was a combo of both. They didn't like there being too many unconnected plots/villains, but they didn't like the type of villains either for not "fitting" Doc Ock or Green Goblins' type (grounded). Even if they'd found a way to connect the narrative better together, Sandman and Venom (or, if they cut Sandman out and just had Venom and Harry be the villains) would still get derided as not being grounded enough and being just too bizarre even for Sam Raimi. I highly doubt that. You know what other genre was thriving in the 2000s? The fantasy genre. Harry Potter and LotR aren’t grounded at all, and they did just fine. They had the backing from their literary fanbases. Most original fantasy movies didn't do so well because they had no pre-existing fanbase. I'm sure that if MCU Spidey fought Sandman or Venom no one would bat an eye. But back in 2007 they couldn't accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 29, 2018 23:38:57 GMT
I highly doubt that. You know what other genre was thriving in the 2000s? The fantasy genre. Harry Potter and LotR aren’t grounded at all, and they did just fine. They had the backing from their literary fanbases. Most original fantasy movies didn't do so well because they had no pre-existing fanbase. I'm sure that if MCU Spidey fought Sandman or Venom no one would bat an eye. But back in 2007 they couldn't accept it. Seems like they were willing to accept it just fine, given that the movie broke the opening weekend record back when it was released. |
|
