|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 5, 2022 17:16:56 GMT -8
I found Christian Bale to be an excellent Bruce Wayne and a so-so Batman. With Pattinson, it's the opposite. Part of the issue is that the film goes out of its way to minimize Bruce's role out-of-costume (even as his past and elite connections figure markedly in the plot) in order to give his Bat side a more mythical and ephemeral quality. On that front, the film works wonders from the opening moments when Batman emerges from the shadows (although for a film that has its title character define himself with "I am the shadows," he spends a surprising length of its runtime in public and in the light); it just isn't quite sure what to do with Bruce when he's in playboy billionaire mode. Most of the cast is indeed quite good. Kravitz (who already has some experience playing Catwoman, albeit in Lego form) having a banner year so far between this and KIMI. In the grand Bat-scheme (yes, I plan to use bat prefixes as often as I can in these discussions), I'd say this a below the first two Nolan films and perhaps Mask of the Phantasm. Might be a cut above the Burton films, although it's been some time since I watched those. I did quite enjoy the freakier side of Batman Returns, nihilistic as it was. Maybe I'm a bit overly hesitant about The Batman because the character might be reaching the point of oversaturation. Perish the thought, I know, but in the last ten years alone, we've had (deep breath) the conclusion to the Nolan trilogy, the Batfleck films, a CG animated series, the Gotham show, the Joker film, the Lego spinoff, a dozen DC Animation films, and whatever this is. Obviously, DC will continue to milk the Bat-Cow* as long as they can, but I have perhaps been approaching recent projects about the character with more reservations than I used to. I'll probably give the film another look when it gets to HBO Max next month; there certainly is a lot to like, and I'm looking forward to seeing what a sequel holds. *That's a real character from the comics, google it.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 6, 2022 2:07:34 GMT -8
it just isn't quite sure what to do with Bruce when he's in playboy billionaire mode. That's because he's never in playboy billionaire mode. He hasn't gotten that part worked out yet (maintaining a false public persona and whatnot), and is so immersed in the darkness that he's blinded whenever he's out in daylight. They've actually allowed room for growth there, should a second installment arrive. Anyways, I like this film significantly more than Batman Begins. For whatever reason, I felt absolutely nothing in the Begins scene where Bruce's parents get shot (the kid they used didn't work for me at all). That film takes way too long to get to present-Gotham and the ninja stuff is entirely one-dimensional, generic, and laborious. Bruce assembling his armory with Lucius Fox is very impersonal (and too much like James Bond). The action editing is choppy and unsatisfying, especially when it gets to his fight with Ra's Al Ghul, which is completely incoherent (do we ever actually see them hit each other?). And the final set piece involves that idiot in the control station repeatedly telling the audience that "If the subway train hits the station, it's gonna blow!", which dumbs the movie down considerably. I also hate virtually every line they give every cop not named Gordon in that film. Ra's Al Ghul is also a pretty bland villain (in this, and other media). It's fairly tidy (if rather one-note) thematically (it's about Fear with a capital F, folks), but far from great on the level of visual craft (the influence of the choppy Bourne sequels are strong with this one). The Burton films are relatively fun, but the over-the-top villains always overshadow Keaton's Batman, who doesn't get any real character arc or development (Burton seems vaguely disinterested in him, and just rides the audience's goodwill towards Keaton as an actor). Pfeiffer's good as a campy Catwoman in Returns (though a bit too shrill, right from the start, as Selina, IMO), but DeVito just yells all of his lines, and quickly grows tiresome (no nuance at all). And though I like the general design of Returns, it was filmed on such cramped soundstages that Gotham City mostly feels like a themed mini-golf course, rather than a living, breathing city. The demented carnival aspect is the best thing about it, but I can't say that I genuinely care about any of the characters in it. I think the main themes of The Batman come through very clearly and concisely. It's got the most fully-realized version of a full-sized Gotham City, has the most eclectic and moving soundtrack of any of the live-action Batman films (I like Elfman's Batman March, but don't feel very strongly about his other themes), has the best overall ensemble acting (no notable weak links, and every major player brings it), has the best, most artful cinematography, and easily the best fight choreography of any solo Batman film. To me, it's got a soup of ideas, much like