Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 9/1/2013 2:40:55 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5101
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Aye, I still find him occasionally funny but without wanting to sound all I-saw-the-Sex-Pistols-at-the-100-Club, he was much better and far less full of himself before he started appearing on telly all the time.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 31
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 9/1/2013 2:44:08 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4403
Joined: 5/2/2012
Yeah,I've gone abit off him to be honest,but I am less grumpy now and I am finally seeing the more finer stuff in life.
The less I see of that miserable sod the better.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 32
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 9/1/2013 2:48:49 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1282
Joined: 31/3/2010
Charlie Brooker's not as good as he used to be.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 33
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 9/1/2013 3:17:17 PM   
Ref


Posts: 7461
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

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.


And quite the gamer too. I generally like Brooker, but some things we don't see eye-to-eye on (like most people of this world).

_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented JaD

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 34
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/1/2013 10:20:15 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7026
Joined: 18/11/2006
but a 'comic book movies are just for kids/laughs' attitude drove the superman and batman franchises over a cliff in the 80s/90s.

donner and nolan were right-versimilitude is the key.

< Message edited by spark1 -- 11/1/2013 10:21:39 AM >

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 35
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 14/1/2013 2:30:36 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007
I think CB is OK but as with most things, he has become a victim of his own hype of late which has inevitably lead to a re-evalutaion of his work. Over saturation is rarely a good thing as familiarity often breeds contempt.

As for his thoughts on Superhero movies, I agree somewhat. Is there a place for both fun and a more serious type of superhero movie? IMO absolutely as I like the change of tone between the different franchises. Was the decision to make the new Batman Trilogy darker and more realistic the correct choice? Again I'd say absolutely. Batman as a character is absolutely more suited towards this kind of tone as his background isn't filled with happiness and light, plus we've already had many goes at a more frivolous and campy\fun Batman and we all know how they turned out.

However I will add that I think Nolan did take it too far the other way. Sure I think he got the characterisation spot on but in doing so he has removed any sense of fun to be had from a slightly deranged person who dresses up as a bat. Making it too grounded also means that many of the action set pieces also lack real impact and some of the fight choreography was shockingingly bad.

I'll cite the Tumbler chase sequence in BB as an example of what I mean, Batman rolls out in the Tumbler which again is quite a disappointing design for a Bat vehicle due to the fact that Nolan wanted it to be realistic but you think at least we'll get to see some mayhem.....but nothing happens. He drives around in it a bit, get's chased by the police, switches off his lights (and for some bizarre slides forward in his seat) and the act of simply switching his lights off (gasp) makes his 20 tonne tank miraclously disappear from 20 cop cars and a helicopter. He then switches his lights back on (oh looks he's back) and then drivers around a bit more and err...that's it. The whole scene could have had the excitement\novelty of Bond driving a stolen tank through Moscow but turned up to 11, instead it ends up feeling like Batman has just popped out to the shops to grab some milk, VERY anti-climatic.

This happens many times throughout the films and the fight choreography is laughable in places for a triple AAA superhero title. I get that he might have some problems with movement in that suit but come on, this is 2013, when even low budget Indonesian films are able to provide fight scenes that are 10 times more memorable than the ultimate Superhero franchise, something isn't working. I seriously cannot remember one decent fight scene in all 3 films.

So was the tone correct for Nolan's movies, again absolutely....the problem is they just aren't as good as people seem to think they are and are in fact sub-par in many areas I'd consider essential to a good Superhero movie but the fact that they are "more adult\serious" in nature seems to have engendered this notion that they are "better" than other superhero movies which are "just for kids". The problem is this notion now seems to have filtered into the pyche of the film studios so that EVERY new film is now trying to "do a Batman" buy being darker and grittier, most for films which don't even justify this treatment, simply because Nolan has now made it cool\profitable to do so. This is where the argument for pretentiousness gains some traction IMO.

Nolan MAY have been successful in turning the Superhero genre into high art but in doing so, he has definately lost more than he has gained IMO, my only fear is that from what I can see of the trailer, he is determined to take The Man of Steel in the same direction, I hope I'm wrong, we've already had a Superman reboot with all the fun sucked out of it!

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 36
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 14/1/2013 2:55:19 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van

I think CB is OK but as with most things, he has become a victim of his own hype of late which has inevitably lead to a re-evalutaion of his work. Over saturation is rarely a good thing as familiarity often breeds contempt.

As for his thoughts on Superhero movies, I agree somewhat. Is there a place for both fun and a more serious type of superhero movie? IMO absolutely as I like the change of tone between the different franchises. Was the decision to make the new Batman Trilogy darker and more realistic the correct choice? Again I'd say absolutely. Batman as a character is absolutely more suited towards this kind of tone as his background isn't filled with happiness and light, plus we've already had many goes at a more frivolous and campy\fun Batman and we all know how they turned out.

However I will add that I think Nolan did take it too far the other way. Sure I think he got the characterisation spot on but in doing so he has removed any sense of fun to be had from a slightly deranged person who dresses up as a bat. Making it too grounded also means that many of the action set pieces also lack real impact and some of the fight choreography was shockingingly bad.

I'll cite the Tumbler chase sequence in BB as an example of what I mean, Batman rolls out in the Tumbler which again is quite a disappointing design for a Bat vehicle due to the fact that Nolan wanted it to be realistic but you think at least we'll get to see some mayhem.....but nothing happens. He drives around in it a bit, get's chased by the police, switches off his lights (and for some bizarre slides forward in his seat) and the act of simply switching his lights off (gasp) makes his 20 tonne tank miraclously disappear from 20 cop cars and a helicopter. He then switches his lights back on (oh looks he's back) and then drivers around a bit more and err...that's it. The whole scene could have had the excitement\novelty of Bond driving a stolen tank through Moscow but turned up to 11, instead it ends up feeling like Batman has just popped out to the shops to grab some milk, VERY anti-climatic.

This happens many times throughout the films and the fight choreography is laughable in places for a triple AAA superhero title. I get that he might have some problems with movement in that suit but come on, this is 2013, when even low budget Indonesian films are able to provide fight scenes that are 10 times more memorable than the ultimate Superhero franchise, something isn't working. I seriously cannot remember one decent fight scene in all 3 films.

So was the tone correct for Nolan's movies, again absolutely....the problem is they just aren't as good as people seem to think they are and are in fact sub-par in many areas I'd consider essential to a good Superhero movie but the fact that they are "more adult\serious" in nature seems to have engendered this notion that they are "better" than other superhero movies which are "just for kids". The problem is this notion now seems to have filtered into the pyche of the film studios so that EVERY new film is now trying to "do a Batman" buy being darker and grittier, most for films which don't even justify this treatment, simply because Nolan has now made it cool\profitable to do so. This is where the argument for pretentiousness gains some traction IMO.

Nolan MAY have been successful in turning the Superhero genre into high art but in doing so, he has definately lost more than he has gained IMO, my only fear is that from what I can see of the trailer, he is determined to take The Man of Steel in the same direction, I hope I'm wrong, we've already had a Superman reboot with all the fun sucked out of it!


100% dannybohy approved. You can have my sister! ...everyone else has


_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 37
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 14/1/2013 2:58:32 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

but a 'comic book movies are just for kids/laughs' attitude drove the superman and batman franchises over a cliff in the 80s/90s.

donner and nolan were right-versimilitude is the key.

They are mostly just for kids and big kids (adults) , don't kid yourself!. ;)

_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 38
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 14/1/2013 4:39:53 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

but a 'comic book movies are just for kids/laughs' attitude drove the superman and batman franchises over a cliff in the 80s/90s.

donner and nolan were right-versimilitude is the key.

They are mostly just for kids and big kids (adults) , don't kid yourself!. ;)


100% agree. This reminds me of people who try to justify reading comics by calling them graphic novels, they are still books with pretty pictures of buxom women and musclebound blokes bashing each other through buildings. Just accept what they are and don't feel the need to justify your hobbies\likes by trying to make them sound more grown up\important than they are. This doesn't mean they need to be totally silly, camp or frivolous, they can have a serious tone to but this all needs to be tempered by not loosing sight of the fact that you are still telling a story about a grown man wearing tights so stop trying to make them something they aren't. Citizen Kane they ain't and don't need to be to justify their existence.

(in reply to Dannybohy)
Post #: 39
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 14/1/2013 4:51:15 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

but a 'comic book movies are just for kids/laughs' attitude drove the superman and batman franchises over a cliff in the 80s/90s.

donner and nolan were right-versimilitude is the key.

They are mostly just for kids and big kids (adults) , don't kid yourself!. ;)


100% agree. This reminds me of people who try to justify reading comics by calling them graphic novels, they are still books with pretty pictures of buxom women and musclebound blokes bashing each other through buildings. Just accept what they are and don't feel the need to justify your hobbies\likes by trying to make them sound more grown up\important than they are. This doesn't mean they need to be totally silly, camp or frivolous, they can have a serious tone to but this all needs to be tempered by not loosing sight of the fact that you are still telling a story about a grown man wearing tights so stop trying to make them something they aren't. Citizen Kane they ain't and don't need to be to justify their existence.




_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 40
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 14/1/2013 5:00:57 PM   
scary_ice

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 11/1/2007
From: Meath, Ireland
Completely agree with pretty much everything Don has said here. The fight scenes in all the Nolan Batman movies were pretty unmemorable, and I'm worried that The Man of Steel will suffer from this seriousness overload too.

This already happened in comics with Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns in the 80's and suddenly everyone was making their superheroes 'dark' i.e. brooding and tortured, and this trend became boring very quickly.

I think that's why I enjoyed Avengers so much, because it was just a funny, exciting blockbuster that actually seemed to be enjoying itself!

< Message edited by scary_ice -- 14/1/2013 5:02:26 PM >

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 41
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 14/1/2013 6:00:53 PM   
scary_ice

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 11/1/2007
From: Meath, Ireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

but a 'comic book movies are just for kids/laughs' attitude drove the superman and batman franchises over a cliff in the 80s/90s.

donner and nolan were right-versimilitude is the key.

They are mostly just for kids and big kids (adults) , don't kid yourself!. ;)


100% agree. This reminds me of people who try to justify reading comics by calling them graphic novels, they are still books with pretty pictures of buxom women and musclebound blokes bashing each other through buildings. Just accept what they are and don't feel the need to justify your hobbies\likes by trying to make them sound more grown up\important than they are. This doesn't mean they need to be totally silly, camp or frivolous, they can have a serious tone to but this all needs to be tempered by not loosing sight of the fact that you are still telling a story about a grown man wearing tights so stop trying to make them something they aren't. Citizen Kane they ain't and don't need to be to justify their existence.


Although I feel I should point out not all comic books are about superheroes. I know when people use the term comicbook thats what springs to mind but there are a lot of different types of comic out there and as a comic reader I always feel I have to remind people of this.

Its like Scott McCloud says in Understanding Comics - one of the main problems with comics is the negative connotations the word itself has. So when people go and see something crap like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen they'll probably dismiss it with a sort of 'oh well, what do you expect from a comic book movie' attitude, which is sad because the comic is far more sophisticated and intelligent than the movie. The real problem with the movie is its pure crass dumb 'Hollywoodness', not its 'comicbookyness' if you know what I mean.

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 42
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 14/1/2013 8:51:02 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: scary_ice

Completely agree with pretty much everything Don has said here. The fight scenes in all the Nolan Batman movies were pretty unmemorable, and I'm worried that The Man of Steel will suffer from this seriousness overload too.

This already happened in comics with Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns in the 80's and suddenly everyone was making their superheroes 'dark' i.e. brooding and tortured, and this trend became boring very quickly.

I think that's why I enjoyed Avengers so much, because it was just a funny, exciting blockbuster that actually seemed to be enjoying itself!


