nah man, i'm still staying out of the whole bale vs keaton ledger vs nicholson fiasco.
all i want is a clearer explanation from nam. i mean, seriously, comparing nolan's bats to MICHAEL BAY movies...i mean, really?
i tried to stay out of this constant bickering/debate between burton fans and nolan fans. it ALWAYS ends up ugly and eventually leads to either side trolling one another. but THIS got me scratching my head.
dude, please be more specific. are you inferring that burton's movies are closer to the comic heritage/source material? it's damned evident you show NO love whatsoever for the nolan movies due to it 'being stripped of their comic heritage...or just being so popular" and just because it's so popular, you hate it.
but i am curious to hear your reasoning behind what you said or the exact meaning.
Burton's films were made for a time when moviegoers could get lost in the fun of a movie without over-thinking every little ____ing aspect of things. Nolan's films were dumbed down to where just about every single aspect was spoonfed to the audience, stripping Batman of 99% of the "fantasy" aspect of what makes comic book characters comic book characters, painting over what is essentially a modern day action flick, with Batman window dressings.
I don't hate either. I think both films ('89 Batman and Begins/TDK) are appropriate films for their time and both are highly enjoyable. There's a certain "fun" to Burton's film. He nailed the characters (well for Wayne, at least the awkward recluse). Nolan's doesn't really feel like a comic move, but more like a contemporary "Black Mask" with the Batman suit on.
Comparing Jokers goes even deeper. While chubby and short, Nicholson personified what the comic Joker is. Joker was a mutated villain whose kills were just as sick, but for lack of a better word, crazy fun. Nolan's is a bit John Gacy, stripping him of his comic origin and making him the a-typical anarchist psychotic who paints his face and lacks the clowny humor of the Joker character.
Burton's films were made for a time when moviegoers could get lost in the fun of a movie without over-thinking every little ____ing aspect of things. Nolan's films were dumbed down to where just about every single aspect was spoonfed to the audience, stripping Batman of 99% of the "fantasy" aspect of what makes comic book characters comic book characters, painting over what is essentially a modern day action flick, with Batman window dressings.
If you two had to do any "thinking" while watching Nolan's Batman films, then I feel bad for the calories you both burned doing so.
I think the Nolan movies can be enjoyed without someone over-thinking things and treating it like it's fine art.
It's the type of thinking that must require a certain IQ to pick up on the nuances I guess.
We luv ya anyway Nam, but will have to disagree on this one.
I think the Nolan movies can be enjoyed without someone over-thinking things and treating it like it's fine art. If you just want to go in looking for a good, dark, Jason-Bourne-like action movie with some tension, threat, and good action set pieces, you'll get that. Same with Burton's movies which, from a stylistic perspective, could certainly be examined with a fine-toothed comb by academics, pretentious movie critics, and pretentious fans alike in the same way Nolan's films could be. Or, you could just go in looking for a fun action movie, and if you do then you won't be too disappointed. . .though Batman's lack of real athleticism in the Burton movies always annoyed me a bit, since that was such a key characteristic of the comic character.
I agree 100%! Nolan's film was made for those with a 78 IQ, so they could enjoy their Batman, and judging by ticket sales, it worked!
I agree with you, and recognize Nam's Bay comparison as the worst type of hyperbole. But you don't have to treat the Nolan movies as more than they are on their surface--a good comic book yarn you could watch and enjoy, then move on with your life without becoming an obsessive Nolan acolyte.But, I will defend that the Nolan movies were more than action.
I agree with you, and recognize Nam's Bay comparison as the worst type of hyperbole. But you don't have to treat the Nolan movies as more than they are on their surface--a good comic book yarn you could watch and enjoy, then move on with your life without becoming an obsessive Nolan acolyte.
Hence the Bay comparison.
The Bay comparison is just mean, because I find Bay to be the lowest form of director in mainstream hollywood. I think you all are confusing me with these acolytes you speak of. I'm just trying to give credit where credit is due, and it seems like some people are so down on the Nolan films they refuse to do that. I love the Burton films too, watched them this morning in fact.
Enter your email address to join: