|
Post by Jay on Mar 23, 2022 8:44:45 GMT -8
Hey, I wanted to jump in and be clear that I didn't dislike the film and wouldn't have dreamed of going out there to demand my money back, it was just that there were a series of bit parts to it that didn't quite sit right to me. I think that because I often come in with negative or skeptical points, it appears that I like stuff less than I actually do, so in the interests of saying one thing that The Batman absolutely nailed for me, it was that it had a really cohesive sense of a rogue's gallery without as previous films did in spots (mostly the 90s era) feeling like they were consciously trying to push the envelope and one-up each other. It felt like a real, organic, social system, which complemented the bigger thing they were doing of "it's all corrupt." Although because I AM ALWAYS THINKING, I have to add here, do we think that villains like Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze are even viable on the big screen anymore? For that matter, is the Mad Hatter (they could maybe pull it off with the pseudo-English aesthetic they've got going on!)? I'm trying to figure out what a second movie would look like in terms of villains because they have stuff there for the Joker AND a new DA, but I think that they would consciously want to avoid Nolan's earlier formulation, so I'm thinking that if this IS a trilogy as it's expected to be, Joker is probably the finale.
I'd also like to walk back my dialogue remarks because they were really focused on the Serkis / Battinson relationship. The only way I can really justify them is sleep deprivation and general irritability on Battinson's part because otherwise it seems like "I'm the only one he has and he's the only one I have" should've been sorted out in more juvenile times. Two places that I'd like to double back on to highlight the dialogue is I did enjoy the double interrogation of The Penguin although I feel like it was kind of an excuse to get him tied up and let him waddle back home at the end (WORTH IT) and the one-on-one between Battinson and Dano. That one pulled off something that I don't think I'd seen before was that both of them were operating at a disadvantage with neither yielding what the other wanted, but I also appreciated it on the level of that being where you could tell, subtly enough, that Dano was unhinged because he was projecting on Battinson the ability to make conclusions that just wouldn't readily be available even with evidence. I also liked that dynamic specifically for being able to bring back in the "world's greatest detective" bit. If that's what they want to establish moving forward, I'm game.
I think Jer articulated my points on the social media, which were really more directed at the cop's disbelief at 500 followers when it wasn't clear that "oh we're on the Riddler's Discord or Patreon or OnlyFans or whatever," but I would like to go back to my related point on the "drops" being weirdly utilized because it was a similar incident that puzzled me with them. In that case, it was Dano's "I was a teenaged drop fiend" line, which I think did fit with his overall anger and resentment (though less so than his time at the orphanarium), but it raise logistical questions for me like "how long had the drug been around?" and "if it had been around that long, why did it take them so long to bust Maroni if we're meant to understand the corruption problem as worsening?" That in turn had me asking about the very self-congratulatory efforts to bust Maroni when on the ground it appeared as if drops were as ubiquitous as they ever had been, along with the mayoral campaign references to drug arrest rates remaining high, so it's not as if the police wouldn't have known. It was a strange little detour that left me not knowing how to sort it out.
I'd also probably double-down on my criticism of the big chase scene because there's a whole lot of lip service early on played to "how could you be working with this dangerous vigilante?" and then no one seems to give a rip when he causes major infrastructure damage and presumably mass casualties. It seemed like a missed opportunity when you could've had Gordon or someone else take him to task over "hey just because you've got a death drive doesn't mean you can act like this," which in turn would have made those last few scenes of denouement pay off a lot more.
Also, the film really did something with its PG-13 rating, yeah? They burned their one "fuck" word early on and then deliberately tried to avoid a lot of blood later.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 23, 2022 12:41:18 GMT -8
Well, thanks for that, Jay, as it actually gives me something more substantial to work with.
Very much agreed on the "real, organic social system", in terms of how it incorporates much of the Rogues Gallery. I would agree that they should probably save Joker for a third film (to avoid too overt Nolan comparisons), though perhaps he could be hovering in the background (not in plain sight), "pulling the strings" in Arkham in a second film, getting in people's ears as he did Riddler's. There was actually a filmed scene that wasn't used in the final cut, which involved Batman going to Arkham to talk with this individual, who he'd encountered in the past in an earlier incarnation, to help get into the mind of a killer, and more easily track down The Riddler. Apparently Reeves intends to release this scene separately (likely a Blu-Ray extra) at some point. And there actually have been rumblings of them attempting Mr. Freeze in a second film, but I'm really not sure what that would look like. Mad Hatter could certainly be done, given that his aesthetic works with the film's look and whatnot, but I'd imagine he'd more easily manipulate people with spiked tea, rather than some convoluted microchip cards over their ears (as in The Animated Series). I do think Harvey Dent may be a part of the next film, though perhaps he won't become Two-Face yet: the DA job is available now, of course.
As to Bruce and Alfred's relationship, I do think they established through Bruce's physical appearance and attitude that he was in a bit of a state of arrested development, only exacerbated by the long nights, somewhat limiting their social interactions over the years in the process. He's just consumed by his nightly rituals, and isn't developing as well on the basic social side of things. (I think there's probably a case to be made that he's perhaps a virgin, given the male-gaze in that scene where he's watching Selina through binoculars ("Oh, she's freaky like me.") Though it's not stated in this film, much like previous Batmans, he did apparently (according to the prequel novel) travel the world, studying many subjects in a variety of different universities, and learning a number of different fighting styles in each of those locations as well. It's generally understood that Young Bruce Wayne is well-traveled, though obviously they didn't bother to strongly emphasize that here, instead focusing on a more immediate POV.
