Christopher Nolan and the Batman franchise

Denerick

I recently watched the two most recent Batman films, and couldn't get over how good they were. I remember the Batman films of the 90s as being tacky and unimaginative - Nolan on the other hand is a terrific writer with some great (If at times rather predictable and Hollywoodish) plots and characterisation. Christian Bale as Batman is fantastic, he has such a compelling depth and complexity of character as it is, as seen in other films such as the Machinist.

And Michael Caine as the Butler. Very well done

I'm not a sucker for action movies or comics so this fact by itself should be a testament to how talented a writer Nolan is and how excellent the film itself turned out to be.

Tusky

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight you say ? Never heard of them, must check them out.

MrStuffins

Tusky wrote: »

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight you say ? Never heard of them, must check them out.

There's another one with Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman is a prison too........ can't remember the name though

distraction

I did enjoy Batman Begins, not so much the dark night, a sucker for the Burton Batman's myself

Awful_Bliss

A minor complaint would be Bale's growling when he's Batman. Will be interesting to see if he can follow up The Dark Knight with an equally good film.

me-skywalker

Can anyone tells me now, whats being the name o' that flick where the big boat raft into a giant frozen block of ice and the with the woman with hands and the breasts molests a minor and she throws her hymen into the sea after it? Whats it call ya know? tells me so i can stick it on the wireless!

johnny_ultimate

me-skywalker wrote: »

Can anyone tells me now, whats being the name o' that flick where the big boat raft into a giant frozen block of ice and the with the woman with hands and the breasts molests a minor and she throws her hymen into the sea after it? Whats it call ya know? tells me so i can stick it on the wireless!

Erm...

This thread seems to have drifted rather off topic. It's a well-worn topic for sure, but let's try and keep things on topic and orderly!

amacachi

Much preferred The Batman Begins to The The Dark Knight tbh. I felt that The The Dark Knight did too much of what should've been in the first film and suffered for it.

bonerm

MrStuffins wrote: »

There's another one with Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman is a prison too........ can't remember the name though

It's called Gunman and Robbin'.

me-skywalker

Denerick wrote: »

I'm not a sucker for action movies or comics so this fact by itself should be a testament to how talented a writer Nolan is and how excellent the film itself turned out to be.

You should ask Chris to use this as a blurb on the case!

senordingdong

distraction wrote: »

I did enjoy Batman Begins, not so much the dark night, a sucker for the Burton Batman's myself

Have to agree, feel the ball was well and truely droped on the Dark Knight.

Memnoch

This is one thing I really hate about Hollywood. I have no end of respect for Nolan, but he didn't write either of those films.

David S. Goyer wrote the original scripts and obviously Nolan altered them enough to steal partial credit on the first one and full credit on the last one.

Sorry, its a writers lament but it really sucks the way the director gets all the credit regardless of who came up with the original story.

krudler

And Michael Caine as the Butler. Very well done

Tangerine...

faceman

Memnoch wrote: »

This is one thing I really hate about Hollywood. I have no end of respect for Nolan, but he didn't write either of those films.

David S. Goyer wrote the original scripts and obviously Nolan altered them enough to steal partial credit on the first one and full credit on the last one.

Sorry, its a writers lament but it really sucks the way the director gets all the credit regardless of who came up with the original story.

Its the director who is taking the words and translating the vision to the screen. So the director is quite deserved of the praise received. You only have to look at re-makes to see how bad directing can turn a good script into crap on screen.

Morlar

ChrisNolan wrote: »

This is one thing I really hate about Hollywood. I have no end of respect for Nolan, but he didn't write either of those films.

David S. Goyer wrote the original scripts and obviously Nolan altered them enough to steal partial credit on the first one and full credit on the last one.

Sorry, its a writers lament but it really sucks the way the director gets all the credit regardless of who came up with the original story.

That's a good point.

I remember when the burton ones came out thinking they were crap and could have been miles better, the Bale ones are the only ones that count.

I caught a few minutes of the George clooney one on tv a few weeks back and it is beyond pathetic, embarrasingly bad. I am glad that nolan/Bale have the franchise now, so far they have made 2 very good movies and hopefully they won't f*** it up further down the road.