The Dark Knight: I don't need every theme involving a large city to be fully expanded upon in one film, especially when it's likely to have sequels. It's primarily a story of damaged orphans, and how they individually deal with past trauma, and is probably the first Batman film to genuinely earn the "we're two sides of the same coin" gimmick between the hero and villain (Riddler and Batman creepily spying on people outside their homes with binoculars being the first of many nods to that). And quite frankly, this Batman (the character) feels more true to the source material than any of the others, by a considerable margin (and I've always been far more interested in Batman than Bruce Wayne, especially when the latter's in false "playboy" mode, going all the way back to the Animated Series). And Kravitz is my favourite live-action Catwoman: she's sly, tough yet emotionally-vulnerable, and has great chemistry with Pattinson. She feels like an actual person, rather than a cartoon character shooting off cheesy one-liners. Right now, I'd say The Dark Knight and The Batman are on my top-tier of live-action Batman films, with the rest being a tier or more below. Though I'll be curious to see if a sequel to The Batman falls into the more typical formula of the rest, because I can't imagine the next installment 1) being darker or 2) having quite as much detective-work, given that the primary villain won't be The Riddler. It'll probably have bigger, longer action elements, especially if this film doesn't draw enough for Warner Bros. at the box-office. The next one will probably be a bit more kid-friendly, for better or worse. I certainly get the point w/r/t the "oversaturation" of the character, but 1) this is the first solo Batman film in a decade (in the actual Batman, as opposed to Superman, universe), 2) this character is much more malleable and open-to-interpretation than most "superheroes", and 3) this is the first time I feel they totally nailed it with the Batman character. I've heard that Reeves does a lot of takes, and I believe it. Batman is lit perfectly in virtually every shot, and Pattinson's body-language and voice is pretty much always on point, even when delivering extended passages of dialogue. In the Nolan films, not only was Bale's Batman's hoarse voice ripe-for-parody when delivering extended monologues, but visually, he often looked like he was holding back a sneeze when talking. (Keaton's Batman, of course, barely spoke.) And of course, putting the suit in broad daylight with no shadows is never ideal. I actually loved the tension in this new film, when Pattinson's Batman was in the same environment as the cops, feeling like an alien amongst them (none of the other films have done that). Re: him "being in the shadows", that applies primarily to common street thugs, in helping to build up his intimidating reputation: he soon realizes that he'll need to be more proactive with the bigger fish.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 6, 2022 19:59:59 GMT -8
To me, it's got a soup of ideas, much like The Dark Knight: I don't need every theme involving a large city to be fully expanded upon in one film, especially when it's likely to have sequels. It's primarily a story of damaged orphans, and how they individually deal with past trauma, and is probably the first Batman film to genuinely earn the "we're two sides of the same coin" gimmick between the hero and villain (Riddler and Batman creepily spying on people outside their homes with binoculars being the first of many nods to that). And quite frankly, this Batman (the character) feels more true to the source material than any of the others, by a considerable margin (and I've always been far more interested in Batman than Bruce Wayne, especially when the latter's in false "playboy" mode, going all the way back to the Animated Series). I agree with a lot of your points (particularly about the film's much-accomplished technical aspects), but I think this is the area where we really diverge. True, the film is comparable to The Dark Knight in grappling with a bounty of ideas about corruption and the nature of evil. The key difference is that The Dark Knight absolutely excels in structuring these ideas and executing them in a well-paced and coherent manner across its lengthy runtime. The Batman aims for this, but it feels over-focused on some areas and underbaked in others, like it's trying to spread its wings (I resist the temptation to type "batwings") across a multitude of threads and themes and isn't entirely sure how much screentime to devote to each. (As one example: The emotional climax hinges on Gotham finding a political savior that even Batman can believe in, but she comes off as a complete cipher throughout the film, making the thematic relevance of her character and role in the story feel somewhat hollow. The Dark Knight does something similar with Eckhart's Harvey Dent, but Nolan ingeniously arcs and weaves his character into the story in a manner that makes him feel both three-dimensional and completely of a piece with the film's messaging.) As for whether the character is the most true to the source material - I'm not sure I fully buy that after one viewing, but as you say, Batman is an incredibly malleable character and can be interpreted through a variety of lenses. Reeves' vision does seem to borrow some notable elements from the comics (particularly The Long Halloween and Ed Brubaker's Catwoman series), so I can see why this film is winning over a lot of hardcore comics fans. (There was actually a comics stand set up in my theater lobby during opening weekend, featuring some prominent Batman and other DC publications. I don't recall ever seeing that in a theater before.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 6, 2022 21:51:35 GMT -8
