Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:21 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?" 
Author Message
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
KRoss wrote:
By making a self-contained trilogy of Batman with a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end, Nolan has essentially killed Batman. But that's not a bad thing at all. These movies will resonate for a long time as classics of the superhero genre, and challenging them with another version of Batman so soon is foolhardy.

There are a lot of stupid, unrefined people out there who want nothing more than mindless thrills (or laughs) from their movies. And I know that money is the primary reason why a movie is made. I get that. But does it have to be the ONLY thing? Shouldn't someone at Warner Brothers do the right thing and put an end to the rehashing? Leave Batman alone for a good long time and move on to other projects. There are other ways to make money

There may be other ways to make money, but few are as guranteed to make money as Batman, so from a business standpoint it makes to do another film. Frankly i'm not against the idea myself, I enjoyed Nolan's films but I wouldn't call them classics.


Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:46 pm
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 1:43 pm
Posts: 293
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
Vexer wrote:
KRoss wrote:
By making a self-contained trilogy of Batman with a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end, Nolan has essentially killed Batman. But that's not a bad thing at all. These movies will resonate for a long time as classics of the superhero genre, and challenging them with another version of Batman so soon is foolhardy.

There are a lot of stupid, unrefined people out there who want nothing more than mindless thrills (or laughs) from their movies. And I know that money is the primary reason why a movie is made. I get that. But does it have to be the ONLY thing? Shouldn't someone at Warner Brothers do the right thing and put an end to the rehashing? Leave Batman alone for a good long time and move on to other projects. There are other ways to make money

There may be other ways to make money, but few are as guranteed to make money as Batman, so from a business standpoint it makes to do another film. Frankly i'm not against the idea myself, I enjoyed Nolan's films but I wouldn't call them classics.


No one will ever get it right. It'll always be a cash grab. I think Nolan has done something really special with Batman and I just wish that WB would wait a little while before tarnishing that.

_________________
Do you want him to chop me up and feed me to the poor, huh, is that what you want?


Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:18 am
Profile
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
Gedmud wrote:
Vexer wrote:
KRoss wrote:
By making a self-contained trilogy of Batman with a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end, Nolan has essentially killed Batman. But that's not a bad thing at all. These movies will resonate for a long time as classics of the superhero genre, and challenging them with another version of Batman so soon is foolhardy.

There are a lot of stupid, unrefined people out there who want nothing more than mindless thrills (or laughs) from their movies. And I know that money is the primary reason why a movie is made. I get that. But does it have to be the ONLY thing? Shouldn't someone at Warner Brothers do the right thing and put an end to the rehashing? Leave Batman alone for a good long time and move on to other projects. There are other ways to make money

There may be other ways to make money, but few are as guranteed to make money as Batman, so from a business standpoint it makes to do another film. Frankly i'm not against the idea myself, I enjoyed Nolan's films but I wouldn't call them classics.


No one will ever get it right. It'll always be a cash grab. I think Nolan has done something really special with Batman and I just wish that WB would wait a little while before tarnishing that.

Well the earliest we can expect to see a new Batman film is 2016, so that seems fair enough.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:29 am
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:43 pm
Posts: 753
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
Gedmud wrote:
Vexer wrote:
KRoss wrote:
By making a self-contained trilogy of Batman with a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end, Nolan has essentially killed Batman. But that's not a bad thing at all. These movies will resonate for a long time as classics of the superhero genre, and challenging them with another version of Batman so soon is foolhardy.

There are a lot of stupid, unrefined people out there who want nothing more than mindless thrills (or laughs) from their movies. And I know that money is the primary reason why a movie is made. I get that. But does it have to be the ONLY thing? Shouldn't someone at Warner Brothers do the right thing and put an end to the rehashing? Leave Batman alone for a good long time and move on to other projects. There are other ways to make money

There may be other ways to make money, but few are as guranteed to make money as Batman, so from a business standpoint it makes to do another film. Frankly i'm not against the idea myself, I enjoyed Nolan's films but I wouldn't call them classics.


No one will ever get it right. It'll always be a cash grab. I think Nolan has done something really special with Batman and I just wish that WB would wait a little while before tarnishing that.


They won't be burning the master copies of Nolan's films and, really, the consensus seems to be that Nolan's trilogy is sacred property. It isn't as if the Burton and Joel Schumacher Batman set was improved by Nolan's movies. There won't be tarnishing save for the pre-tarnishing the next installments will receive when they face the unavoidable comparison.

_________________
Which are you drinking? The water or the wave?


Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:55 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1144
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
I kinda like how, while Nolan clearly wrapped up the trilogy, he didn't shut the window entirely for Warner to decide to continue it... but almost more as a dare. By doing so, Warner would look like greedy-ass fucks... but apparently Hollywood honchos will always look for ways to squeeze more blood from a stone (despite taking the safe route by deciding just to start the series over again... for a third time) :roll: .

Just hypothetically, the series could continue one of two ways, depending on your interpretation of the ending:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Option 1: Alfred only imagines he sees Bruce and Selina together at that cafe in his own mind's eye -- Blake takes over as the new Batman (or, Robin, if preferred [despite the fact that his name is NOT 'Dick Grayson' :? ])

Option 2: Alfred really does see Bruce and Selina together at that cafe -- Bruce is eventually called back into action at some point... though a new actor would have to fill Bale's shoes. But after what he went through with Bane, it seems hard to believe someone like The Penguin or The Riddler would get him to don that rubber suit once again. :|


Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:56 am
Profile
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
H.I. McDonough wrote:
I kinda like how, while Nolan clearly wrapped up the trilogy, he didn't shut the window entirely for Warner to decide to continue it... but almost more as a dare. By doing so, Warner would look like greedy-ass fucks... but apparently Hollywood honchos will always look for ways to squeeze more blood from a stone (despite taking the safe route by deciding just to start the series over again... for a third time) :roll: .

I actually think that WB are going the reboot route rather than trying to get more milk out of Nolan's cow, but I wouldn't be shocked either if they tried the latter option.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:38 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3059
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
KRoss wrote:
By making a self-contained trilogy of Batman with a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end, Nolan has essentially killed Batman. But that's not a bad thing at all. These movies will resonate for a long time as classics of the superhero genre, and challenging them with another version of Batman so soon is foolhardy.

There are a lot of stupid, unrefined people out there who want nothing more than mindless thrills (or laughs) from their movies. And I know that money is the primary reason why a movie is made. I get that. But does it have to be the ONLY thing? Shouldn't someone at Warner Brothers do the right thing and put an end to the rehashing? Leave Batman alone for a good long time and move on to other projects. There are other ways to make money


Two reasons why Batman is coming back sooner rather than later: laziness and safety. It's a lot easier to write for an established character in an established universe. That's why BATMAN BEGINS was remarkable - because it didn't *feel* like a retread. The bigger issue is that, when it comes to investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a movie, studios want to feel secure that they'll at least break even. While a new concept could hit it big, like AVATAR, it could also be a JOHN CARTER-size failure. Studios don't like gambling with big money, so they play it safe with established characters.


Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:41 am
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 349
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
Quote:
it could also be a JOHN CARTER-size failure


I am not sure why the term John Carter-size failure is so ubiquitous and we don't use a Battleship-size failure when their budgets and domestic box office are almost equivalent. Probably we have been inceptioned by the news media incessant negative hype machine stories on John Carter. When journalists were asked about their not going after Battleship like John Carter as a much worse example of soulless cynical moviemaking excess(while Carter is a work of artistic passion and excess). Their answer is we did that story to death that we gave Battleship an undeserved pass.


Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:15 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3059
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
it could also be a JOHN CARTER-size failure


I am not sure why the term John Carter-size failure is so ubiquitous and we don't use a Battleship-size failure when their budgets and domestic box office are almost equivalent. Probably we have been inceptioned by the news media incessant negative hype machine stories on John Carter. When journalists were asked about their not going after Battleship like John Carter as a much worse example of soulless cynical moviemaking excess(while Carter is a work of artistic passion and excess). Their answer is we did that story to death that we gave Battleship an undeserved pass.


I'm not debating the intrinsic value of the projects, but JOHN CARTER was a bigger risk than BATTLESHIP. One could actually use BATTLESHIP as an example of how "safe" movies sometimes fail.


Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:36 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
Didn't Battleship make the budget back in the non-US markets? (I didn't follow its gross so I didn't know) And it was huge in those markets. I remembered it was big when it came here (Thailand) because it was one of the first big-budget movies of the year (opened before the US a week) and we didn't have a blockbuster-type movie for quite a long, long while.


Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:55 am
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
peng wrote:
Didn't Battleship make the budget back in the non-US markets? (I didn't follow its gross so I didn't know) And it was huge in those markets. I remembered it was big when it came here (Thailand) because it was one of the first big-budget movies of the year (opened before the US a week) and we didn't have a blockbuster-type movie for quite a long, long while.

Including Internation box-office, Battleship made just slightly over 300 million on a 200 million budget, so it more or less broke even, which is slightly more of a success then John Carter, which only made 30 million over it's 250 million dollar budget .


Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:40 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1441
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
James Berardinelli wrote:
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
it could also be a JOHN CARTER-size failure


I am not sure why the term John Carter-size failure is so ubiquitous and we don't use a Battleship-size failure when their budgets and domestic box office are almost equivalent. Probably we have been inceptioned by the news media incessant negative hype machine stories on John Carter. When journalists were asked about their not going after Battleship like John Carter as a much worse example of soulless cynical moviemaking excess(while Carter is a work of artistic passion and excess). Their answer is we did that story to death that we gave Battleship an undeserved pass.


I'm not debating the intrinsic value of the projects, but JOHN CARTER was a bigger risk than BATTLESHIP. One could actually use BATTLESHIP as an example of how "safe" movies sometimes fail.


http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/paralleluniverse-blogpost.aspx?post=85517f9b-5614-42dc-98db-1338cf03441c

Quote:
Except that didn’t happen. “Battleship” was probably the second-biggest flop of the year behind “John Carter”...

Perhaps alien invasions are played out at the multiplex, or maybe the board game just didn’t stir too many memories in the era of video games that are getting closer all the time to virtual reality. Or perhaps … 2012 was the year that audiences finally tired of movies that were all brawn and no brain.

We’d love to think that was the case, since it was character-driven spectacles like “The Avengers,” “The Dark Knight Rises” and “The Hunger Games” (and to a lesser extent, “The Amazing Spider-Man”) that all did the blockbuster business at the box office this year. All of those movies gave viewers the action and excitement required, yet each also focused on creating or extending memorable characters and even touching on serious themes (“The Hunger Games” and “TDKR” were especially strong in that regard). Did “Battleship” – or “John Carter” or “Dark Shadows” or “Total Recall” -- offer anything like that?


Yeah John Carter was the bigger failure with Battleship a close second. As far as Battleship being safer what I think JB means is that it was based on a brand name that most people will recognize even if they've never actually played the game themselves. John Carter is relatively obscure to much of the general public at this point in time.

As far as the second part about audiences being bored with movies that are all brawn no brain, I'd like to think that's true. I'm not gettiing my hopes up though. On one hand, what happened this year could very well be a backlash of sorts against that and what that leads to is anyone's guess. On the other hand, it could very well be that this is just an abberration and come next year, we'll have more mindless stuff along the lines of Pirates 5 and Transformers 4 selling tickets through the roof. Our best bet is to hope for the former while realizing it could easily be the latter,.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:43 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 349
Post Re: July 20, 2012: "Has Christopher Nolan Killed Batman?"
Quote:
Yeah John Carter was the bigger failure with Battleship a close second


I don't know what standard is being used to make that statement but domestic box office for John Carter was 73 mil while Battleship was 65 mil. John Carter did slightly better with no name recognition,no big stars(Liam Neeson) and a really bad marketing campaign and movie title. So Battleship had every advantage in those three areas over Carter and still totally failed. What is most important Battleship failed artistically in every level of acting and storytelling making it the worst kind Hollywood hack work since Transformers while John Carter though imperfect was a fun watch and got better as it went along.Battleship is the biggest fail of the year.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/comcast-chief-admits-battleships-bomb-185902868.html


Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:57 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr