Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Severian
I guess I can see where you're coming from. I'm just a really big fan of Nolan's approach and method. Some folks think he's too Hollywood, but that wasn't always the case. I think he has excellent instincts, and yeah, I think he made an epic and hyper realistic (not truly realistic.... hyper realistic, as though you're having a panic attack while watching the films, and perceiving everything in crystalline detail, and feeling every overwhelming piece of perceptual stimulation) crime drama out of Batman, and that it was less about making a movie about Batman and more about making a story about the world Batman is supposed to (or would, if real) exist in.
Yeah, it leaves out a ton of the Batman character, and places all the focus on either the villains (Joker just ruled TDK, even the scenes he wasn't in) or the big (sometimes REALLY big) picture. In that sense, it could have been about anyone... Could have been a cop drama or a gangster drama... But I think that was kind of the point... To make a trilogy of Batman films that were NOT JUST FOR COMIC BOOK FANS.
So it probably wasn't the perfect film depiction of Batman. I still think it's the best one, but there was too much else going on for the actual personality of Batman to come through very well.
I actually think it was more of a Gotham City story. But whatever it did miss, I think it hit enough things pretty perfectly, and I think it's a success.
Really, Gordon is probably the main character of the series, if there is one. But yeah, it's not really "about" Batman. And there's a lot of the character that's left unexplored. But his vision was well rounded and direct and well executed and I think The Dark Knight is one of the best films ever. It's hard to even think about it as a "comic book" film. To me, it's more along the lines of The Godfather, or Heat, or the Departed. An ensemble piece. And an extraordinary film no matter how you slice it.
|
It wasn't so much as it had to "be more about Batman" so much as I think it should have "felt more like a Batman story" (e.g. more film noir less action adventure blowing shit up)...
Again as a MOVIE i quite enjoy the Nolan flicks, they are well written, well acted, and well produced. A bit long but not overwhelming.. HOWEVER the same way you are very partial and biased towards liking the Nolan flicks, because to me the ideal Batman is the Warner Bros Batman Animated Series I think it wasn't classy enough, a bit too gratituous in the violence and action, not enough mystery. Too scary and horror, not enough dark and foreboding. Too much blowing shit up, not enough actual story and character development...
They are still great. And still superior to everything but the first Tim Burton Batman, and really in many ways superior even to that. However for ME, I think the first Burton flick more closely pulls off the "classy" and "film noir" Batman.
I agree with you completely that Nolan was revisiting Batman in a more "contemporary" perspective in the context of film making, but that is precisely what kind of turns me off. No, it wasn't anywhere near the terrible shit that is X-men or Ironman or Superman or any of these other bullshit hero movies which frankly I couldn't sit through more than ten minutes of meanwhile I can easily sit through all 3 hours of the Nolan flicks... BUT again, I just don't feel like its "Batman" like you said, if we blacked out the actual Batman scenes it was essentially Die Hard
