DarkMagic
Super Freak
Look up psychofant.
I did. Initially, Google came back with "Did you mean: sycophant" but then I saw the urban dictionary slang entry right under it. The most voted definition:
psychofant 28 up, 15 down
psycho + sychophant. Used to describe fans who are so obsessively sychophantic that they will like anything a band or artist does, and will like anything that band or artist likes to the point of freakish creepiness.
Interesting. I am a fan of the Nolan movies I have seen, but I admit, I haven't seen all of them. However, on these boards I rarely, if ever, spoke about his non-Bat films. I really liked the Batman movies, you really liked Avengers. How do you make the distintion between someone simply being a fan of an artist/character/actor/director and someone who is a "psychofant"? Because honestly, I don't see myself as being that extreme a fan or unreasonable with interpretations of his films, but of course, I may be biased. But then, so is every fan of any comic-book movie. By that broad definition, we're all "psychofants".
And using ancient Greek mythology as "modern myths" doesn't work.
Reread my post. I said comic-book characters, not ancient Greek mythology, are our modern myths.
My point is simply, as you do with my posts, you read way too much into something and turn it into something it's not in an effort to make it more meaningful (when it doesn't have to be). For an example of this, see my "Nolancompoop" post in the Avengers thread where I essentially did exactly what you do with Nolan's Batman films.
I did read your "Nolancompoop" post in the Avengers thread. It was a well-thought out and solid argument. (Flattered that you would call that your "Nolancompoop" argument though, haven't come up with an Avengers-centric name yet?) Why would you think it's reading "too much into something" is beyond me. Of course, like you said "it doesn't have to be" [more meaningful], but that is the mark of a great writer/director. Joss Whedon and Christopher Nolan both can tell great stories that work purely on the surface entertainment level. Films that would hit the mark a pure popcorn summer entertainment, fullstop. It "doesn't have to be" any more than that. But both the Batman films, and the Avengers, as you yourself have just shown, are open to reasonable interpretation...they both have enough going on underneath the surface to be fodder for thought and analysis for the fans beyond just discussing the plot, explosions and special effects. A writer/director that can infuse that into his film and still have it be entertaining is pretty good at his craft on a couple levels in my opinion. Do you disagree?