MickShamrock

I found Dark Knight far superior to Batman Begins. I also prefer the Nolan Batman movies to the Burton ones. We won't mention the crap ones in between! :pac:

Memnoch

faceman wrote: »

Its the director who is taking the words and translating the vision to the screen. So the director is quite deserved of the praise received. You only have to look at re-makes to see how bad directing can turn a good script into crap on screen.

Yet without the original script there would be nothing to direct.

I'm not saying directors don't deserve credit. But to get ALL the credit? And for the writer to get little to none? That's just not right in my book.

faceman

Memnoch wrote: »

Yet without the original script there would be nothing to direct.

I'm not saying directors don't deserve credit. But to get ALL the credit? And for the writer to get little to none? That's just not right in my book.

Clearly you are a passionate writer.

Of course there would be nothing to direct. but thats not the point. As I said earlier, the director has to transform the vision to the screen, taking control of a number of aspects.

E.G. Its far easier for a writer to write, "JAWS emerges from the ocean and bites QUINT in half" than for a director to do the same, on screen.

MrStuffins

MickShamrock wrote: »

I found Dark Knight far superior to Batman Begins. I also prefer the Nolan Batman movies to the Burton ones. We won't mention the crap ones in between! :pac:

Only when i look back at Burton's ones do i realise how superior Nolan's ones are.

TDK is a few notches above BB, and that is really saying something because BB is close to being a masterpiece!

Sad Professor

I never thought Begins was worthy of that much praise. It's a good film to be sure but I found it fairly predictable and uninspired - and the editing and action sequences always annoyed me. It's grown on me with subsequent viewings but I still struggle to see what many people find so amazing about it. I think it falls apart in the last 30 minutes.

I thought TDK was fantastic though. Mostly because of the script which I think was one of the best ever written for a comic book movie. It is extremely well structured with a proper third act and resolution - something which is fairly alien to modern audiences who are used to two-act action films. I also loved the Mann-inspired style in which Nolan directed it. And the ideas and themes were really well developed (if perhaps a little heavy-handed).

However, I still think all the praise these films (and Nolan) receive is of a mostly fickle status. If the third film sucks I suspect there'll be a mass reevaluation of the first two films as seemed to happen with Spider-Man.

ricero

cant stand burtons films their **** in my opinion i hate goths thats partly the reason. i say if burton had a time machine he would go back and film it with johnny depp as batman :rolleyes:

fair play to nolan he totally revamped super hero films and showed more mature audiences that they can be amazing films to watch.

really have high hopes for his next batman if its good it really could go town as the best movie trilogy ever

the whole year inn

Didnt the Nolan brothers write the scripts for the BB and TDK,so they deserve all the credit!

mikhail

gob_smacked wrote: »

Didnt the Nolan brothers write the scripts for the BB and TDK,so they deserve all the credit!

Goyer and Christopher Nolan wrote Batman Begins from Goyer's story, and Jonathan Nolan came on board for The Dark Knight.

Memnoch wrote: »

This is one thing I really hate about Hollywood. I have no end of respect for Nolan, but he didn't write either of those films.

David S. Goyer wrote the original scripts and obviously Nolan altered them enough to steal partial credit on the first one and full credit on the last one.

Sorry, its a writers lament but it really sucks the way the director gets all the credit regardless of who came up with the original story.

Goyer's own projects suggest that he's not capable of making a film of that quality on his own - we're talking about the writer/director of Blade: Trinity here - but he clearly has a passion for comics and a fine imagination (he wrote the highly regarded Dark City and Blade, along with lots of more obscure stuff). Jonathan Nolan has written Memento and The Prestige, and Christopher wrote Inception on his own, so to write off their contribution and give Goyer all the credit seems petty.

I do agree that writers get insufficient credit in the film industry. It's not just a Hollywood thing by the way, France adores directors above all others, and I've never seen a film from anywhere else sold on its writer ahead of its director unless it's adapted from a wildly popular book like the Dan Browne or Harry Potter movies.

faceman

I think there is alot of unfair Burton bashing going on. The first Burton Batman film was good, IMO. It had a Burton style to it (before Burton totally got consumed by his own ego and went OTT with everything else) and turned the Batman that the general public were used to (a bumbling camp tv show with dodgy dance sequences) and gave a more mature story. Granted that it wasnt dark like some of the comic book fanboys wanted but it was an acceptably entertaining film. And Keaton was great.