To me, it's got a soup of ideas, much like The Dark Knight: I don't need every theme involving a large city to be fully expanded upon in one film, especially when it's likely to have sequels. It's primarily a story of damaged orphans, and how they individually deal with past trauma, and is probably the first Batman film to genuinely earn the "we're two sides of the same coin" gimmick between the hero and villain (Riddler and Batman creepily spying on people outside their homes with binoculars being the first of many nods to that). And quite frankly, this Batman (the character) feels more true to the source material than any of the others, by a considerable margin (and I've always been far more interested in Batman than Bruce Wayne, especially when the latter's in false "playboy" mode, going all the way back to the Animated Series). I agree with a lot of your points (particularly about the film's much-accomplished technical aspects), but I think this is the area where we really diverge. True, the film is comparable to The Dark Knight in grappling with a bounty of ideas about corruption and the nature of evil. The key difference is that The Dark Knight absolutely excels in structuring these ideas and executing them in a well-paced and coherent manner across its lengthy runtime. The Batman aims for this, but it feels over-focused on some areas and underbaked in others, like it's trying to spread its wings (I resist the temptation to type "batwings") across a multitude of threads and themes and isn't entirely sure how much screentime to devote to each. (As one example: The emotional climax hinges on Gotham finding a political savior that even Batman can believe in, but she comes off as a complete cipher throughout the film, making the thematic relevance of her character and role in the story feel somewhat hollow. The Dark Knight does something similar with Eckhart's Harvey Dent, but Nolan ingeniously arcs and weaves his character into the story in a manner that makes him feel both three-dimensional and completely of a piece with the film's messaging.) As for whether the character is the most true to the source material - I'm not sure I fully buy that after one viewing, but as you say, Batman is an incredibly malleable character and can be interpreted through a variety of lenses. Reeves' vision does seem to borrow some notable elements from the comics (particularly The Long Halloween and Ed Brubaker's Catwoman series), so I can see why this film is winning over a lot of hardcore comics fans. (There was actually a comics stand set up in my theater lobby during opening weekend, featuring some prominent Batman and other DC publications. I don't recall ever seeing that in a theater before.) Oh, OK, now I see a little more where you're coming from. I actually don't agree that the emotional climax hinges on Gotham finding a political savior: that's simply a background element to me that may be developed more in future films. To me, the emotional climax involves Batman trying to find a balance between intimidating criminals and being a sign of hope for innocent civilians, because his current approach is likely doing more harm than good. And truth be told, I'd say that the final action set-piece feels a bit more like a blockbuster obligation than a crucial part of the story (cool fight choreography notwithstanding), and the threat to the new mayor isn't the primary component, but rather a side element. What's more significant are the follow-up scenes with the flare, and the injured civilian holding Batman's hand, which are very moving to me, both visually and thematically. The political savior thing, though, is more of a centerpiece of The Dark Knight, and while it's threaded throughout that film very nicely, I'd argue that it doesn't totally stick the landing, because I've never fully bought that Dent would go after Gordon of all people: that didn't feel earned to me at all, and my only emotional response came as a result of Gordon's pleading, not the situation itself, which felt forced, and rather hollow. I think the writers probably needed another ~ten minutes of scenes between Dent and Gordon, where Gordon's decision-making came across as highly questionable from Dent's perspective, to finesse it more effectively. As it stands, it just plays as a crazy