Charlie Brooker and superhero films (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message


giggity -> Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 3:20:12 PM)

I posted this in the favourite films thread but I thought I would post it here as it irked me quite a bit

Did anyone watch Charlie Brooker's 2012 wipe last night? He described Dark Knight Rises is a superhero film for people who like to think they're watching the seventh seal when what they're actually watching is a childrens film and that calling a Batman film The Dark Knight was to make him seem more serious and that it was majorly pretentious and no more intellectually nourishing than the adam west film which was a better film because it knew it wasn't anything more than camp and fun.


To me it seems like Charlie Brooker doesn't know much about Batman, there's loads of different interpretations over the years, some of them goofy and light hearted, while some are dark and moody. Also the fact that he thinks that it's called The Dark Knight to make it seem more serious when really it's cos it's another name the character has had for decades indicates he doesn't know much about it. Plus the past two films have been of a similar tone so why go see Rises if he didn't like the previous two films.

He annoyed me earlier this year when he tweeted something along the lines of "why would I go see Avengers? i'm not a child." and in an article he recently did explained that Rises and Avengers were 'Chadult' films, kids films that adults go to see out of irony (Avengers) or pretentious (Rises). Now he's complaining that Rises is so bad because it's trying to be serious while he doesn't think much of Avengers either and people only like it to be ironic, and yet Avengers is the opposite of everything he disliked in Rises and he still puts it down.

Tbh i've been thinking for a while that Brooker has just started hating things for the sake of it, but this just really put me off of him. Mocking a film for trying to be something it's not (while not understanding that the character is like that in different interpretations) then when given a film which is exactly what it's supposed to be (Avengers) he still mocks it for being infantile and that people who go see it are doing it only out of irony? wtf?

So did anyone else see this and do they have any viewpoint on it?




adambatman82 -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 3:27:18 PM)

I saw it too, but presumed he was being facetious. I suspect it's all just a part of his own character tbh, I wouldnt take it personally.




BagEnder -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 3:51:14 PM)

Brooker can be a bit of a tit at times - but I'll forgive him just this once (even though I loved TDKR). :)




Zaphod121 -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 4:48:40 PM)

Just i was watching 2012 wipe too and that bit really pissed me off, and I thunk I unfollowed him on twitter after posted that stuff about The Avengers - seems like extremely narrowed minded things to say.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 7:48:50 PM)

[image]http://shii.org/mediawiki/images/f/f6/Ch930720.gif[/image]




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 8:19:50 PM)

Most of the time I find Charlie Brooker highly amusing but other times (and this isn't concerning movies) he can be abit of a prick/tit.

Having read his Dawn Of The Dumb book a few years ago where he,to me,said some generally harsh words concerning (in his words) fat people and skinny people I went off-him for a long period of time.
Nowadays I'm just flippant with his views/guardian columns.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 8:25:29 PM)

Black Mirror is pretty great!




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 8:32:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Black Mirror is pretty great!


I rarely watch TV to be honest,but I heard it got positive reviews.




chris kilby -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (2/1/2013 11:02:02 PM)

I pissed myself laughing when he tore TDKR a new one. Especially when he said calling Batman "The Dark Knight" was like calling Papa Smurf "The Blue Patriarch." He has a point. And that's coming from a noted "Nolan fanboy" and "apologist." At least when Brooker slags things off he does it with a modicum of wit and style. Which is more than the average disgruntled online fanboy can say.

Besides, he still said it was good. Just not that good. And even if he didn't, he's as entitled to his opinion as anybody else. Plus if he slagged off The Avengers too it's entirely possible he was just yanking the fanboys' collective chain knowing the hilariously impotent howls of indignant outrage it would generate. It's easily done. I've been known to do it myself on occasion...

(I think at this point it would be prudent of me to declare a personal interest. I'm in Brooker's book, The Hell of it All. He invited readers of his Guardian Guide column to suggest names for TV's Gladiators. And he picked seven of mine, including his favourite! They're on pages 152 and 153. See if you can guess which ones...)




KnightofZyryab -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (3/1/2013 7:32:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

I pissed myself laughing when he tore TDKR a new one. Especially when he said calling Batman "The Dark Knight" was like calling Papa Smurf "The Blue Patriarch." He has a point. And that's coming from a noted "Nolan fanboy" and "apologist." At least when Brooker slags things off he does it with a modicum of wit and style. Which is more than the average disgruntled online fanboy can say.