Moving on, yeah, when some folks say the film has no light or humour, I'm like, did you not see The Penguin in this? Farrell was hamming it up throughout. I also think there's plenty of other dry, situational- and character-based humour sprinkled throughout. "You've got a lot of cats." "You've got to punch me in the head." "You could've pulled your punch"..."I did" The twins guarding the night-club. Some of the offhand remarks from the beat-cops. Riddler mocking his victims. I also think the banter between Batman and Gordon is pulpy in a darkly-comic way ("Thumb...drive"; "This guy's hilarious"): Jeffrey Wright actually plays much of the role right on the edge of pulp-comedy (he understood the assignment). Etc.
Re: Batman and Riddler, I do think it's probably the first time that a Batman film has truly earned the "We're two sides of the same coin" gimmick, as right from the outset, they establish the POV spying, and continue on in emphasizing how both of them use intimidation and violence to try to accomplish their goals. There's a lot of tension in that scene, particularly as Batman holds some cards close to his chest while Riddler discusses Bruce Wayne. As for the detective side of things, I'm sure that will continue to be a crucial part of the series going forward, though they may devote a bit less time to it in future installments, because what villain really requires more detective work than The Riddler? (I have little doubt that the execs at Warners will probably want a bit more blockbustery action in a sequel as well, to cater more to the international market.)
Ah, OK on the "500 followers" front. I don't usually pay that close attention to the silly asides from the beat-cops in the films, but simply given the way Riddler was speaking (in a more intimate fashion), it immediately came across to me that he was on a more private server. Because he was so much more animated in his earlier, more public videos.
As for the Drops, to the best of my recollection, we don't specifically know what year Carmine ratted out Maroni to the cops, and asserted more control over everything, but it's entirely possible that it's been nearly decades (Bruce's parents were murdered 20 years earlier), and the Drops could've been around even before that. And because Carmine has a stranglehold on much of the police force, it's just business as usual, in keeping the drug traffic flowing, with people in key places (like the DA) turning a blind-eye to the big drug deals. Because the whole system in Gotham is so corrupt, elected officials (many of whom are under the thumb of Falcone) would just pay lip-service to trying to "clean up the city", while not really making any effort to do just that. Bella Real, the new mayor, may be different, but obviously she'll face an uphill battle.
As for the destructive car chase, well, Penguin was the one who deliberately collided with other vehicles, while Batman did his best to avoid that. And during the explosion (where I would assume at least the truck driver was killed), we don't really know where other cars were positioned (they may have hit the brakes a few blocks back). The shot's pretty tight, so we really don't know. But yeah, this is generally an issue with every car chase in these sorts of films, in that potential (innocent) victims and/or pursuing cops caught-in-the-crossfire get glossed over. Though I'd probably argue the bigger issue would be why they didn't throw Penguin in jail, at least for show (we know he'd post bail and be released shortly after, given Falcone's ties to the cops). Mind you, Batman and Gordon were pretty much operating outside of the general cops' jurisdiction by this point, and they were more single-minded in going after Riddler and the actual informant.
Regarding the general lack of visible blood in the film, I think the dark lighting in most of the film mitigated that more than in earlier Batman films (like when Matthew Modine was shot in broad daylight, with no blood to be seen, in The Dark Knight Rises). Also, Batman's wearing a lot of dark armor, where it's kind of suggested that the bullets don't penetrate it, but he still has to deal with the relative impact (at least when it comes to powerful shotguns). Obviously, as always, they take some creative liberties w/r/t how much punishment Batman can absorb with that suit on.
(I will address last night's post later on, as it pertains a great deal to people criticizing film and TV shows in bad-faith, and only dwelling on perceived shortcomings, leading to far-less-fruitful discussion. This doesn't apply to you specifically, Jay -- I'm familiar enough with your usual approach on this board to these things, and I don't believe you come in with a deliberately shitty attitude: you just like to get off the jokes and all -- but much more other things I've read, and all the bullshit tribalism amongst fans of various Bat-directors and whatnot. As bad as Snyder cultists can be, some Burton fans think the only valid approach to this material is aggressive camp.)
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 23, 2022 15:10:20 GMT -8
I have.... powerful negative feelings towards the mere idea of novel tie-ins... but I think that if he had been away for a very long period of time and effectively on his own while finding himself, that could explain why the relationship and the emotional maturity were frozen in time a bit. I wish something about that had come out while on screen-- it's been hard to know how old Battinson is supposed to be ever since Twilight-- but it does work as an explanation.
agreed, re: Riddler, not sure who else really puts him on the detective work in quite the same way. Hush? Calendar Man? Ra's? Hugo Strange? (There's one that COULD work on screen but hasn't even been attempted yet) I'm really just spitballing here, but I think that assuming a big finale they could also bring some of that back later. It would also be a shame to me if the detective stuff went away entirely. I also kind of want Hatter to come in so the Twins from this one could play Tweedledee and Dum.
as to the drops, it was one of those things where I could have sworn it was mentioned that they busted Maroni within the last few years, but maybe that was me not hearing that information from the script but instead inferring it from knowing how long mayoral terms last and Mitchell citing it as a recent major accomplishment, as seemingly everyone else did.
and yeah, I would agree that even as a show of force, Penguin probably should have been told to cool off in the tank for a few days.