person lashing out at everyone, which isn't really tied to his ideology as much as his having endured blunt-force trauma. Anyways, yeah, that's the focus of TDK, but it's not the primary focus of The Batman, IMO. The Batman is all about orphans guided and defined by past trauma, lonely people desperate for personal connections, and the utility of intimidation. The corruption at various levels of society will always remain an ongoing issue in the Batman mythos, but the story's more about how key characters react to it. Bella Real isn't a key character yet. As for the "closer to the source material", I think Nolan's Batman often felt as much influenced by James Bond as anything in Batman comics, particularly as it related to his gadgets and armory. And Nolan's trilogy was primarily a Bruce Wayne story. This version really locked down on his intimidating-creature-of-the-night and detective components. And it emphasized his partnership with Gordon to a much greater degree. Anyways, regardless of the source material, I thought Pattinson's Batman was more fully-realized overall than previous versions, particularly as it pertained to overall body language and the way he moved/fought (he's still learning w/r/t not walking into a hail of bullets, though). And to me, he looks far-and-away the best in the suit, from the neck up. I'm not speaking to his Bruce Wayne, of course, who has yet to develop his public "playboy" persona at this early stage (a key distinguishing factor of this version). Affleck's version was probably closest to most comics in that regard, at least visually.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 7, 2022 20:55:25 GMT -8
Oh, OK, now I see a little more where you're coming from. I actually don't agree that the emotional climax hinges on Gotham finding a political savior: that's simply a background element to me that may be developed more in future films. To me, the emotional climax involves Batman trying to find a balance between intimidating criminals and being a sign of hope for innocent civilians, because his current approach is likely doing more harm than good. And truth be told, I'd say that the final action set-piece feels a bit more like a blockbuster obligation than a crucial part of the story (cool fight choreography notwithstanding), and the threat to the new mayor isn't the primary component, but rather a side element. What's more significant are the follow-up scenes with the flare, and the injured civilian holding Batman's hand, which are very moving to me, both visually and thematically. In part due to blockbuster needs, the third act feels a bit more disjointed than the first two, trying to resolve a lengthy and epically-scoped story as well as possible. (Though Reeves has pulled this sort of thing off well in the past, with the latter two Apes movies.) Of its many goals, it's most successful in capturing Batman's dichotomous dilemma, in part because at least 95% of the film is told from Batman's perspective, giving us a steadily maintained glimpse beneath the cowl throughout the film's runtime. That alone is commendable, as very few Batman movies manage to find a way inside the main character's head so effectively or consistently for an entire film. It's in some of the plottier elements where it falls short. (The revelation that the Riddler uses 4Chan made me involuntarily snicker.) I saw a comment claim that the film feels more like a Director's Cut than a theatrical film, which sounds about right. While not as long or overdrawn as Snyder's Justice League, it has the sort of moves and cadences - particularly in the very deliberate pacing and staging of establishing shots - that's more akin to DVD extended editions. Though now I'm curious about the actual director's cut of this film; Reeves confirmed in a recent interview that the original version was even longer than what was finally released. Incidentally, per Letterboxd, The Batman is currently the 78th greatest film of all time. Still well below The Dark Knight, but an impressive showing, however long it lasts. ( No Way Home dropped out of the Top 100 a few weeks ago, after the initial wave crested.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 7, 2022 23:03:57 GMT -8
Reeves has said recently that there isn't going to be a longer "Director's Cut" of this film, and that this, in its current length, is the film he wanted to make. There is one scene set in Arkham with an early version of a character who appears briefly towards the end of the film that may make it onto the home video release as a supplemental feature. Something about Batman using this character, who he'd encountered in the past two years, to help get into the mind of The Riddler. Reeves ultimately felt it was redundant, but still thinks it's a cool scene that fans would like to see.
Re: the 4Chan thing, I think that scene where Riddler is talking to his followers is absolutely meant to be darkly comic, in placing him in a more mundane light. Especially given how he speaks in his normal voice, and seems so gentle and innocuous.
Re: plotting, I think the film's a lot tighter than, say, The Dark Knight, which has interesting and compelling themes, but is riddled (no pun intended) with huge plot contrivances from beginning to end. Virtually everything that happens in Joker's plan requires an impossible amount of luck, timing, foresight, and organization for it to come off. And, I mean, do you remember how Joker escaped the police station, by blowing up a bomb that somehow knocked-out or killed everyone around him, without him being harmed whatsoever? The only somewhat contrived things that jumped out at me in The Batman after multiple viewings are Selina being right near Gotham Square Garden at the film's climax, and the explosions going off almost right after Batman figures out Riddler's final plan (which I can allow a little dramatic license for). Perhaps the cell phone battery not dying over the course of hours while trying to deal with the neck-bomb on the DA, but we don't know that it's actually been ringing that entire time, given the time-jump. Otherwise, I think it's pretty tidily and cleverly plotted for a film of that length, scale and ambition. I think it's a really tough assignment for a screenwriter, balancing so many different elements, while still allowing for some measure of dramatic comic-booky grandeur (how much protection his armoured suit gives him, and whatnot).
I don't expect the film to be as popular in the mainstream as The Dark Knight, simply because it emphasizes mood and atmosphere over large-scale action, and is very dark, oppressive, and non-kid-friendly. But I think it's more balanced than that film, with regards to giving every major character moments to shine. In TDK, the Ledger scenes are much more impactful and entertaining than anything else in the movie, and Batman doesn't feel like Joker's match on anything but a physical level. Bale's overly hoarse voice also undermines a number of key scenes in the film, particularly towards the end (when he monologues, or pleads with other characters), making them ripe for parody. That Pattison almost entirely avoids that despite spending probably 80% of The Batman in the Batsuit is pretty remarkable (the production delays due to the pandemic likely helped him and Reeves in that regard immeasurably, in fine-tuning the Bat-voice and whatnot).
And to me, Spider-Man: No Way Home is nowhere near as artfully-produced/directed or well-acted as The Batman, and its plot is unbelievably contrived and nonsensical. It gets pretty far on the general likability of its actors, but stands up to very little scrutiny on a story level. Watching it a second time in February (two months after my initial viewing), I felt very little. It's fun, but pretty disposable, beyond tying up some loose story-threads for the previous Spider-Men (particularly Garfield's). Giacchino didn't write nearly as memorable a score for it, either. And Spider-Man 2 still has the best-visualized and staged action of all the Spidey films, even with inferior visual-effects technology at its disposal.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 8, 2022 19:51:53 GMT -8
Re: plotting, I think the film's a lot tighter than, say, The Dark Knight, which has interesting and compelling themes, but is riddled (no pun intended) with huge plot contrivances from beginning to end. Virtually everything that happens in Joker's plan requires an impossible amount of luck, timing, foresight, and organization for it to come off. And, I mean, do you remember how Joker escaped the police station, by blowing up a bomb that somehow knocked-out or killed everyone around him, without him being harmed whatsoever? The only somewhat contrived things that jumped out at me in The Batman after multiple viewings are Selina being right near Gotham Square Garden at the film's climax, and the explosions going off almost right after Batman figures out Riddler's final plan (which I can allow a little dramatic license for). Perhaps the cell phone battery not dying over the course of hours while trying to deal with the neck-bomb on the DA, but we don't know that it's actually been ringing that entire time, given the time-jump. Otherwise, I think it's pretty tidily and cleverly plotted for a film of that length, scale and ambition. I think it's a really tough assignment for a screenwriter, balancing so many different elements, while still allowing for some measure of dramatic comic-booky grandeur (how much protection his armoured suit gives him, and whatnot). So I think we should draw a distinguishing line between plot contrivance and plot coherence. I fully concede that there are contrivances and conveniences in The Dark Knight, and indeed all throughout the Nolan trilogy. But I don't find them particularly distracting or problematic, because they plot turns are carefully utilized in service of characters and messaging. The Joker is chaos personified; by logical standards, his plans may require a lot of luck, but he doesn't operate by what normal humans (or even super-normal humans like Batman) deem logical standards, which is what makes him such a terrifying foe. His plans touch upon real fears - however improbable they may be - and they are deftly utilized in the course of the story. (The contrivances do rankle more