I have no problems with Nolan to be honest (although his fans do scare me somewhat) and the direction he took the trilogy was something different which is always nice to see, He is competent when he sticks to what he does best which is character pieces but when will people realise the man is incapable of directing a decent action set piece or fight sequence. None of these scenes in the trilogy carries any sense of tension or excitement, which in a superhero movie is almost a cardinal sin as far as I am concerned. Nearly all his action pieces feel staid and lifeless. I've seen him bring nothing new, that has wowed me visually to this space in any of his movies. It's almost as if he can't wait to get then out the way so he can get back to his dark shadowy shots of his actors staring moodily into the distance. I'm not saying EVERY film needs to be chock filled with Bay-esque explosions and OTT action as you can have too much of a good thing (Transformers I'm looking at you) but to have no really memorable set pieces in almost 9 hours of film is pretty disappointing tbh.

As for your other point, I do realise there are other types of comic, I've read quite a few.

My point really was that I don't feel I have to apologise for liking comics or films which don't take themselves too seriously, some people seem to have the attitude that expecting a film to be fun\entertaining is a crime, an attitude that seems to have arisen almost as a direct result of the success of the Batman trilogy. Nolan has shown his disciples the way, being serious is cool and woe betide anyone for daring to disagree!

(in reply to scary_ice)
Post #: 43
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 15/1/2013 1:47:43 PM   
shool


Posts: 10144
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van

I've seen him bring nothing new, that has wowed me visually to this space in any of his movies.


I thought the hotel corridor fight sequence in Inception was pretty special. A VERY memorable action sequence for me.

I also think the truck chase in TDK was pretty good.


_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 44
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 15/1/2013 1:54:08 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7026
Joined: 18/11/2006
if you check nolan's bat movies, as well as donner's 'superman', you can see that even they recognised and sometimes embraced the absurd nature of the comic source material.

as a wise old,old time lord once said, i am serious about what i do but not about how i do it.

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 45
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 15/1/2013 2:11:04 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
When it comes to action scenes, I agree that in Batman Begins, a lot of the fight scenes were framed far too close, and there was too much cutting. Sometimes it worked (the first actual Batman scene, for example it was incredibly difficult to see what was going on, but I kind of thought that was the point because the scene was being shown from the point of view of the villains), but other times (like the fight between Bruce and... whoever Ken Watanabe's character actually was), it didn't work as well. It was still exciting, but there was a lot to be desired.
In The Dark Knight, the hand-to-hand fight scenes were still rather confusing but they did show a lot of improvement. The major setpieces (the chase, etc.) were pretty stunning, though.
Every action scene in both Inception and The Dark Knight Rises, though, I feel were perfectly framed, paced, and cut. You can really tell that he has been learning how to shoot action as he goes along, and the improvements from Begins to Rises are stunning.
No matter how good/bad the action scenes are, it doesn't actually take away from the movies as a whole to stop them all being among my favourites, though. Just thought I'd prove to some people that I can be critical, even with my admiration of the films.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 46
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 15/1/2013 3:04:42 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 4/3/2012
I guess one thing to keep in mind about the action sequences is nolan actually shoots them himself and there is no second unit director. Most blockbusters, all the cool action bits arent shot by the actual director. As Nolan said in an interview i read, why sign up to direct an action film if you're not going to direct any of the action scenes. So while he has been rough in the past you can see him grow and develop and generally get better as he goes along.

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 47
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 15/1/2013 4:30:25 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007
Ok I can somewhat agree to both points. Yes he does seem to be getting better with each film. Inception was definately better but with the caveat that it didn't really show me anything new, the corridor and "gravity" scenes had been done much better, almost a decade ago in the Matrix. TDK was better again but still not great. I'll give him credit for giving it a go but is this a case of his ego getting in the way a bit? Other directors know when to hand over the reigns for action scenes because they know their are other people who are good at it.

I'd have prefered Nolan to do this and get it right, rather than use one the biggest superhero trilogies in ages as his personal playground to learn how to shoot action on the job when he could have learnt just as much watching someone else do it. It's a huge part of the puzzle that is missing from the trilogy which prevents them from being elevated to classic status for me. Let's be honest he'd have still got the credit for it and the films might not have seemed so staid or up themselves if he'd managed to nail those scenes.

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 48
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 16/1/2013 1:41:03 AM   
giggity

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 4/3/2012
i dont think its so much ego as it was something he genuinely wanted to do. If he wanted to do an action film then what would be the point if he didnt direct the action? It's the same as saying you want to go to disneyland and then not going on any rides.