For what it's worth, I don't express it much because I work in a field where it could get me into trouble, but I do agree to an extent with the closing bits of your rant about how we seemingly care more about who is the creator these days than what's being created. I would propose that it's particularly messy in that I think that it has the potential not to affirm or illuminate the minority experience so much as affirm for the majority that what they think is true must be true. I want to believe that some good can come of it nevertheless, but I remain very skeptical about that for the moment, as I know some out there with narratives that don't easily conform to the expectations of the majority are still going to be left without adequate representation.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 23, 2022 15:34:35 GMT -8
I have.... powerful negative feelings towards the mere idea of novel tie-ins... but I think that if he had been away for a very long period of time and effectively on his own while finding himself, that could explain why the relationship and the emotional maturity were frozen in time a bit. I wish something about that had come out while on screen-- it's been hard to know how old Battinson is supposed to be ever since Twilight-- but it does work as an explanation.
agreed, re: Riddler, not sure who else really puts him on the detective work in quite the same way. Hush? Calendar Man? Ra's? Hugo Strange? (There's one that COULD work on screen but hasn't even been attempted yet) I'm really just spitballing here, but I think that assuming a big finale they could also bring some of that back later. It would also be a shame to me if the detective stuff went away entirely. I also kind of want Hatter to come in so the Twins from this one could play Tweedledee and Dum.
as to the drops, it was one of those things where I could have sworn it was mentioned that they busted Maroni within the last few years, but maybe that was me not hearing that information from the script but instead inferring it from knowing how long mayoral terms last and Mitchell citing it as a recent major accomplishment, as seemingly everyone else did.
and yeah, I would agree that even as a show of force, Penguin probably should have been told to cool off in the tank for a few days.
For what it's worth, I don't express it much because I work in a field where it could get me into trouble, but I do agree to an extent with the closing bits of your rant about how we seemingly care more about who is the creator these days than what's being created. I would propose that it's particularly messy in that I think that it has the potential not to affirm or illuminate the minority experience so much as affirm for the majority that what they think is true must be true. I want to believe that some good can come of it nevertheless, but I remain very skeptical about that for the moment, as I know some out there with narratives that don't easily conform to the expectations of the majority are still going to be left without adequate representation.
Oh, I didn't actually read the prequel novel tie-in, but just watched a YouTube video where someone summarized it. So, I actually knew going into the movie that Nashton was an orphan who lived in the Wayne Manor-adjacent orphanage, when the Waynes simply moved into Wayne Tower. Etc. Regardless, I think the filmmakers probably felt that Bruce's travel in his teen and young-adult years is so well-trodden in the mythology, that they simply didn't want to repeat what the early sections of Batman Begins did. The film also didn't mention that apparently Bruce has been building that muscle-car in his Batcave (an abandoned underground train-station that the rich elite in Gotham used to use) on-and-off since he was fifteen years old. Anyways, Pattinson is apparently 35, but certainly looks younger than that. I'd surmise the character's around 30, as Bruce usually loses his parents around the age of ten, if I recall correctly, and it's been 20 years since then. I doubt the detective stuff will go away, as it was so pronounced in setting up this new universe. I just think there will be more prominent "heroic" action elements in the next one, following the path of the story. Yeah, it's pretty vague when the Maroni bust actually happened, to the best of my recollection. That was probably somewhat intentional on the writer's part, to allow them more creative leeway in future installments. Re: Penguin, he also FIRED MACHINE GUNS at Batman and Gordon, so they would be more than justified in throwing him in the tank, regardless of the car-chase. But because they were doing things on the down-low, perhaps they felt it would draw too much attention, and bring too many corrupt cops to the scene to muddle things (not that the GIANT EXPLOSION on the highway wouldn't necessarily do that...heh). I probably went too hard on the identity politics thing last night, but definitely feel that certain genres of music are far less scrutinized (and are often far more overpraised) than others, regardless of actual songcraft. Though it's ABSOLUTELY important for different voices and styles to be produced and heard, I just wish some "tastemakers" would be a little less transparent with their biases/prejudices. Some degree of balance is all I hope for, in assessing these things.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Mar 24, 2022 10:05:01 GMT -8
Well, the Joker scene is out there now, and I can see why they might have wanted to remove it. Keeping the film PG-13 may have been a factor, but it also really hammers down on the two sides of the same coin bit which I think was handled well enough in the film (or perhaps I was just used to TWD bludgeoning me with it)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 24, 2022 11:14:08 GMT -8
Certainly distinct from other live-action versions of Joker, and definitely more grotesque-looking. Yeah, I believe Reeves took it out because it would've been too redundant paired with the Batman/Riddler Arkham scene. They'll probably need Keoghan to enunciate a bit more should he be the primary villain in a sequel, as I could see viewers complaining about some of the lines being difficult to make out (that said, it does make you listen more closely).
