Clown, I like you and all but man did khev just pwn you.
And I like Clown too.
He's just got a lot to learn.
Clown, I like you and all but man did khev just pwn you.
To your first point, IrishJedi, who has been closely involved with the WB films, was reinforcing that point. Not that the WB execs could be trusted to take the Feige role anyway, but. . .sure, there is studio interference. That's apparently why Wonder Woman was forced into the film. But by and large, there appears to be a high level of creative control by the directors there.
I dont know how WB/DC films work behind the scenes but I am 100% sure their are execs involved. They are not going to give you $200 million dollars and say "Hey kid, go make something". Not gonna happen.
And the statement "But he also places a ceiling on how great a film can be" is ridiculous.
Again, we're not disagreeing on your first point. There are different ways to assess quality though. Hudsucker Proxy is better than 90% of other films, but not good compared to the other Coen Bros. films. As for TDKR being better received than earlier films, it wasn't by me, or many other geek fans. So of course it makes sense to say that. I'm not hanging my hat on the Rotten Tomatoes score here or for anything else. As Khev points out, those are quite dubious in some instances. Due A) to subjectivity in taste; and B) to the way scores are calculated, which disregards degree of like or dislike. Though on the aggregate, they are helpful in allowing viewers to determine if critics think a movie is bad, good, or somewhere in-between."Up to their standards"? Well 1941, Spiderman 3, and TPM weren't up to those director's standards because those films were bad films....not just by comparison to their previous work. Those films were just bad. Calling TDKR a mis-step when that film was better received than Batman Begins, makes no logical sense. That's all I'm saying.
See this is where the millennial thing rears its ugly head. Always needing to extract bits and pieces of a post in order to formulate a dramatic response.
Did I say "Here's a list of the worst movies ever made: Spider-Man 3, 1941, and TDKR. All 1/10 films."
Do those films share the dubious distinction of being letdowns from directors who could previously do no wrong? Well yeah, for many they pretty much do.
And 87% RT score? Really? We're going there? Good. Now bow down to TFA since it's apparently better than 2/3 of your precious Nolan trilogy and right up there with TDK...
The Nolan trilogy has the biggest narrative deflate in cinema history.
You might be using British terminology I'm not familiar with, but I think I get your point. Let's try to think about the evidence. How many projects driven largely by commercial concerns have been "great" vs. how many driven by artistic concerns have been "great?" Of course, understanding that this is a continuum, and most projects we are familiar with have components of both. I can rattle off numerous instances in the latter category. Not so much in the former. Can you or anyone else do that? I suspect Khev would put Force Awakens into that category, but he and I disagree on that one.Virtually anything creative has a brief to meet. That doesn't automatically give it a glass ceiling.
The Nolan trilogy has the biggest narrative deflate in cinema history.
I would say take something out of TDKR but there's nothing good to remove. .
I've criticized others here for being so hard on Iron Man 3, but I think the same criticism could apply to myself (and maybe some others?) with this film. Were there some pretty objectively bad scenes and plot points? I think so. Talia's death was hilarious, for example, but many of Difabio's critiques held for me.
But overall it was a well made movie IMO. But as a Batman movie? Not so great. Felt weird and wrong in many places. Just like Iron Man 3 was a really good movie, just not a good Iron Man movie in terms of the expectations geek fans put on it.
I don't know. Wayne's magical healing back was pretty cool.I would say take something out of TDKR but there's nothing good to remove.
Should've went with Keaton's, his is epic.
Are those mutually exclusive behaviors?Bale is jerking off? I thought he was shaking his fist in anger
You might be using British terminology I'm not familiar with, but I think I get your point. Let's try to think about the evidence. How many projects driven largely by commercial concerns have been "great" vs. how many driven by artistic concerns have been "great?" Of course, understanding that this is a continuum, and most projects we are familiar with have components of both. I can rattle off numerous instances in the latter category. Not so much in the former. Can you or anyone else do that? I suspect Khev would put Force Awakens into that category, but he and I disagree on that one.
I've criticized others here for being so hard on Iron Man 3, but I think the same criticism could apply to myself (and maybe some others?) with this film. Were there some pretty objectively bad scenes and plot points? I think so. Talia's death was hilarious, for example, but many of Difabio's critiques held for me.
But overall it was a well made movie IMO. But as a Batman movie? Not so great. Felt weird and wrong in many places. Just like Iron Man 3 was a really good movie, just not a good Iron Man movie in terms of the expectations geek fans put on it.
I've probably seen zero comic book films where people talk and act like authentic humans. But then, that's not really what I look for in a comic book movie.I understand that TDKR had some flaws, but so did BB and TDK. I just don't get all the BB and TDK worshiping when those films also have bad scenes, boring scenes, and dialogue where people don't even talk or act like real human beings. Those films are pretentious as ****.