I hated all subsequent Batman films though, prior to BB.

mikhail

Sorry to post again, but I couldn't resist digging up this quote:

"I can't believe my name is attached to a movie that good."
- Goyer on The Dark Knight.

TonyD79

Didnt Goyer write Flash Forward? Pity Nolan didnt come in and fix that whole mess!!:rolleyes: Also Goyer didnt invent the character so to say he did 99% of the work and Nolan swooped in and stole all the credit is such B.S.:rolleyes:

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

However, I still think all the praise these films (and Nolan) receive is of a mostly fickle status. If the third film sucks I suspect there'll be a mass reevaluation of the first two films as seemed to happen with Spider-Man.

Now that I can't agree with. The Dark Knight (less so Batman Begins, but that still had a lot of the qualities that would truly bloom in the Dark Knight) is simply a beautifully written and directed film. Forget it being a superhero film - thematically and visually The Dark Knight is one of the most rich Hollywood blockbusters ever made. While everyone involved deserves credit - writers, directors, cinematographers, actors, best boys :pac: - Nolan has continually proven himself to be a director of the highest order. He makes genre films - thrillers, superhero films, heist films - that go above and beyond what is expected, adding tonnes of ideas to the mix while - and this is key when it comes to Nolan - never losing accessibility, hence his widespread acclaim. You can enjoy The Dark Knight as a superhero film, full of clever action, humour and energy. But it's also an intelligent film about order v chaos, justice, and the pyschological turmoil endured by the protagonist (and it's no longer just recurring images of a young Wayne being attacked by bats! We got over that in BB!).

The Godfather 1 and 2 weren't reevaluated in light of the third, and while comparing those two films to Nolan and co's Batman films is perhaps too unfair a comparison (controversial statement alert: and percentage wise, Coppolla has a far lower hit rate than Nolan), I don't think weak sequels will ever diminish the quality of the first two. They are simply fantastic films, and Nolan - who is admittedly the figurehead of a talented team - is without a doubt the most consistent Hollywood director today. He may not be an Ingmar Bergman or an Akira Kurosawa thematically just yet, but he's the best big budget director (alongside a handful of others like JJ Abrams and the Pixar crew) that Hollywood has at the moment. The Dark Knight and Batman Begins are pretty towering testaments to that, alongside the Prestige, Memento and Inception. He puts high quality stuff in the multiplex again and again, which is one hell of an achievement.

MJ23

"why dont we cut you up into little pieces and feed you to your pooches, hmm........and then we'll see how loyal a hungry dog really is"

jpm4

faceman wrote: »

I think there is alot of unfair Burton bashing going on. The first Burton Batman film was good, IMO. It had a Burton style to it (before Burton totally got consumed by his own ego and went OTT with everything else) and turned the Batman that the general public were used to (a bumbling camp tv show with dodgy dance sequences) and gave a more mature story. Granted that it wasnt dark like some of the comic book fanboys wanted but it was an acceptably entertaining film. And Keaton was great.

I hated all subsequent Batman films though, prior to BB.

Agree with this.....heaven forbid that a director took a comic book and made it feel slightly like a comic book! Because the Burton films took place somewhere between reality and fantasy I didn't have to ask myself questions like: "Why is a grown man dressing up like a bat?" I kinda liked that aspect to it anyways, apparently not many others did. And yeah I really liked Keaton - he somehow managed to look completely different with the mask on, not something any other batman has managed.

distraction

jpm4 wrote: »

And yeah I really liked Keaton - he somehow managed to look completely different with the mask on, not something any other batman has managed.

i hear that!

Handsome Bob

Memnoch wrote: »

This is one thing I really hate about Hollywood. I have no end of respect for Nolan, but he didn't write either of those films.

David S. Goyer wrote the original scripts and obviously Nolan altered them enough to steal partial credit on the first one and full credit on the last one.

Sorry, its a writers lament but it really sucks the way the director gets all the credit regardless of who came up with the original story.

Goyer needs direction. You may not like it but working with both Nolans makes him much better than he actually is. He undoubtedly has talent but often than not fails when left to his own devices.

senordingdong

Sad Professor wrote: »

I never thought Begins was worthy of that much praise. It's a good film to be sure but I found it fairly predictable and uninspired - and the editing and action sequences always annoyed me. It's grown on me with subsequent viewings but I still struggle to see what many people find so amazing about it. I think it falls apart in the last 30 minutes.