Interesting that they released it this early. Didn't expect to see it until the home-video release. Regardless, this isn't the "finished" version of Joker, but him at an earlier stage in his development. He'll probably be a bit more flamboyant whenever he gets out of Arkham. Not sure if they'll go with the white face-paint, though. Reeves said they're not doing the vat-of-acid thing, and that Joker has a physical defect which traps his mouth in a permanent smile. If it's not acid, he probably just clawed at his face and tore out his own hair, which is pretty messed-up.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Apr 13, 2022 10:57:07 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 think elements of this is why I'm maybe not as active on this site as I used to be. When I was in my early 20s I genuinely enjoyed breaking down TV shows episode by episode and character by character and exploring what worked, and what didn't work, and trying to deeply delve into the themes that the TV show was trying to get across. Of course, when you spend that much mental energy on these shows you feel the need to record your thoughts somewhere just to get them into the void, even if only Jeremy and Quiara and ThirdMan were actually listening. And I think in some ways the type of shows that were popular back then WANTED you to do that. Mad Men was kept afloat by the critical essay industry. I don't know if I've changed, or the TV shows, but I just don't generally like my viewing experience like that. I still enjoy tabulating my favourites and creating my top 10 lists, etc, but I'm not quite as avid in trying to justify to myself why the show works. And further I used to love evaluating quality in all aspects. Back in my Buffy watching days I could probably do a full ranking of episodes for every season. Right now I'm watching the first season of Shadow and Bone and I couldn't even tell you whether its good or not, but it's engaging me to keep watching. To get this back to movies I've probably watched more of the Oscar nominations than any time in the past 5 years, but I don't think I've spent text on any of them really. I may have talked about Dune a bit, or made reference to how much Don't Look Up sucked. I just find more and more I don't have as much to say because I've become more invested in the experience of the movies than the critical breakdown. I think 20 year old me would consider that being an uneducated and less intelligent casual, but there's just an emptiness to spending that amount of mental energy on analysis that's going nowhere and accomplishing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 13, 2022 12:23:33 GMT -8
otherscott Obviously, I hear you, man. Some of it's probably just that we've gotten a bit more jaded as we've gotten older, and feel like we don't have that much to say about this or that film pr TV show that we haven't already said about this or that other film or TV show. So everything feels redundant. I mean, it's fairly easy for me to evaluate my feelings about the latest Batman film, because there are so many ways I can superficially compare how (IMO) it did this or that better than previous versions. But I've never been that adept at analyzing how successfully themes are established and explored in a visual medium, other than to convey how strongly (or not) I responded to something. I may also respond strongly to something that isn't particularly "deep", while being left cold by something that supposedly is of greater depth. I'm also not really a "plot" person, so unless something jumps out at me as being a complete ridiculous decision made by a main character in a film or TV show, that goes completely against their very nature, I'm generally not fussed by things of a somewhat contrived nature (it's often related to dramatic license, yo). I mean, I told you guys I really liked that EEAaO movie, but it wouldn't shock me to hear one person describe it as "hugely ambitious" while another calls it "a mess". Because it's got a lot going on, and there's no way I'd be able to fully process all of it in one viewing. (BTW, to me, calling a film "a mess" is every bit as lazy as calling something "boring". It's entirely reductive, and not specific enough to convey much of anything.) Are there structural problems? Maybe? But I'd rather just watch it a second time, and enjoy it, rather than look for things to nitpick about it. Hell, I've been known to actively avoid revisiting some of my absolute favourite films in recent years, because I'm afraid I'll suddenly go cold on them, and feel like I've overrated them to others. For instance, I generally refer to The Grand Budapest Hotel as a near-perfect film, and probably my favourite of the 2010s, but I think I've only watched it three times in total. On the flipside, I've seen The Dark Knight many, many times, and that's probably hurt my impression of it overall (Bale's OTT Batman voice bugs me more and more over time, etc.). The reason I've gotten into a discussion about EEAaO's potential influences with Jeremy is simply to give people an impression of what it feels like, without going into too much detail about the story and characters. Because I don't really know yet if it's particularly deep, but I do know, on first viewing, that it juggled a lot of disparate tones very successfully for me, as a viewer. By the way, please check the film out, as I think you'll really have fun with it, even if it's not the sort of film you'd want to discuss in detail. I know Jay characterized that post of mine you quoted as a "rant", but it wasn't meant as that. It was more of an acknowledgment of how relatively detached I am from most of the things I watch. I mean, I can see flaws in pretty much everything if I look closely enough, but I'd rather focus on the things that worked for me. I mean, perhaps Giacchino's dramatic score in The Batman had a stronger emotional effect on me than the actual (depth of) themes presented in the film, but it's all of a piece, and had the desired effect, so why would I want to pull it apart too much? I had a pretty strong emotional response to a big-budget blockbuster, and that doesn't happen very often, so I'd might as well revel in it. And EEAaO was super-fun, and quite poignant given the overall absurdity on display, so why try to deconstruct how ridiculous the plot is (on a base level)? I think just about anything can be made to seem less than it is if we look too closely. Of course, on the flipside, sometimes detailed analysis can prove illuminating, and give us a better understanding of why we feel the way we do. But sometimes it's simply far more pleasurable to FEEL rather than to (deeply) THINK. It's a real balancing act.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Apr 13, 2022 13:18:03 GMT -8
I think with Batman I already knew you and Jeremy had been discussing and disagreeing with it, so I paid a little bit more attention to my feelings about it and approached it more analytically so I could be a little more involved with the discussion.
