Anyone thinks Nolan's Batman movies is Frank Miller's vision on film?

[Sousa]

I love Supergirl. It's funny, it's scary, the action bits are good, the acting is superb, the scope of things is enormous (aliens! magic! alternate dimensions! reality warping! even Superman's offscreen mission is bigger than anything he does in his own movies' actual plots), the cinematography is incredibly pretty, and the cast are all charming in their roles. Supergirl, herself, is honest, and good, and heroic, facing incredible odds. Plus, it's the first time Matt Frewer shows up as a rapist in a superhero movie, starting a trend (that extends to only one other movie).

You just basically said what Rises gets praise for essentially, great action, great acting, the cinematography is great and the cast are all good in their roles. Batman is good , heroic and faces incredible odds etc. The only thing you didn't praise about the Supergirl is the actual story itself which was probably by design lol. The movie was awful and bombed at the box office , there's a reason why there was never a sequel . I'm not huge on Rises but its certainly better than quite a few names you listed earlier

[t hedge coke]

You can like it, but objectively speaking the movie is a trainwreck on every level.

No, subjectively. That would be your subjective opinion. Heck, movies can't be "objectively bad" or "objectively good." They can be objectively incompetent, or fail to entertain an audience, the plot can be implausible, the cinematography poorly executed or questionably handled, but "good" and "bad" are subjective.

l never said Supergirl didn't have flaws. It's lack of budget, for one thing, is to my mind a definite flaw. If you're not looking for a children's/family movie, it's going to probably not hit you the right way. But I can enjoy a movie that has flaws. Most things in life have flaws, including most movies. It'd be ridiculous to get upset or feel a movie you like is being displaced or disparaged because someone mentions flaws in it.

[Pharozonk]

Batman Begins is definitely an adaption of Batman: Year One.

[Kid A]

After rewatching TDKR yesterday, all I have to say is: you gotta be kidding. That movie is a f.cking mess. Individually, it has quite a few great scenes, but they don't work well together.....at all.
Begins is a fairly good movie, and TDK is pretty impressive.
Frankly, I'd say posterity will only remember the second one.

I like TDKR a lot more than TDK. To be honest, TDK is an overlong mess more so than TDKR; the pacing is totally whack, what with the movie basically winding down before Two-Face is even introduced. It plays out better as a series of individual moments than as a whole.

TDKR just works better for me, it feels more cohesive, and it's just relentlessly dark until the very end in such a way that even if the plot has flaws, it leaves me less cold than TDK.

Yeah, TDKR is still better than any of the Spider-Man or Superman movies (and before anyone asks, Spider-Man 2 is dragged down by Dunst and Maguire).

I'd also say its better than most of the MCu movies, most of which have less problems structurally, but don't have nearly enough ambition or effort put into them (almost all of them feel like factory produced films, even the good ones).

It's just not as good as the first two Nolan movies, or X-Men First Class.

Yeah, the Nolan films have problems, but they're all better than any of the Marvel movies.

[Raichi]

The Dark Knight Movies never felt like anything from Frank Miller's work, Nolan obviously got inspiration elsewhere in comics. Zack Synder's Batman though looks heavily influenced by Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns

[Raichi]

Batman Begins is definitely an adaption of Batman: Year One.

I don't see that at all. The only similarity I see is that they are both origin tales.

[earl]

I agree with you. Miller did good work, and he was allowed to be exceptionally "grim and gritty," but he sure wasn't the first writer who ever took Batman "seriously."

The Dark Knight Returns was the first non-comic code Batman story in decades, more my point. Denny O'Neil was the Batman editor at that point who got all those projects going and along with the original Burton movies made Batman a top selling comic and it hasn't really left there in 25+ years.

Batman didn't really sell that well pre-Crisis. At least at the comic shop I worked at back in the late 80s, the only DC title that sold up with the Marvels was Teen Titans (and then the Crisis mini-series).

The Dark Knight Returns was a pretty risky proposition at the time. $3 is a pretty cheap comic now, in 1986 it was crazy expensive. Miller had also done Ronin for DC a couple years before and it was at least on first print kind of a sales bust. One reason the first prints of The Dark Knight returns are worth so much is that it was under ordered by lots of people and became such a break out hit. The format and the coloring was state of the art for the time. It's great and so was Year One.

I just don't think that you can look at Nolan's movies and say that's just Miller's vision. No Man's Land and Knightfall were both used as parts of the plot. Bane was used, which references somewhat the whole Venom/PED part of the character. The backdrop of the whole series is the League of Assassins, Ra's Al Ghul and Talia. All that was either edited or created by O'Neil, under which the Batman comics went through a transformation and has never left the top of the charts. And this doesn't get into the other things like doing a title like Legends of the Dark Knight and the Elseworld stories and other things O'Neil got done as the Batman editor.

I like the Nolan movies all right, but the 90s to present animated work DC has done with Batman I think is the best and truest representation of the character in TV/Movies. In the long run, I think the best way to do Batman on screen is eventually doing it as a TV show.

[sunofdarkchild]

No, subjectively. That would be your subjective opinion. Heck, movies can't be "objectively bad" or "objectively good." They can be objectively incompetent, or fail to entertain an audience, the plot can be implausible, the cinematography poorly executed or questionably handled, but "good" and "bad" are subjective.

Movies like Battlefield Earth, The Room, and Supergirl are objectively awful. One person finding a guilty pleasure does not change that any more than a masochist makes feeling pain into a good thing. With most movies there is an amount of subjectivity, but with Casablanca or Battlefield Earth the opinion of any one individual does not matter when the textbooks on film history say that one is a masterpiece and the other is a disaster.

Or are we going to start saying that Hamlet's quality is subjective because some people don't like the play? Subjectivity has its limits in any field.

[t hedge coke]

Movies like Battlefield Earth, The Room, and Supergirl are objectively awful. One person finding a guilty pleasure does not change that any more than a masochist makes feeling pain into a good thing. With most movies there is an amount of subjectivity, but with Casablanca or Battlefield Earth the opinion of any one individual does not matter when the textbooks on film history say that one is a masterpiece and the other is a disaster.

Or are we going to start saying that Hamlet's quality is subjective because some people don't like the play? Subjectivity has its limits in any field.

I'm sorry I said the miracle of a Nolan movie was subpar to anything. It's a godsend. A miracle. Nolan crafted the finest motion picture of all time.

Clearly, the flaw in my thinking Rises was a piece of semi-cognizant action blockbuster fluff with pretension lies in me, not in the poorly-plotted, awkwardly paced, nicely acted movie with an implausible coda, a nuke that detonates without fallout, too many characters most of whom get no arc, the weird stand out on the ice thing, and dubious color scheme and costuming choices, with a nice reveal using Talia and a cool airplane sequence.

The movie is perfect.

It's Hamlet. Clearly. The precious Batman movie is Hamlet. It'll be remembered beyond Hamlet! Willie Loman? Who's that? But Lucius Fox, there's a role for the ages! Praise Nolan, he has brung down the sun and given it a faded, barely noticeable bat emblem on its chest!

[The Kid]

Supergirl was awful. Pretty much everything from the acting to the cinematography sucked

[dancj]

I'm not a big fan of the Nolan films. But I've always thought that calling them "realistic" - especially TDKR - was pretty silly.

Yeah.

The flying in the first film (I know they called it gliding, but what they showed was flying).
Using mobile phones for radar vision
Bane punching out bricks
healing a broken back by dangling.
Bane's aeroplane attack.
Using a microwave on a train to boil the water supply.

The list goes on.

What the film does have though is more of a serious feel that it's aiming for.

[dancj]

Are you saying there are people who hate Nolan's movies merely because they are popular, and not because they honestly don't think they are that great?

I've seen those theories before.

I think people who don't like the films wouldn't have liked them anyway, but the huge popularity of the films makes their protests louder. The same happened with Hush. If everyone saw it for the rubbish that it is then no-one would talk about it, but because some people think it's great it still gets put down a lot.

[dancj]

Or are we going to start saying that Hamlet's quality is subjective because some people don't like the play? Subjectivity has its limits in any field.

Um - of course Hamlet's quality is subjective. Even if everyone in the world liked it it'd still be subjective.