I thought TDK was fantastic though. Mostly because of the script which I think was one of the best ever written for a comic book movie. It is extremely well structured with a proper third act and resolution - something which is fairly alien to modern audiences who are used to two-act action films. I also loved the Mann-inspired style in which Nolan directed it. And the ideas and themes were really well developed (if perhaps a little heavy-handed).

However, I still think all the praise these films (and Nolan) receive is of a mostly fickle status. If the third film sucks I suspect there'll be a mass reevaluation of the first two films as seemed to happen with Spider-Man.

I felt BB was brilliant becasue it brought Batman into a realistic realm, and was a well structured film with a good plot, good pacing and good directing.

I disliked TDK because it went OTT, many of the realistic elements were taken out, the story got carried away with itself, and as a result, the editing tore the movie asunder, into a sloppy, disfigured mess.

Good point about the Spider Man trilogy btw.

Sad Professor

@johnny_ultimate

I'm not saying Nolan or his films deserve to be reevaluated. Like I said, I think very highly of TDK, less so of Begins but I still think it's a very enjoyable film. My point was that Nolan is a fanboy darling and fanboys are fickle creatures. One thing Nolan really has going for him is his remarkable consistency. However, sooner or later he will make a sucky film or two and opinions about him may change for the worse.

I don't agree with it, but films get reevaluated on the basis of their sequels and the director's subsequent work all the time. One very recent example of this is M. Night Shyamalan, who made several extremely well received films and had a legion of admirers singing his praises. Then he made a few (truly) horrid films and now you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to say something positive about any of his films. I don't agree with this. His earlier films were excellent imo and don't deserve to be thrown out with The bathwater all because fanboys only know how to do two thing: bash and gush.

I like Nolan a lot and would agree with almost everything you said about him. However, when I hear so much hyperbole about him, with comparisons to Kubrick, Hitchcock, etc, I just think a backlash is on the cards.

MrStuffins

Sad Professor wrote: »

@johnny_ultimate

I don't agree with it, but films get reevaluated on the basis of their sequels and the director's subsequent work all the time. One very recent example of this is M. Night Shyamalan, who made several extremely well received films and had a legion of admirers singing his praises. Then he made a few (truly) horrid films and now you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to say something positive about any of his films. I don't agree with this. His earlier films were excellent imo and don't deserve to be thrown out with The bathwater all because fanboys only know how to do two thing: bash and gush.

I like Nolan a lot and would agree with almost everything you said about him. However, when I hear so much hyperbole about him, with comparisons to Kubrick, Hitchcock, etc, I just think a backlash is on the cards.

I disagree with this.

I always here people say "Yeah, i loved The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable...... but lately".

I don't think anyone belittles his earlier work as such.

But the guy has become a complete joke!

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

@johnny_ultimate

I'm not saying Nolan or his films deserve to be reevaluated. Like I said, I think very highly of TDK, less so of Begins but I still think it's a very enjoyable film. My point was that Nolan is a fanboy darling and fanboys are fickle creatures. One thing Nolan really has going for him is his remarkable consistency. However, sooner or later he will make a sucky film or two and opinions about him may change for the worse.

I don't agree with it, but films get reevaluated on the basis of their sequels and the director's subsequent work all the time. One very recent example of this is M. Night Shyamalan, who made several extremely well received films and had a legion of admirers singing his praises. Then he made a few (truly) horrid films and now you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to say something positive about any of his films. I don't agree with this. His earlier films were excellent imo and don't deserve to be thrown out with The bathwater all because fanboys only know how to do two thing: bash and gush.

I like Nolan a lot and would agree with almost everything you said about him. However, when I hear so much hyperbole about him, with comparisons to Kubrick, Hitchcock, etc, I just think a backlash is on the cards.

