|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 15, 2022 17:34:41 GMT -8
As I've said, my issue with the pacing isn't that the film feels overlong. (It mostly justifies its length story-wise, even if some shots - the opening binocular POV, the Batman/Catwoman dual motorcycle ride - linger well past the point of necessity.) It's more that the film feels choppy and glosses over a handful of key plot points, particularly regarding the central mystery. For a two-hour movie, such an issue would be defensible; for a three-hour film, there's really no excuse. I also don't think the movie is much of a character piece to be fair. Batman is the only character with significant time dedicated to him and it doesn't go very deep even then. As I said, I think the political themes and particularly the presentation are the backbone of the movie moreso than characterization. I really disagree. While the presentation is likely the film's main draw, it's not enough to excuse the scripting issues. I'd say the only story level on which the film truly succeeds is as a character noir centered on the Batman/Riddler juxtaposition. It doesn't really work as a mystery thriller, since a lot of the detective work feels fragmented and out of focus. It doesn't work as a Gotham City ensemble piece, since the multiple side characters crowd the story and distract from the central narrative. And it doesn't work as political allegory, since the political messaging is shallow and ham-fisted. It's a weird film in that the more I think about it, the less impressed I am with the final product. Contrast to Dark Knight, a film I didn't really like on first viewing but have since grown to really love.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 15, 2022 20:47:49 GMT -8
Yeah, I disagree with the majority of your points against The Batman. I do agree that it's more focused on character than politics, though, even though it's not a "character study", per se, because whatever politics exist simply come part-and-parcel with typical depictions of the widespread corruption of Gotham City. I don't feel the film's trying to make any grand political statements. To me, it's absolutely a character melodrama, and most of the characters enhance the central narrative, by providing colour and/or historical context into the world of Gotham. That said, I don't need every character in a film to be in service of its plot or central themes, even though I think most of them in this one probably were. Anyways, I had a far different experience with the movie than you did. Oh well.
I still really like The Dark Knight overall, BTW. And I don't really care much about the countless plot contrivances, because plot is rarely my primary concern as a viewer (unless it's tied to character motivation), especially in a superhero blockbuster. My biggest issues remain with Bale's silly Batman voice (which often undermines key dramatic moments), the Dent/Gordon stuff at the end not really feeling earned, and perhaps the overly expository nature of some of the theme-centered dialogue (an issue with most Nolan films not named Dunkirk).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 16, 2022 18:41:33 GMT -8
Yeah, I don't fault anyone who loves The Batman, as it certainly has a lot of merits. Despite my critiques (which are almost exclusively script-related), I'd still say I'm overall positive toward the film, and would certainly watch it again. I am a bit surprised by how few people seem to share my criticisms, but maybe I just came at the film from a different angle than most folks.
The important thing is we all agree that Arnold Schwarzenegger yelling "Let's kick some ice!" remains the Bat-franchise's nadir.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 16, 2022 19:34:09 GMT -8
Well, a fair number of critics certainly didn't like it. But for the most part, their criticisms usually amount to, "iT's ToO dArK!", which they said about most previous Bat-films as well, and would probably say about The Animated Series and the graphic novels, and anything else Batman-related that isn't full-on parody. Because, you know, they don't actually like Batman. It's weird: a lot of folks (critics and general moviegoers) act like there's a shortage of lighthearted fare out there, and feign indignation when a movie based on a comic book character known for being dark is, you know, dark. Anyways, art is subjective, and we're emotional creatures. In my three viewings -- that's right, and I might go back once more before it finishes its theatrical run, cuz Batman iconography is my jam! -- nothing in the script took me out of the picture or hindered my involvement in the story they were trying to tell. No plot point, no line of dialogue or individual characterization. I got a little worried when Batman was yelling behind the glass at Arkham (with his voice muffled a tad), that we were gonna get a "WHERE'S DA TRIGGERRR?!, but thankfully that did not occur. I suspect future installments will be more thematically-ambitious and expansive -- as I noted earlier, this is a pretty claustrophobic film with a strict POV (Batman's in nearly every scene) -- but felt this film set the table for Matt Reeves' universe very well, visually, thematically, emotionally. Maybe it'll grow on you more on subsequent viewings. But, you know, you can't please everyone. Your Batman, Your Choice, Jeremy.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 16, 2022 20:18:09 GMT -8
Dark in tone or dark in visuals? I don’t think there’s much mileage in complaining the film itself is overly bleak for its intentions (it certainly earns the tone better than BvS did), but I can see critics and audiences growing listless over a film that features so many low-lit scenes across three hours.
Also, I’m not sure if the “my (blank), my choice” joke is a dig at a tweet I made earlier this week - but if so, well played.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 16, 2022 22:26:44 GMT -8
Dark in tone or dark in visuals? I don’t think there’s much mileage in complaining the film itself is overly bleak for its intentions (it certainly earns the tone better than BvS did), but I can see critics and audiences growing listless over a film that features so many low-lit scenes across three hours. Also, I’m not sure if the “my (blank), my choice” joke is a dig at a tweet I made earlier this week - but if so, well played. Dark in tone, mostly. As to scenes being low-lit, it's weird, because a lot of the sequences, say, in the Iceberg Lounge, have more colour and contrast in TV/YouTube clips on my perfectly-calibrated TV and PC. But unfortunately, movie theaters' tendency to run images dimmer than they should (burning the projector bulb at a lower level to try to extend its life, or some such nonsense) makes dark scenes considerably darker. I look forward to seeing the film on my TV in the coming months, where I feel some of those colours (especially the red flare at the end) will really pop. The film's certainly dark, but to me, the cinematography's not murky (except in a few instances where it deliberately, stylistically, goes out-of-focus). And yes, I was referencing your comment about Turning Red. (I gather there's a moment where the lead character is given the opportunity to, uh, "give up" the red panda, and chooses to, uh, keep it? Heh.)
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 22, 2022 14:43:47 GMT -8
I have now seen The Batmovie starring Robert Battinson. Though I never manage to arrive with on-the-dot commentary for films in theatres, I can never seem to get used to showing up after the debate is largely over. In any case, my feelings towards it were lukewarm at best and I think the highest amount of praise that I could give it was that it was paced okay for a three-hour movie, which was something I was dreading going in. As with Jer, I'm not sure especially that it earned being three-hours because as Jer observed, there are a lot of corners cut and plot points that don't rightly get made (in particular, "drops" occupy a fairly large portion of the plot without being especially meaningful, try as they might, and I am also not quite sure how a billion-dollar civic endowment managed to have both zero oversight and zero involvement from Bruce).
I will be adding some observations jotted down as I went through it. I don't think that there are really any more spoilers.
1. This film was underwritten by the motorcycle industry. 2. It was also plainly created by people who had spent just an awful lot of time playing the Batman: Arkham series, including the non-story stealth sequences. 3. I am not sure why Carmine Falcone had to look like Stan Lee. 4. Paul Dano's enough of a little creep to pull off a competent Riddler, though I wasn't sure about his particular vocal "soft" / "loud" switches. I think they were meant to make him seem more unhinged. Maybe. 5. The social commentary via the Riddler's own riff on Anonymous felt like it could've been more topical ten years ago. "500 followers" has every right to be mocked.
6. I think that they may have been hoping that by hiring Jeffrey Wright to play Gordon, Catwoman's remarks on "old white men" would not line up with the fact that most of the people whom you see are white. 7. The dialogue in particular was middling to bad. You may as well have had Pattinson scream "you're not my real dad!" every time he interacted with Serkis. 8. One fairly bloated sequence was the car chase scene, which not only had Penguin staring down a revving Batmobile for an awkwardly long period of time, but also probably resulted in a few dozen casualties or more without ever being thought about or mentioned again.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 22, 2022 15:09:56 GMT -8
I'm also not sure if the film had enough orphans maybe if the Mayor had talked about his being an orphan or Lt. Gordon or just gotten a few more close-up shots of the Mayor's son I would have gotten it.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 22, 2022 17:10:42 GMT -8
I have now seen The Batmovie starring Robert Battinson. Though I never manage to arrive with on-the-dot commentary for films in theatres, I can never seem to get used to showing up after the debate is largely over. In any case, my feelings towards it were lukewarm at best and I think the highest amount of praise that I could give it was that it was paced okay for a three-hour movie, which was something I was dreading going in. As with Jer, I'm not sure especially that it earned being three-hours because as Jer observed, there are a lot of corners cut and plot points that don't rightly get made (in particular, "drops" occupy a fairly large portion of the plot without being especially meaningful, try as they might, and I am also not quite sure how a billion-dollar civic endowment managed to have both zero oversight and zero involvement from Bruce).
I will be adding some observations jotted down as I went through it. I don't think that there are really any more spoilers.
1. This film was underwritten by the motorcycle industry. 2. It was also plainly created by people who had spent just an awful lot of time playing the Batman: Arkham series, including the non-story stealth sequences. 3. I am not sure why Carmine Falcone had to look like Stan Lee. 4. Paul Dano's enough of a little creep to pull off a competent Riddler, though I wasn't sure about his particular vocal "soft" / "loud" switches. I think they were meant to make him seem more unhinged. Maybe. 5. The social commentary via the Riddler's own riff on Anonymous felt like it could've been more topical ten years ago. "500 followers" has every right to be mocked.
6. I think that they may have been hoping that by hiring Jeffrey Wright to play Gordon, Catwoman's remarks on "old white men" would not line up with the fact that most of the people whom you see are white. 7. The dialogue in particular was middling to bad. You may as well have had Pattinson scream "you're not my real dad!" every time he interacted with Serkis. 8. One fairly bloated sequence was the car chase scene, which not only had Penguin staring down a revving Batmobile for an awkwardly long period of time, but also probably resulted in a few dozen casualties or more without ever being thought about or mentioned again.
A) The criminals are dealing in large supplies of drugs, and the film gave it a specific fictional name for its universe. It may be an ongoing health issue in the city, but is not a thematic focus beyond that. Just an overriding background issue of Gotham's struggles. Maybe it'll turn into more later. Obviously it works as something of a truth serum (see: the DA's confession), which was helpful for our detectives. B) Obviously Bruce was too young to be involved with the Renewal scheme when it was taken over by the criminal underworld, and it's clearly expressed that he has no interest in the business side of Wayne Enterprises, preferring to do things his own, more risky and possibly self-destructive, way. He learns some lessons over the course of the movie, and will likely engage in more philanthropic acts in a potential sequel. As for oversight in general, Gotham is systematically corrupt, and given who's revealed to be running the show, it's hardly a stretch in this universe. Heck, it's not even much of a stretch in OUR reality, to be honest, given how many supposedly charitable institutions in history have been anything but. 1) Perhaps. Heh. 2) The Arkham games rule and are very cinematic, so that's a big plus in my book. 3) Apparently John Turturro looks a bit like Stan Lee. Who knew? Doubt it was intentional. 4) I hadn't decided how I felt about the vocal switches on first viewing, but they've grown on me more and more on subsequent viewings. Yeah, he's unhinged, and isn't always able to keep his composure. Needs to develop better social skills, I guess ( ). As it stands, he's now my second-favourite villain performance in a live-action Batman film after Heath Ledger's Joker. Like the riddles, like the voice, pretty much nailed the nerdy Riddler look when not in costume (fine with the re-imagining of the costume). 5) That 500 followers scene is absolutely meant to be somewhat darkly comedic, bringing him down to innocuous size. 6) Certainly possible, as the new mayor is also a black woman. 7) Strongly disagree on the dialogue. Found most of it nailed the pulpy vibe it was after, and little of it felt unearned or repetitive to me. Bruce only said "you're not my father" once, to the best of my recollection, and Bruce and Alfred's interactions were generally productive, though not warm (again, they work towards that). 8) The thing about the traditional characterization of Batman is, he won't willfully try to kill others, but there's always the possibility that incidental violence could result in a death to a criminal or civilian. As you may have noticed, this early (Year 2) version of Batman is somewhat reckless. (Also, clearly Penguin was slightly aroused by the roar of the Batmobile's engine: I'm sure you have your kinks as well. Don't be judgey! ) And I'm cool with three or four prominent orphans. It's a big city, after all. Anyways, sorry to hear the film wasn't designed with your sensibility in mind. Thankfully, it was designed with mine. More for me to enjoy with the series going forward. Yay!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 22, 2022 19:30:39 GMT -8
5. The social commentary via the Riddler's own riff on Anonymous felt like it could've been more topical ten years ago. "500 followers" has every right to be mocked.