But I think what you're getting at with the Giacchino score and how it impacted your viewing experience is very true too, movies and shows aren't really intended to be digested with a great deal of a) emotional removal and b) scrutiny. I have never liked the plot hole finders in any medium. If you don't like a movie because you noticed a plot hole that's perfectly fair, but it doesn't mean that others should be angry about that same plot hole if they didn't notice it. You shouldn't feel the need to try to prove a movie is bad or overrated because of something you noticed that others didn't. Movies are personal experiences, and if that thing that you didn't like didn't impact someone else's personal viewing experience, I don't know what the point of trying to change that person's opinion.
Some of you may remember I went through a stretch where I hated when the term overrated was used, and I have backed off a bit since then. But what I was getting at is that there's so much emotion involved in a person's connection with a movie they love, who are you to tell them why they shouldn't love it? I get the need to articulate your feelings about these movies and TV shows, I basically share it, but I think sometimes we need to ask ourselves are we really adding anything valuable by dunking on this beloved property? If people find joy in a movie or TV show or whatever, what are we trying to achieve by showing them the thing they love is "bad actually"? I might give a small pass to those who are trying to point out something problematic in a movie, but just a small one because the amount of times that is legitimate is pretty minimal and most of the time it's just overly sensitive nonsense.
Everything Everywhere All At Once is maybe the most I've anticipated in a movie in a very long time. Maybe Cats was the last movie I really wanted to see this badly? I'll be seeing it tomorrow night.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Apr 13, 2022 16:23:17 GMT -8
I think with Batman I already knew you and Jeremy had been discussing and disagreeing with it, so I paid a little bit more attention to my feelings about it and approached it more analytically so I could be a little more involved with the discussion. But I think what you're getting at with the Giacchino score and how it impacted your viewing experience is very true too, movies and shows aren't really intended to be digested with a great deal of a) emotional removal and b) scrutiny. I have never liked the plot hole finders in any medium. If you don't like a movie because you noticed a plot hole that's perfectly fair, but it doesn't mean that others should be angry about that same plot hole if they didn't notice it. You shouldn't feel the need to try to prove a movie is bad or overrated because of something you noticed that others didn't. Movies are personal experiences, and if that thing that you didn't like didn't impact someone else's personal viewing experience, I don't know what the point of trying to change that person's opinion. Some of you may remember I went through a stretch where I hated when the term overrated was used, and I have backed off a bit since then. But what I was getting at is that there's so much emotion involved in a person's connection with a movie they love, who are you to tell them why they shouldn't love it? I get the need to articulate your feelings about these movies and TV shows, I basically share it, but I think sometimes we need to ask ourselves are we really adding anything valuable by dunking on this beloved property? If people find joy in a movie or TV show or whatever, what are we trying to achieve by showing them the thing they love is "bad actually"? I might give a small pass to those who are trying to point out something problematic in a movie, but just a small one because the amount of times that is legitimate is pretty minimal and most of the time it's just overly sensitive nonsense. Everything Everywhere All At Once is maybe the most I've anticipated in a movie in a very long time. Maybe Cats was the last movie I really wanted to see this badly? I'll be seeing it tomorrow night. It's funny that you brought up the BSE Buffy thread from 2014, because I still sympathize more with Mike more than I do FV's side of the argument. While there are plenty of movies, tv shows, books, etc. that are universally considered to be great, I still think there's quite a bit of leeway when you get down to the specifics (for example, what's a better film: The Batman or The Dark Knight? I don't think there is a right answer--such things are too personal to be determined 'objectively'--in the true sense of the word).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 13, 2022 18:11:59 GMT -8
I think with Batman I already knew you and Jeremy had been discussing and disagreeing with it, so I paid a little bit more attention to my feelings about it and approached it more analytically so I could be a little more involved with the discussion. But I think what you're getting at with the Giacchino score and how it impacted your viewing experience is very true too, movies and shows aren't really intended to be digested with a great deal of a) emotional removal and b) scrutiny. I have never liked the plot hole finders in any medium. If you don't like a movie because you noticed a plot hole that's perfectly fair, but it doesn't mean that others should be angry about that same plot hole if they didn't notice it. You shouldn't feel the need to try to prove a movie is bad or overrated because of something you noticed that others didn't. Movies are personal experiences, and if that thing that you didn't like didn't impact someone else's personal viewing experience, I don't know what the point of trying to change that person's opinion. Some of you may remember I went through a stretch where I hated when the term overrated was used, and I have backed off a bit since then. But what I was getting at is that there's so much emotion involved in a person's connection with a movie they love, who are you to tell them why they shouldn't love it? I get the need to articulate your feelings about these movies and TV shows, I basically share it, but I think sometimes we need to ask ourselves are we really adding anything valuable by dunking on this beloved property? If people find joy in a movie or TV show or whatever, what are we trying to achieve by showing them the thing they love is "bad actually"? I might give a small pass to those who are trying to point out something problematic in a movie, but just a small one because the amount of times that is legitimate is pretty minimal and most of the time it's just overly sensitive