I see where you're coming from alright, and I definitely agree that fanboys are a fickle bunch. Personally, I hope that Nolan's rock solid filmography will see him through any hypothetical rough seas that may follow his current winning streak. Shyamalan is a good example, but at the same time Francis Ford Coppolla is still praised for The Godfather despite cack like Jack, and Steven Spielberg's name is loaded with positivity despite the fact he hasn't made a truly excellent film in an awful long time (some good ones, but no Jurassic Parks or Schindler's lists in a decade and a half)! Hyperbole and fanboys are something it's often hard to see through in the midst of popularity phases, but I sincerely hope Nolan's work thus far is immune from any backlashes that may follow. I can only think of a handful of contemporary blockbusters and genre flicks that will stand the test of time - Serenity, Star Trek XI (hopefully!) and the Nolan films are among the very few that spring to mind. I certainly hope looking back in ten years that is still the consensus! Is Nolan a Kubrick? Maybe not. Is he a Spielberg? Dare I suggest the evidence points to yes?

Dempsey

I think the expectation of Batman 3 will see it 'fail' by comparison to TDK. I'd be delighted to be watching a film that will trump TDK but I'm trying hard to lower my expectations so I'll enjoy the film and not be thinking whether I'm watching a better or worse film.

Also, I heard that Tom Hardy is confirmed for a role (dunno how big or small) I think he has turned in some very good performances (e.g. Bronson) and I'd be delight to see him make a character his own a la Ledger did with Joker.

Memnoch

faceman wrote: »

Clearly you are a passionate writer.

Of course there would be nothing to direct. but thats not the point. As I said earlier, the director has to transform the vision to the screen, taking control of a number of aspects.

E.G. Its far easier for a writer to write, "JAWS emerges from the ocean and bites QUINT in half" than for a director to do the same, on screen.

I think that's grossly unfair. I would argue that it is easier to take something that is created, there and with the help of MILLIONS of dollars, equipment and personal turn it into something on screen.

But to sit before a piece of blank paper and create something where there was nothing?

However this is a false argument. I've never said that directors shouldn't get credit for DIRECTING, but the writer gets far too little credit. It's simply a cultural phenomona that I don't understand. Rowling gets the credit for Harry Potter. Yet no one remembers the guy who actually wrote Star Wars and created the universe. Lucas get's all the credit. (Though my knowledge of the industry is a little patchy on the latter example and so it's probably not a great one to use.)

Memnoch

mikhail wrote: »

Goyer and Christopher Nolan wrote Batman Begins from Goyer's story, and Jonathan Nolan came on board for The Dark Knight.


Goyer's own projects suggest that he's not capable of making a film of that quality on his own - we're talking about the writer/director of Blade: Trinity here - but he clearly has a passion for comics and a fine imagination (he wrote the highly regarded Dark City and Blade, along with lots of more obscure stuff). Jonathan Nolan has written Memento and The Prestige, and Christopher wrote Inception on his own, so to write off their contribution and give Goyer all the credit seems petty.

I do agree that writers get insufficient credit in the film industry. It's not just a Hollywood thing by the way, France adores directors above all others, and I've never seen a film from anywhere else sold on its writer ahead of its director unless it's adapted from a wildly popular book like the Dan Browne or Harry Potter movies.

Fair points. I won't defend Goyer's directing talent. My issue remains with the bit you've acknowledged, that writers are unfairly treated in the film industry, especially compared to directors.

johnny_ultimate

Memnoch wrote: »

Yet no one remembers the guy who actually wrote Star Wars and created the universe.

You mean George Lucas?

A perfect example of a good director, and a very mixed writer (good at creating ideas, awful at having characters speak said ideas).

Dempsey

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You mean George Lucas?

A perfect example of a good director, and a very mixed writer (good at creating ideas, awful at having characters speak said ideas).

Like Jar Jar Binks?



EDIT

Link is faulty or something :pac:

Memnoch

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You mean George Lucas?

A perfect example of a good director, and a very mixed writer (good at creating ideas, awful at having characters speak said ideas).

Yeah, he was a bad example.

faceman

Memnoch wrote: »

I think that's grossly unfair. I would argue that it is easier to take something that is created, there and with the help of MILLIONS of dollars, equipment and personal turn it into something on screen.

I will counter argue with only 3 words (relevent to this thread): "Batman And Robin"

senordingdong

faceman wrote: »

I will counter argue with only 3 words (relevent to this thread): "Batman And Robin"

Are you serious?

But all those one liners!
That film will be forever remembered findly!

Ice to see you, etc....

Morlar

senordingdong wrote: »

Are you serious?

But all those one liners!
That film will be forever remembered findly!

Ice to see you, etc....

My vote goes to the Nolan/Bale interpretation.