in Dark Knight Rises, mostly because it's a notable step down from the prior two films.) But on the subject of plot coherence - that is, tight writing and thematic cohesion - The Batman doesn't pull the trick off as well as the prior trilogy did. The Nolan films may not excel on every technical level, but they do an expert job at setting up minute details early on and paying them off as the screenplay demands. The Batman certainly has a lot of elements to contend with - perhaps more than any Batman film before it - and sets them up quite promisingly, but nearly everything after Riddler's capture feels disjointed compared to what comes before. The prominence of the city sea wall comes pretty much out of nowhere (it's barely set up early in the film, in a moment that most viewers won't even register), as does the Riddler's secret online following. (The script doesn't quite give the social media commentary the room it needs to breathe; the transition from "Riddler's got tens of thousands of followers" to "he's got hundreds of really devoted followers" is one of the most glaring examples.) If The Batman was solely focused on being a character piece - if it exclusively focused on orphans grappling with trauma vis-a-vis the Batman/Riddler contrast - it would probably be fantastic; unfortunately, it's trying to be other things as well, and winds up a bit cluttered as a result. Part of me wonders if the political underpinnings in this film aren't a self-conscious reaction from DC, since they've gotten a lot of online pushback over perceived right-wing themes and messages in the Zack Snyder films. But whatever the reason, The Batman wants to tap into modern fears and concerns more directly than most superhero fare, and it's tough to judge the film without judging how well it grapples with those messages. And it's there where the film fall short - in the messaging, the social commentary, and the character development. (Bella Real may not present as an important character, but the screenplay consistently mistakes her for such.) I don't think these are major issues, certainly not enough to blunt the film's myriad accomplishments. But taken in aggregate, they're what separates a very good Batman movie from a truly great one.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 8, 2022 20:38:17 GMT -8
I'll agree that they should've emphasized the geography of Gotham more (with the seawall, and whatnot) if one of the last significant plot points was going to center on it.
Re: Riddler's followers, though, I'm not sure that it was really intended as any sort of significant social-commentary, other than to have a little dark fun at the expense of the villain (in how lame and innocuous he could be when not talking up a big game to Batman and the police).
Regardless, that social-media chunk at the end takes up roughly the same amount of time (percentage of the movie) as the Harvey/Gordon scene from TDK that I mentioned not being narratively convincing, so I'd say it's basically a wash in that regard, between the two films. Both films rushed a bit to the climax without doing all the legwork.
Nonetheless, point taken w/r/t plot contrivances and plot coherence, but when Nolan's trilogy mostly set itself in a photo-realistic (save for The Narrows in one film) environment, the plot contrivances draw a whole lot more attention to themselves than they would in an over-the-top Burton Batman film, or even the more stylized Reeves film, IMO.
Anyways, I must always emphasize that shaky-cam and choppy editing drag down my enjoyment of films more than they seem to bother other viewers (that new Michael Bay film, for instance, looks unwatchable to me), which is why I still slightly prefer The Dark Knight Rises to Batman Begins, even though it's got a messier screenplay. Everything's just framed better, IMO. And hey, I'm not the only one who feels that way, apparently, because TDKR has an 87% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 78 on Metacritic, compared to Batman Begins' 85% RT and 70 MC rating. Visual technique matters more to some than others: how compelling a film is isn't just determined by the tidiness of its themes and its plot. It's a visual medium, after all. (Plus, Bane, as ridiculous as he was, was way more fun than Ra's Al Ghul...heh.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 9, 2022 6:23:54 GMT -8
Oh, I definitely think there was intentional social commentary with the Riddler's followers. It's not specific, but the film certainly draws inspiration from some of the disturbing stories about alt-right message boards and the real-world damage they can inspire. It does somewhat defang and ground Riddler as a threatening supervillain, but that only makes the real-world parallels more noticeable.
And Dark Knight Rises certainly has a lot of fans, even if many acknowledge its flaws. It certainly looks great and has perhaps the most sweeping visual scope of the trilogy, but I remain annoyed by a lot of its story and character choices. While I do love a few of his films, Nolan has a frustrating tendency to forsake plot or character logic in favor of grand visual spectacle (as in Inception or Tenet). It's the main reason why I find his reputation as a master storyteller to be a touch overhyped.
Also, I just noticed that The Batman is already the highest-grossing film of 2022 so far. I don't expect it to hit the financial heights of the Dark Knight films, but it's likely got a healthy run before Jared Leto bares his fangs.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 9, 2022 12:21:04 GMT -8
I meant "significant" social commentary in the sense that it wasn't one of the primary focuses of the film. It certainly was a degree of social-commentary. Does Nolan have a reputation as a "master storyteller"? Hmmm. I thought his modern reputation related more to the "cinematic" scale of his films, and how much they were rendered in practical terms. I think he and his brother definitely have some shortcomings as screenwriters, particularly their tendency to spell too much of their stories out through dialogue and, as you said, the shortcuts they take in story- and character-logic in service of spectacle. The amount of exposition in their films bothers me a bit less in the Batman movies, because comic books often involve a lot of expository monologuing, so it fits the form to a good degree, but in stuff like Inception and Tenet, there's definitely a fair amount of over-explaining going on, making things seem more complicated than they are. That's one of the things I like so much about Reeves' Batman film, is that he allows for more quiet moments of body-language and atmosphere, and a bit more room for subtextual resonance at times. That opening crime scene involving the dead [redacted] is great, particularly the moment where Batman catches a glimpse of the [redacted]'s son. Of course, Reeves also uses voice-over monologues, but again, that fits the form of a comic book movie, and especially a detective noir. As for The Batman's box office run, well, it opens in China in a couple of weeks, which may actually help it cross the billion-dollar mark. But we'll have to see on that. Regardless, it's dumb to compare its box office earnings to No Way Home or the Nolan Batman sequels, as we're jumping into a new version of the character, with an entirely new cast, coming off some not-well-received films that the Batman character was involved with (the Snyder flicks). It's more reasonable to compare it to the earnings of Batman Begins (coming off Batman & Robin) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (coming off The Amazing Spider-Man 2), and it'll definitely earn more than the former (we'll see about the latter). Of course, box-office earnings and actual attendance are two separate things, as the price of movie tickets keep going up, up, up (but hey, if moviegoers pay the price, they pay the price). And hey, HERE'S an article that we all knew was coming, and I can't say I'd argue with the thesis put forth, as it relates to The Batman (2022) vs Joker (2019): www.vox.com/22959963/batman-joker-pattinson-phoenix
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 9, 2022 15:54:48 GMT -8
I meant "significant" social commentary in the sense that it wasn't one of the primary focuses of the film. It certainly was a degree of social-commentary. Does Nolan have a reputation as a "master storyteller"? Hmmm. I thought his modern reputation related more to the "cinematic" scale of his films, and how much they were rendered in practical terms. I think he and his brother definitely have some shortcomings as screenwriters, particularly their tendency to spell too much of their stories out through dialogue and, as you said, the shortcuts they take in story- and character-logic in service of spectacle. The amount of exposition in their films bothers me a bit less in the Batman movies, because comic books often involve a lot of expository monologuing, so it fits the form to a good degree, but in stuff like Inception and Tenet, there's definitely a fair amount of over-explaining going on, making things seem more complicated than they are. That's one of the things I like so much about Reeves' Batman film, is that he allows for more quiet moments of body-language and atmosphere, and a bit more room for subtextual resonance at times. That opening crime scene involving the dead [redacted] is great, particularly the moment where Batman catches a glimpse of the [redacted]'s son. Of course, Reeves also uses voice-over monologues, but again, that fits the form of a comic book movie, and especially a detective noir. And hey, HERE'S an article that we all knew was coming, and I can't say I'd argue with the thesis put forth, as it relates to The Batman (2022) vs Joker (2019): www.vox.com/22959963/batman-joker-pattinson-phoenixI think the only Vox article I've actually liked was their one about taxing land value they ran last week.