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 49
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 16/1/2013 9:57:11 AM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

i dont think its so much ego as it was something he genuinely wanted to do. If he wanted to do an action film then what would be the point if he didnt direct the action? It's the same as saying you want to go to disneyland and then not going on any rides.


I've got no issue with him wanting to try his hand at it, I just wish he'd done it on his own time rather than learning the ropes while shooting Batman. Besides other directors know when to hand over the reigns. In the aforementioned Matrix, the revolutionary (at the time) and amazing "bullet time" sequences weren't actually the product of the Wachowski brothers at all, they just new well enough to place their trust in their very talented effects and stunt teams.

Using your Disneyland analogy, they don't let people of less than a certain height go on all the rides as it's dangerous, at that point you can throw a tantrum at how unfair it is that you aren't allowed to get on the ride or you can say fair enough, I'll come back next year. I'd say at that point, Nolan just wasn't "tall enough" to take on directing the action scenes for Batman but he went on the ride anyway.

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 50
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 16/1/2013 10:28:26 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7026
Joined: 18/11/2006
remember nolan is a bond fan and the best moments of classic bond were directed by 2nd unit guys like john glen and albert wooster.
and it is the editing that dictates pace of a fight scene, not how it is filmed. something nolan may have learned from peter hunt.

< Message edited by spark1 -- 16/1/2013 1:24:04 PM >

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 51
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 16/1/2013 11:57:48 AM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1895
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
The action in Nolan's Batman films enacted the themes of the films and reflected whoever Batman as fighting,and the acting performance in the fight scenes mattered to the whole film. Second unit action usually reflects that the performance of the actors and the action itself is necessary to the film sort of but doesn't really matter at all.The benefit of not using second unit is that there is better continuity between the non action bits and the action bits, because the vibe created in non action bits flows better into what is happening and why. It feels like things all belong in the film.

In Begins there are distinct ways of shooting the fights: Against those who he can walk over, the editing it like a flurry of blows, reflecting, for example in the 'goons in the docks' sequence, the direction and editing reflects the goons experience of not seeing where the blows are coming from. Whereas, when fighting Leeson's character the framing is different, Batman is more visible, and the direction is less frenetic. The direction of the action reflects the characters.

Similarly in TDK, when fighting those he can take easily, there's brutal speed to Batman knocking people down, almos tin passing contrasted with frustration and failure in the bits where he faces the joker, pounding on him to no avail.The acting performances whether talking or fighting remain consistent because the director directs both.

In TDKR, the 'character state of mind' based direction of the action reaches it's darkest when an immobile, almost unconscious Batman is framed in closeup, with the camera still, Bane's fist thudding into his mask until it cracks. This moment has particular thematic, symbolic and emotional weight to carry in it's moment and for the trilogy.

Second unit direction of the kind of action Nolan put in the films would have made the action look and feel different, but Nolan's approach to the action wasn't to make people go wow, but to create the feeling of how it felt to be those characters in those moments. Batman knocking people over like skittles first time out, enduring against the Joker, and then broken. The action was so integral to the story being told and so rooted in character that second unit direction of the action wouldn't have allowed Nolan the level of directorial control he wanted over how the films FEEL. It's not old school Bond type action where it's a sideshow to the narrative during which the narrative waits for the action to be over.The action is just a part of the whole narrative and the state of play for characters changes during it. Which is more or less why a director like Nolan would want to direct it himself.

Are all hischoices perfectly executed? No, but I think I prefer the occasional noble failure to the all bullshit you can end up with when the action and the character interaction are constructed as separate elements, by people with different professional, imagination and intellectual prioities then edited together.

And Charlie Brooker is a professional piss taker. So it's best not to believe even HE believes everything he says. It's also best to remember who he works for. A broadcaster with a very high level of self regard that doesn't exactly want to encourage people to not watch television (which is the reason you wont be seeing, for example, programmes looking at how complex and emotionally engaging and morally cloudy in a genuinely adult way some computer games are on that channel,because it would encourage people to do things that mean people might spend tens of hours not getting their entertainment from the BBC and discovering that the BBC isn't really 'the best at everything' that it promotes itself as being).