nonsense. Everything Everywhere All At Once is maybe the most I've anticipated in a movie in a very long time. Maybe Cats was the last movie I really wanted to see this badly? I'll be seeing it tomorrow night. It's funny that you brought up the BSE Buffy thread from 2014, because I still sympathize more with Mike more than I do FV's side of the argument. While there are plenty of movies, tv shows, books, etc. that are universally considered to be great, I still think there's quite a bit of leeway when you get down to the specifics (for example, what's a better film: The Batman or The Dark Knight? I don't think there is a right answer--such things are too personal to be determined 'objectively'--in the true sense of the word). @incandescence 112 I've heard quite a few people say that TDK is a "better film", but that The Batman is a "a better Batman film". I can understand that perspective, because the former has a bigger, more expansive scale, and is probably more thematically ambitious, but being set in a photo-realistic environment, and drawing so heavily from the work of Michael Mann, makes it feel a bit less operatic and stylized in nature than The Batman. And regarding general quality, TDK's thematic ambition is partly a byproduct of it being a sequel, which doesn't have to "set the table" for a new universe, as the first in a series does (Batman Begins had a much more narrow thematic focus, which I'd say was Fear and Father Figures). The Batman, on the other hand, has a much stricter POV (Pattinson is in virtually every scene), which makes it feel a bit more oppressive and claustrophobic (limiting its scale), but also more immediately personal. That said, the film's very-specific and detailed environment also feels more unique and immersive to me (the film's social structure is comparable in nature to TDK), and this surely has to be the most any actor's been given to work with inside the Batsuit, in terms of overall presence, body language, psychology, and attention-to-detail (whereas Bale's Batman got pretty overshadowed by the villain and supporting characters in TDK, having little response to the villain's monologues, and was pretty cartoonish on account of the overly-hoarse voice, etc.). But it's definitely apples and oranges to a degree, because Nolan's trilogy seemed far more interested in Bruce Wayne (at times, Nolan seemed borderline-embarrassed to show Batman clearly in action), whereas The Batman is mostly interested in Batman ("playboy Bruce" is still gestating, and barely present). People online have been discussing how much the new Batsuit opened up the lower half of Pattinson's face, and to me, it worked wonders, because it allowed him a much greater degree of expressiveness in the cowl than Bale's, Affleck's, and Keaton's more closed-in versions. And just having the character in multiple (non-action) scenes with large numbers of cops created a very different dynamic than we're accustomed to, and I, personally, really FELT that, because he remained emotionally isolated even when he wasn't physically hidden or distant. Anyways, from where I'm standing, The Batman and The Dark Knight are probably the S-tier of live-action Batman films, with the other Nolan (not enough Batman, too expository, some VERY rough action editing, etc.) and Burton (too artificial and small/soundstage-bound, main character too underdeveloped, not enough impactful supporting characters beyond the main villains, etc.) films the second-tier. (I, of course, realize I rate TDKRises higher than some, despite its visible shortcomings, because the emotion of the piece mostly works for me, and I think the visual craft is much higher than that of Begins.) Then the Snyder and Schumacher flicks, and so on. Like many viewers, I don't have much interest in seeing Batman fight super-powered aliens, as his more psychology-driven Rogues Gallery is FAR more compelling to me. And I don't have a problem with the villains teaming up, if they're organically positioned within the universe (as they were, IMO, in The Batman). otherscott I agree with pretty much everything you posted. Trying to invalidate someone's (often strongly-) positive feelings about something by overemphasizing, or dwelling on, elements that were of little concern to them -- if they noticed them at all -- as a viewer isn't very productive. However, I think it's fine to try to convey why something worked for you if it didn't work for many others, to at least give folks some opportunity to understand or empathize with your position (which they can to whatever extent they desire). Some people are so locked into their opinion of something, though, that they don't want to hear any other position (even if it's upbeat and positive), but there's no point in discussing the arts in any great detail with folks like that. And moving back to the "invalidating" issue, I really tried to make my feelings about DUNE clear without offending anyone, in that I certainly don't think it's a bad film, but just had to note that it's not something that caters to my personal sensibility. And some of that just comes down to, "most slower-moving films set in a large desert aren't very palatable to me, for whatever reason." I did emphasize that it contains some overly familiar Hero's Journey tropes and archetypes, but the same could be said of, say, The Batman, and in this case, the urban setting and characters simply made a big difference for my personal enjoyment. I also don't think I'll enjoy The Northman as much as many others seem to be, because medieval content generally isn't my thing either.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 14, 2022 19:35:50 GMT -8
I understand a lot of the points being brought up here, but I feel compelled to push back on a couple of things. I think it is true, to some extent, that TV shows in the last five or so years are generally less interesting to dissect or discuss - at least on an episodic basis - than the shows of the Aughts and early Teens. (I've laid a good deal of blame in the past at the feet of Netflix, which has done a lot to make prestige TV less about quality than quantity.) But this is also an indictment of the way pop-culture discourse has shifted in recent years. Social media has broadly diminished the level of depth and discussion surrounding film and television (and so much else), to the point that complex TV analysis has grown rarer even as the Internet as a whole continues to broaden in scope and potential. Plus, as television continues to fragment into evermore shows and streaming services, TV fans have less and less overlap in what they watch, thus making discussion about specific shows more and more difficult.