I was confused by the way the film handled Riddler's social media following (and judging by some comments I've seen on actual social media, I wasn't alone). Early on, the film tells us that Riddler has tens of thousands of online followers; by the end, he has 500. I figured out what the story was trying to convey after the fact, but it's the kind of narrative hiccup - one of many throughout the film - that could have been averted with a single extra line of dialogue. The (presumable) body count of that car chase scene is also disturbing on retrospect, but after the Snyder movies, I've learned to temper my expectations for civilian survival rates in DC films. Also, did you know that Jeffrey Wright has also played Batman recently? He does the voice in Batman: The Audio Adventures on HBO Max. Guy's got a great camera presence, even when he's not on camera.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 22, 2022 19:56:12 GMT -8
5. The social commentary via the Riddler's own riff on Anonymous felt like it could've been more topical ten years ago. "500 followers" has every right to be mocked.
I was confused by the way the film handled Riddler's social media following (and judging by some comments I've seen on actual social media, I wasn't alone). Early on, the film tells us that Riddler has tens of thousands of online followers; by the end, he has 500. I figured out what the story was trying to convey after the fact... Also, did you know that Jeffrey Wright has also played Batman recently? He does the voice in Batman: The Audio Adventures on HBO Max. Guy's got a great camera presence, even when he's not on camera. Heh. Even after multiple viewings, I never noticed the number of supposed followers that Riddler had. (When I talked about the dark-comedic nature of his last video, I was speaking more to the gentle tone in which he spoke to his followers, before he went into zealot-mode.) At any rate, if he had a lot of followers to begin with, but much fewer later on, any intelligent viewer can intuit that the extreme nature of his later plans would turn away a number of followers, who wouldn't want to be associated with any of that shit (fearing legal action, and whatnot). Wouldn't call that a narrative hiccup at all. People complain if filmmakers explain "too much", but then turn around and complain that they leave some things open to simple interpretation. Please decide on the "perfect" balance, folks, and get back to me on that. Yep, Jeffrey Wright has played Batman, and Zoe Kravitz played Catwoman in The Lego Batman Movie ("Meow meow!"). Also, fun fact: actor Ben McKenzie, who played Gordon on the Gotham TV series, also played Batman in the animated Year One adaptation.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 22, 2022 20:35:39 GMT -8
Oh, I've been meaning to ask this for a while, just out of curiosity...
I know we let most any ridiculous plot holes slide in the Tim Burton Batman movies because they're mostly (visually) presented as live-action cartoons, but how do we feel about Penguin (in Batman Returns) suddenly having the schematics for the Batmobile (allowing him to commandeer it via remote-control)? If he somehow has those, shouldn't he pretty much know Batman's secret identity?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 22, 2022 20:38:39 GMT -8
Heh. Even after multiple viewings, I never noticed the number of supposed followers that Riddler had. (When I talked about the dark-comedic nature of his last video, I was speaking more to the gentle tone in which he spoke to his followers, before he went into zealot-mode.) At any rate, if he had a lot of followers to begin with, but much fewer later on, any intelligent viewer can intuit that the extreme nature of his later plans would turn away a number of followers, who wouldn't want to be associated with any of that shit (fearing legal action, and whatnot). Wouldn't call that a narrative hiccup at all. People complain if filmmakers explain "too much", but then turn around and complain that they leave some things open to simple interpretation. Please decide on the "perfect" balance, folks, and get back to me on that. That's not how I read it at all. It seemed like the script was trying to convey that Riddler had a wide number of followers on a mainstream platform (i.e. whatever the universe's version of Twitter is) while also only a few hundred followers on the dark corners of some 4Chan-esque website. It was a distinction that was not well conveyed in the script, and was one of several aspects of the third act that did not get proper narrative setup in the first two. It has nothing to do with purposeful ambiguity or whatnot; it's just a crucial piece of story information that was not properly communicated and (momentarily) distracted me while watching it.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 22, 2022 21:02:10 GMT -8
Heh. Even after multiple viewings, I never noticed the number of supposed followers that Riddler had. (When I talked about the dark-comedic nature of his last video, I was speaking more to the gentle tone in which he spoke to his followers, before he went into zealot-mode.) At any rate, if he had a lot of followers to begin with, but much fewer later on, any intelligent viewer can intuit that the extreme nature of his later plans would turn away a number of followers, who wouldn't want to be associated with any of that shit (fearing legal action, and whatnot). Wouldn't call that a narrative hiccup at all. People complain if filmmakers explain "too much", but then turn around and complain that they leave some things open to simple interpretation. Please decide on the "perfect" balance, folks, and get back to me on that. That's not how I read it at all. It seemed like the script was trying to convey that Riddler had a wide number of followers on a mainstream platform (i.e. whatever the universe's version of Twitter is) while also only a few hundred followers on the dark corners of some 4Chan-esque website. It was a distinction that was not well conveyed in the script, and was one of several aspects of the third act that did not get proper narrative setup in the first two. It has nothing to do with purposeful ambiguity or whatnot; it's just a crucial piece of story information that was not properly communicated and (momentarily) distracted me while watching it. Ah, OK. Yeah, I didn't notice it. My focus was apparently elsewhere. Or I'm not familiar enough with the countless (real and/or fictional) online media platforms to ever notice such a thing. So....not "crucial information" to me, as a viewer, at any rate. And I suspect many other quibbles that some folks have regarding the third act would probably be (narratively) irrelevant to me as well. I actually saw one (so-called) critic complain that Batman's big moment is saving all the rich elite, and I'm like, huh? I mean, he saves the ex-mayor's son (OK), the new mayor (we have no idea about her social and financial background), and hundreds of other people who happened to be there for a rally, or had come in off the streets. People often just make up stuff to criticize about these things, honestly (not saying that necessarily applies to your faux-Twitter/4 Chan stuff, of course). (And there'd be nothing morally wrong with saving a bunch of rich people, regardless: human life is human life.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 23, 2022 0:15:49 GMT -8
Anyways, I'm probably gonna step away from discussing films and TV in any great detail going forward. I'm typically depressed, and only genuinely enjoy a handful of movies and TV shows in any given year, and don't want to see them scrutinized to within an inch of their life every time one comes up, ultimately killing much of the enthusiasm I originally had from them, by negative association. Everything's always got to have so much baggage attached to it, and it's exhausting. I'm also already dreading the discourse around my favourite (modern) musician's upcoming albums, given that he's at an age where critics typically take historically-acclaimed artists for granted, and underrate their work in smug, condescending fashion. And if you think identity politics has begun to dictate the critical appraisal of film and TV too much, multiply that tenfold when it comes to music. There's really no rhyme or reason as to what receives "universal acclaim" these days, at least when it comes to actual songcraft, production, and creativity. It's generally more about who's making something, rather than what they're actually producing. Art is subjective, yadda-yadda-yadda, but some of this critical/cultural posturing is so transparent and dishonest.
I'm just tired of everything being boiled down to aggregate ratings and extreme, often toxic and snarky opinions. I get drawn into it as well, which is stupid, because unlike most folks, I rarely have genuinely strong feelings about a film, TV show, or piece of music, one way or the other. Rarely outright hate anything, and rarely love anything. It's just varying degrees of in-the-middle, from "mediocre" to "pretty good". But I can get somewhat defensive about my opinions, same as anyone else. We don't like being made to feel that our emotional and/or intellectual reaction to something is somehow incorrect. And yet it often feels that way, even if it's not the intent of The Discourse.
Regardless, I'm up too late. Going to bed now. This post doesn't belong in this section, but no other thread in the general section seemed appropriate, so whatever. Didn't want to create a new thread.
|
|