I think Nolan did have a reputation as a master-storyteller, but it's very cool to hate on him these days. So it's tough to say. He's always been something of a mixed bag for me. Some great films, some good films, some mediocre ones, and if you argued The Dark Knight Rises was actively bad, I wouldn't argue particularly strongly against it.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 9, 2022 16:38:06 GMT -8
As I've said, The Dark Knight Rises is middle-of-the-pack Nolan for me. I find the overall story fairly compelling on a purely emotional level, even while conceding that some of the plot points are quite messy and/or illogical (most of the character beats are fine to me). But I admire its ambition, and greatly prefer it to, say, Following, Insomnia (the original Scandinavian film is much better), Interstellar, and Tenet, and slightly prefer it to Batman Begins as well. My favourite Nolan films are The Dark Knight, Dunkirk (his best crafted film on a visual level, IMO), and Memento (probably his best screenplay).
I don't really have a strong opinion about Vox articles, but just thought that one was fairly on-point (happened upon it on Rotten Tomatoes) in comparing The Batman with Joker.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 9, 2022 20:02:19 GMT -8
Yeah, I was using "master storyteller" in a broad sense of the term. Nolan is chiefly celebrated for visual storytelling, but he also gets a fair deal of accolades for his screenplays (Inception got an Oscar nom in the category), and has a devoted following for the themes his films often grapple with. My own feelings toward his work are lukewarm overall. I - finally! - watched Interstellar all the way through recently, and despite appreciating the film's visual scope, was left underwhelmed every time a character opened their mouth. (Didn't like Memento either, though it's been a solid decade since I watched that.)
The Vox article is pretty good (now that Jane Coaston's left, Alissa Wilkinson is the only writer on that website whose work I still care to read), and underscores the film's role as an apparent corrective: The Batman is DC's response to the - mostly online - criticisms that the Nolan trilogy, the Snyder films, and Joker push conservative/populist themes and messages. And in polar opposition to Joker, the strongest pushback to The Batman is coming from the right.
As for the film's box office fortunes - I don't expect it to hit the billion-dollar mark, but weirder things have happened. Interestingly, AMC theaters are trying a new variable pricing model, charging more for screenings of The Batman than for lower-budget films like Cyrano or Dog. Some folks are upset about this, but I think it's a perfectly fine idea, especially since superheroes are far and away the main thing keeping theaters open right now.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 9, 2022 20:26:03 GMT -8
I didn't expect Aquaman to make over a billion dollars at the box-office, and yet it did. Blockbuster movies aren't as dependent on North American revenue for their overall box-office as they used to be. It's one reason that they keep churning out Fast and Furious movies, despite them not performing all that well in North America, relative to their budgets. Of course, The Batman isn't really an action film, which may end up putting a lower ceiling on it internationally. Mind you, we saw what happened with Joker (2019), which was simply a dark drama, so who knows? Also, many folks are aware that it'll premiere on HBO Max 45 days after its theatrical release, which may cut its box-office legs out from under it. But I think the box-office in China will likely be the great decider.
And yeah, some folks view practically everything they see through a political lens, and it's pretty much unavoidable when a film is dealing with widespread societal corruption and whatnot. I felt that The Dark Knight was simply a reflection of its time, and when it was made, Bush was in office, so it's naturally going to touch on some aspects of that (especially the surveillance thing).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 10, 2022 6:29:21 GMT -8
Oh, I think there's certainly a lot of intentional political commentary in the Nolan trilogy, Dark Knight in particular. I'm just amused by folks who only notice politics in superhero films when they disagree with said politics. (Or when they point out that Christian Bale's Batman eventually turned into Christian Bale's Dick Cheney.)
And even if it does well in China, I think there are a slate of other factors working against The Batman's potential box office, despite the minimal competition at the moment. The fact that it's the first film in a new series... the limited exclusive theatrical window before it heads to HBO Max... the fact that it's not playing in Russia. Aquaman surprised people when it made a billion dollars, but as you say, it makes abundant use of the sort of big, loud action spectacle that plays well on an international scale - the sort we've seen with F&F, Transformers, Ice Age, and other blockbuster franchises that make most of their money overseas. (Joker is a more unusual example, though it was probably boosted in many theatrical circles thanks to its buzzworthy R rating and outsized media attention.)
|
|