Speaking personally, I still love discussing pop-culture and disclosing obscure trivia, but it's fair to say my specific interests within the medium have shifted in the ten(!) years since I started writing for CT. I'm now more interested in television as an industry, and what both shows and the reaction to them says about our current culture. Though I'm not one to get hung up on plot holes, I am more invested in the narrative structure of television (both episodically and seasonally) than ever before, perhaps even more than in characters and themes. In writing reviews all these years, I've discovered that I tend to enjoy analyzing the technical aspects of writing more than emotional ones. This may explain why I'm debating with myself whether to write a longer piece on Everything Everywhere - it's a wonderful film, but much of the wonder comes from the film's emotional tentpoles, which I don't really want to overanalyze. (I could analyze it from a more technical perspective, but then I'm not sure I'd do it justice! It's a weird conundrum.)
Above all, I enjoy writing about TV and movies because I like to get a sense of what my own interests are and why, and I like to debate with others because I want to get a sense of how our perspectives parallel or differ. It also helps when I think I can bring something new to the discussion. Case in point, to bring the subject back around: I liked The Batman, but did not think it was the masterpiece that a lot of folks seem to. In discussing its flaws, I'm not trying to diminish others' enjoyment of it, but rather to explain why certain aspects of the film did not connect with me as a viewer, the way they did with others. If I point out a flaw with the film's structure or pacing (and I have pointed out several over the last few pages of this thread), I am aware that the film's fans (1) did not notice these flaws, or (2) did notice and didn't let it bother them to that extent, or (3) did notice and just didn't think it was a flaw. Whatever the case, discussing the film is a good way to put in perspective both the film and the reactions to it, how and why different people responded in different ways. (Maybe people have different ideas of the Batman archetype, perhaps influenced by prior versions of the character they prefer. Maybe some people connected more with the politics of the film, or less, or didn't think of them at all. Maybe others responded strongly to the technical aspects. And so forth.) These discussions are a good way to clarify both my own perspective and those of others. I only bowed out of the conversation once I had said all my points (and indeed started to repeat myself), since there's no reason to prolong things unduly.
Speaking of which, I don't want to sound like I'm rambling here. People who intentionally point out flaws in beloved works in order to annoy its fans are certainly dummies; as MikeJer pointed out many times on the old forum, that's basically the antithesis of CT. This site is all about good and healthy debate, and even if it's never going to be as popular as it was in the good ol' days, I'm happy to see people maintaining its mission statement for smart, thoughtful analysis of pop culture. (Although Scott's comment about being excited for Cats did almost turn into an Internet troll. Don't do that to me, Scott.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 14, 2022 20:55:19 GMT -8
All fair points, Jeremy, and I think it's cool to talk through one's reaction to a film (positive or negative) to better understand one's feelings.
I think one mistake I make sometimes is entering into detailed discussions about films I strongly responded to emotionally -- which doesn't happen that often these days -- too soon after first watching them. It's like I sort of want to live in that emotional space for a while, before potentially having the balloon popped by perspectives I can't necessarily relate to. (A few weeks later, I'm usually somewhat removed from that headspace.) Heck, I didn't even really bring up The Batman much here in the months leading up to its release, despite very much looking forward to it for quite some time, because I didn't want to openly commit to it -- to show my hand, if you will -- until I'd actually laid eyes on it and confirmed my initial impressions (from trailers, descriptions of the story, and whatnot).
And for the record, I don't consider The Batman, or any other superhero film in existence, to be a "masterpiece". That's not really a term I throw around loosely, and it would be extremely difficult for any film of its nature to be that, given the big budget, and the amount of major-studio oversight which comes with that. I merely think Matt Reeves did something quite unique with Warner Bros's most-lucrative property, and made an adult-oriented film with a reasonably distinct ("auteur-ish") voice and approach, with a very talented cast and crew who all understood the assignment. And nothing jumped out at me over multiple viewings as creative flaws significant enough to undermine my position that it's one of the best comic-book adaptations I've seen (keeping in mind that I respond more strongly to Batman iconography than that of any other comic-derived property). Personally, I suspect the only way a Batman film could achieve "masterpiece" status in my eyes would be if it were a ~40-minute silent film with consistently stunning visuals (The Joker, after all, was based on a silent-film character from The Man Who Laughs), and a simple yet elegant plot. Anything over 90 minutes is gonna be a real uphill battle to achieve "masterpiece" status, given all the moving pieces. But I was consistently engrossed, and never bored or distracted, during the entirety of Reeves' 3 HOUR film, so for me, it very much achieved its desired impact. That said, I suspect Reeves has an even better, more thematically ambitious Batman film in him -- as I noted earlier, this one had a lot of table-setting to do -- and I think he's well-positioned to make that film, if Warners (or Discovery...ugh) don't make too many creative demands in trying to make it a billion-dollar earner ("More jokes! More action sequences! A brighter, more kid-friendly colour-palate!" , etc.). He insists that he made the film he wanted to make here, so we'll see if he gets another opportunity to do that with a sequel. I think this film will probably develop even more of a following as new viewers check it out on HBO Max, just as Batman Begins' home-video reception helped to motivate a sequel with the same director, cast and crew. And we saw how that went.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Apr 15, 2022 6:17:42 GMT -8
That is interesting Jeremy that you've come around to the more technical side of things over the past decade, partly because I've gone the opposite way. It's also interesting because much of the discussion in Buffy thread I necromanced back into existence was FV arguing that the technical and narrative aspects of Buffy don't hold up to scrutiny and the pro-Buffy people arguing how much it resonates with them on a more emotional level.