I love TDKR, I like Brooker, and I did find it funny. I think he was probably being deliberately specious about it being called The Dark Knight because in reality it's a pretty stupid argument. The film before remember was called Batman Begins! The Dark Knight is just an alternate name or moniker for Batman - does it mean Man of Steel is stupid for being called that instead of Superman V? Course it doesn't.




dolfinack -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (3/1/2013 7:47:28 PM)

Concur that Charlie Brooker's destruction of the Batman over-serious up-its-own-bum sense was hilarious.




chris kilby -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (4/1/2013 1:16:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofZyryab


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

I pissed myself laughing when he tore TDKR a new one. Especially when he said calling Batman "The Dark Knight" was like calling Papa Smurf "The Blue Patriarch." He has a point. And that's coming from a noted "Nolan fanboy" and "apologist." At least when Brooker slags things off he does it with a modicum of wit and style. Which is more than the average disgruntled online fanboy can say.



I love TDKR, I like Brooker, and I did find it funny. I think he was probably being deliberately specious about it being called The Dark Knight because in reality it's a pretty stupid argument. The film before remember was called Batman Begins! The Dark Knight is just an alternate name or moniker for Batman - does it mean Man of Steel is stupid for being called that instead of Superman V? Course it doesn't.



No, but it is a bit pretentious.




shool -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (4/1/2013 12:04:29 PM)

I thought it was hilarious.

In fact I thought all of what I saw (From the olympics bit onwards) was very witty.




sharkboy -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (4/1/2013 1:44:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I thought it was hilarious.



Me too.  Also, who wouldn't go to see The Blue Patriarch? [:D] 




Scruffybobby -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (4/1/2013 6:40:52 PM)

I thought two things when I was watching it:

1: This is very funny

2: This won't go down too well with some people on here




spark1 -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (7/1/2013 10:19:32 AM)

charlie is incorrect- the nolan batman flicks are full of laughs, some dry, wry, others full bellylaughs.




Harry Tuttle -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (7/1/2013 10:21:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

charlie is incorrect- the nolan batman flicks are full of laughs, some dry, wry, others full bellylaughs.


If he didn't find them funny then he's not incorrect.




Dead Mike -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (7/1/2013 11:27:12 AM)

I love Charlie Brooker apart from when he has a go about things I like then he's wrong.




MonsterCat -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (7/1/2013 11:36:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

charlie is incorrect- the nolan batman flicks are full of laughs, some dry, wry, others full bellylaughs.


Really?

Look, I love his Batman flicks (all high-end 4/5 films for me) but it's not as if the lol jokez quota is on par with Bridesmaids.




DancingClown -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (7/1/2013 12:52:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

charlie is incorrect- the nolan batman flicks are full of laughs, some dry, wry, others full bellylaughs.


Erm....

I really don't think we should be taking his opinion on films too seriously. There are quite a few films I like that he's mocked or rubbished, I don't take it personally, being comically hyperbolic and facetious is all part of his schtick. And he's certainly not the only person who's accused the Nolan Batmans of being pretentious, although I think it was more the hype of films like DK and Avengers that he was targeting. But never mind. I'm a big fan of Kermode but I frequently disagree with some of the things he says.




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (7/1/2013 12:58:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

charlie is incorrect- the nolan batman flicks are full of laughs, some dry, wry, others full bellylaughs.


Erm....

I really don't think we should be taking his opinion on films too seriously. There are quite a few films I like that he's mocked or rubbished, I don't take it personally, being comically hyperbolic and facetious is all part of his schtick. And he's certainly not the only person who's accused the Nolan Batmans of being pretentious, although I think it was more the hype of films like DK and Avengers that he was targeting. But never mind. I'm a big fan of Kermode but I frequently disagree with some of the things he says.


As sad as it sounds I dont think I have ever disagreed with Kermode.




horribleives -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (7/1/2013 1:39:52 PM)

I generally like Brooker (though I prefer him in print to hearing his smug voice) and thought the bit about The Dark Knight Rises was quite funny. As I said in another thread though, he's got a bit of a cheek dismissing Batman and The Avengers as kids films (and in the case of the latter being therefore not worthy of his attention) when he's a massive fan of Doctor bloody Who.




Spiked -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (8/1/2013 8:06:00 PM)

I saw a poster at Kings Cross today, will check it out.




DancingClown -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (8/1/2013 9:26:47 PM)

Erm...check what out?




chris kilby -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (8/1/2013 11:34:12 PM)

Sadie Stern's House of Corrections. She, er, works out of a phone box down King's Cross. Or so I've been told... [sm=whistle.gif]




Dannybohy -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (9/1/2013 11:56:17 AM)

"Some patterns emerge. Recently I watched The Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall and realised they're essentially the same. In both films a screen icon gets the shit knocked out of him early on and spends much of the second act intermittently clutching his back and complaining. You might as well be watching a $200m advert for Voltarol.

Batman hardly does any batting in Batman 3. He's just lazy: lying broken in a prison bed, watching Gotham turn sour on CNN. As for Bond, at one point his superiors discuss his advancing years with such unrelenting cruelty, it's like a roast of Bruce Forsyth. For a moment, Daniel Craig magically ages before your very eyes, developing white stubble, sandblasted skin and a face like pine woodgrain squinting into a fan heater. Seeing them force this poor 900-year-old agent to undertake the gruelling MI6 physical trial is akin to watching your granddad wheezing about on his hands and knees, shakily trying to retrieve a Malteser that's rolled under the coffee table. And they send this Grandpa Bond into battle, like Clive Dunn in Die Hard.

Is this a trend now? Hobbled protagonists? When that new Superman film comes out next year, I guarantee he'll spend 75% of it rolling around on the floor clutching his knee like a tackled striker. Ridiculous. And they call that entertainment.

Another apparent trend: sketchy masterplans. I couldn't tell you what arch-villain Bane was up to in The Dark Knight Rises, and I've just read the Wikipedia plot summary and everything. His dastardly plot involved cutting Gotham City off from the rest of the world and turning it into an anarchic hellhole. Except it wasn't that much of a hellhole. The residents of Gotham experienced slightly slower Amazon deliveries than usual, but that was about the extent of their suffering.

But it's not a documentary. In the film, thousands of police officers spend three months trapped underground like Chilean miners, only to emerge with no apparent health problems and with their uniforms in stunningly good condition, considering they'd have spent weeks ripping their shirts into sheets to wipe their arses on in the dark.

You overlook this and other absurdities because Bane is an entertaining villain. He sounds like Bill Clinton trying to amuse Stevie Wonder with an impression of James Mason, and he looks like the end-of-level boss in every Sega Megadrive game ever made. I was waiting for him to fling barrels at me. And for a climactic moment near the end of the fight where his mask flew off and I had to shoot a glowing red blob on his back.

Similarly, Javier Bardem's evil John Inman routine in Skyfall is so much fun you don't care that his plan makes less sense than Bane's. For the first half of the film he's a brilliant cyberterrorist who can destroy a building on the other side of the globe by simply nudging his mouse with his elbow. But death by Wi-Fi isn't very Bond film, so halfway through he becomes a crazed gunman with an attack helicopter and 5,000 disposable henchmen. The henchman AI isn't very good in Skyfall, so they've simply added extra respawn points in the hope you won't notice. That's a videogame joke. Just keep moving.

So the heroes, villains and plots are kooky. That's always been the case with action movies, although at least in Die Hard or Predator you understood precisely what was happening and why. But the chief similarity between Skyfall and The Dark Knight Rises is that both films seem slightly embarrassed by their own central premise. The Dark Knight Rises can't simply be a popcorn movie about a man who dresses as a bat and fights a bloke with a jockstrap on his face. No. It's The Seventh Seal in a cape. Skyfall isn't about a globetrotting secret agent with a trouser-phobic dick. No. It's an essay on matriarchs and Bond as a cultural signifier. No bad thing. If the year's two biggest blockbusters strive to be meatier than Transformers, hooray. Hooray, hooray, hooray.

But.

But there's a culinary trend for posh burgers at the moment. In the time it takes you to read this sentence, London will have gained six new "pop-up" restaurants offering a pointedly limited menu: burger and fries done flashily well. Not a greying, microwaved McDonald's patty, but a moist puck of 21-day-aged beef nestling inside a brioche bun, accompanied by twice-cooked chips hand-cut from potatoes with philosophy degrees. Undeniably delicious. But still a burger and chips.

The success of Skyfall and The Dark Knight Rises mark 2012 out as a peak year for gourmet burger movies. This is great pop. But in the case of Sulky Batman 3.0, it's way too po-faced. Beetlejuice is darker and weightier and definitely ends on more jaunty Harry Belafonte songs than The Dark Knight Rises. Yes, your burger is amazing. But these artisan fries are served a tad cold"

By CHARLIE BROOKER - Genius





chris kilby -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (9/1/2013 12:48:08 PM)

If only all the other greetin'-faced fanboys and online joy-stranglers who don't seem to enjoy anything* were half as funny (or insightful) as this...







* What's the clinical name for this debilitating psychological condition, do you suppose - fanhedonia?




shool -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (9/1/2013 1:51:28 PM)

That post is brilliant. I think he's really witty and you cant argue with some of the points. [sm=happy34.gif]




AxlReznor -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (9/1/2013 1:52:55 PM)

I didn't realise that an inability to walk was actually laziness. Best chuck all of those wheelchairs in the bin and convince the lazy bastards they can walk if they really wanted to...




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films (9/1/2013 2:32:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

That post is brilliant. I think he's really witty and you cant argue with some of the points. [sm=happy34.gif]


I think the problem with C.Brooker is the fact that fame has somewhat gone to his head.
If you read his early works/books and now read some of the stuff he's written now then there is a clear difference in what one is experiencing,for Charlies its Self-righteousness.
In the past he was balanced between being a witty,informed moaning-chump.But now he's a un-witty,moaning,puerile-chump.
Jumping on the most easy of targets and being ever more vitriolic in his assuming outburst,culminating in someone who is ,possibly, turning into a oversized twat.




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.28125