I also don't think The Batman was a masterpiece by any means, because like ThirdMan, if a superhero show is capable of producing a masterpiece I've yet to see it. I think I once argued that Star Wars is a much more flexible storytelling medium than Marvel, because no matter what it feels like superhero stories are going to be slightly different variations of "The Hero's Journey" where I think you can get into different genre and thematic content with Star Wars, they just haven't yet.
I was excited for Cats in the same way I was excited for EEAAO (which was tremendous by the way), because it was doing something very different. Too much of movies are either cookie cut blockbusters or Oscar bait biopics, so to get something that's just so weird and out there and different is exciting, even if the quality is questionable.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Apr 15, 2022 7:23:59 GMT -8
I understand a lot of the points being brought up here, but I feel compelled to push back on a couple of things. I think it is true, to some extent, that TV shows in the last five or so years are generally less interesting to dissect or discuss - at least on an episodic basis - than the shows of the Aughts and early Teens. (I've laid a good deal of blame in the past at the feet of Netflix, which has done a lot to make prestige TV less about quality than quantity.) But this is also an indictment of the way pop-culture discourse has shifted in recent years. Social media has broadly diminished the level of depth and discussion surrounding film and television (and so much else), to the point that complex TV analysis has grown rarer even as the Internet as a whole continues to broaden in scope and potential. Plus, as television continues to fragment into evermore shows and streaming services, TV fans have less and less overlap in what they watch, thus making discussion about specific shows more and more difficult. Speaking personally, I still love discussing pop-culture and disclosing obscure trivia, but it's fair to say my specific interests within the medium have shifted in the ten(!) years since I started writing for CT. I'm now more interested in television as an industry, and what both shows and the reaction to them says about our current culture. Though I'm not one to get hung up on plot holes, I am more invested in the narrative structure of television (both episodically and seasonally) than ever before, perhaps even more than in characters and themes. In writing reviews all these years, I've discovered that I tend to enjoy analyzing the technical aspects of writing more than emotional ones. This may explain why I'm debating with myself whether to write a longer piece on Everything Everywhere - it's a wonderful film, but much of the wonder comes from the film's emotional tentpoles, which I don't really want to overanalyze. (I could analyze it from a more technical perspective, but then I'm not sure I'd do it justice! It's a weird conundrum.) Above all, I enjoy writing about TV and movies because I like to get a sense of what my own interests are and why, and I like to debate with others because I want to get a sense of how our perspectives parallel or differ. It also helps when I think I can bring something new to the discussion. Case in point, to bring the subject back around: I liked The Batman, but did not think it was the masterpiece that a lot of folks seem to. In discussing its flaws, I'm not trying to diminish others' enjoyment of it, but rather to explain why certain aspects of the film did not connect with me as a viewer, the way they did with others. If I point out a flaw with the film's structure or pacing (and I have pointed out several over the last few pages of this thread), I am aware that the film's fans (1) did not notice these flaws, or (2) did notice and didn't let it bother them to that extent, or (3) did notice and just didn't think it was a flaw. Whatever the case, discussing the film is a good way to put in perspective both the film and the reactions to it, how and why different people responded in different ways. (Maybe people have different ideas of the Batman archetype, perhaps influenced by prior versions of the character they prefer. Maybe some people connected more with the politics of the film, or less, or didn't think of them at all. Maybe others responded strongly to the technical aspects. And so forth.) These discussions are a good way to clarify both my own perspective and those of others. I only bowed out of the conversation once I had said all my points (and indeed started to repeat myself), since there's no reason to prolong things unduly. Speaking of which, I don't want to sound like I'm rambling here. People who intentionally point out flaws in beloved works in order to annoy its fans are certainly dummies; as MikeJer pointed out many times on the old forum, that's basically the antithesis of CT. This site is all about good and healthy debate, and even if it's never going to be as popular as it was in the good ol' days, I'm happy to see people maintaining its mission statement for smart, thoughtful analysis of pop culture. (Although Scott's comment about being excited for Cats did almost turn into an Internet troll. Don't do that to me, Scott.) I definitely think narrative structure/the technical aspects is/are important as well. But I still think that character writing and immersion are crucial to a show's success for me, even if a plot is well structured and coherent. The first season of Westworld and Mr. Robot fall into that trap, I think.
I agree with your second paragraph as well. Unless we're dealing with a certain type of obnoxious person who thinks their way of looking at things is 100% objective, I also find it fun to dissect and poke at why people can have varying reactions to the same piece of media. It's a neat exercise that helps me better understand what makes stories tick and why. The contrived Batmobile sequence in Batman Returns doesn't bother me as much as the contrivances in The Dark Knight Rises, mainly because the former feels like it's doing something purposeful and interesting with Batman as a character and the latter just feels like Nolan jamming A Tale of Two Cities in there simply because he can.
|
|