The generalisation that film x is too whatever and film y is just for kids is arse biscuit material. Real people can veer between escapism and silliness and harder, heavier material whenever they want, if they aren't too influenced by whatever people say to just do what they want. Blazing Saddles one night, maybe Inland Empire the next, that's me. Whatever,whenever, my choice,because I'm not a robot who has decided what works best for me and shunning everything else as 'for plebs' or whatever.

Charlie Brooker can be very funny. And even if I like the things he rips on, I can still laugh at the things he says. And anyway, historically, superhero films, comics etc, fantasy too, rise to be more prominent when there aren't any real heroes and people get tired of cunts trying to tell them what to do and think. No real heroes= the rise of fictional ones.So maybe super hero films being so prominent right now is a reflection of something bigger than the focus placed upon it by someone who has established himself as a professional hater of popular culture so firmly that he's actually being completely absorbed into it

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 16/1/2013 12:49:14 PM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 52
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 16/1/2013 3:32:22 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007
Good post jobloffski, even though I don't agree with all of it

I understand perfectly what Nolan was trying to do in trying to tie in the emotions of the characters involved into the action sequences which I applaud, an action set piece is ALWAYS better when you have emotional involvement or you can connect with the characters in some way. My problem however was more to do with the execution. I just didn't get the jitters\excitement\tension that a good action set piece usually gives me, they just don't POP for me which means they end up feeling very flat. In other superhero\action movies I am usually waiting for the talkie bits to be done with so we can get back to the thrill ride call me shallow :)), stange that in this trilogy it was the reverse and I was almost willing the bad action to finish so I could get back to the more interesting talkie bits.

I want my action to entertain me on a visual level as well as an emotional one, film IS a primarily visual medium after all so while I agree his intentions might have been noble, I just don't think he had the experience to pull it off. Hopefully this trilogy and Inception would have taught him a lot. It's strange as a lot of his visualisation and camera work in the slower parts of the film are very good so he definately seems to have a good eye for what works, strange that he seems incapable of transfering that to scenes which require more energy.

Completely agree with you on CB though, his whole point IS to get a reaction as that's exactly how he makes his money, in fact many people in the public media are exactly the same, it's amazing how many people don't seem to realise that and take them far too seriously.

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 53
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 16/1/2013 3:40:24 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4403
Joined: 5/2/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

The action in Nolan's Batman films enacted the themes of the films and reflected whoever Batman as fighting,and the acting performance in the fight scenes mattered to the whole film. Second unit action usually reflects that the performance of the actors and the action itself is necessary to the film sort of but doesn't really matter at all.The benefit of not using second unit is that there is better continuity between the non action bits and the action bits, because the vibe created in non action bits flows better into what is happening and why. It feels like things all belong in the film.

In Begins there are distinct ways of shooting the fights: Against those who he can walk over, the editing it like a flurry of blows, reflecting, for example in the 'goons in the docks' sequence, the direction and editing reflects the goons experience of not seeing where the blows are coming from. Whereas, when fighting Leeson's character the framing is different, Batman is more visible, and the direction is less frenetic. The direction of the action reflects the characters.

Similarly in TDK, when fighting those he can take easily, there's brutal speed to Batman knocking people down, almos tin passing contrasted with frustration and failure in the bits where he faces the joker, pounding on him to no avail.The acting performances whether talking or fighting remain consistent because the director directs both.

In TDKR, the 'character state of mind' based direction of the action reaches it's darkest when an immobile, almost unconscious Batman is framed in closeup, with the camera still, Bane's fist thudding into his mask until it cracks. This moment has particular thematic, symbolic and emotional weight to carry in it's moment and for the trilogy.

Second unit direction of the kind of action Nolan put in the films would have made the action look and feel different, but Nolan's approach to the action wasn't to make people go wow, but to create the feeling of how it felt to be those characters in those moments. Batman knocking people over like skittles first time out, enduring against the Joker, and then broken. The action was so integral to the story being told and so rooted in character that second unit direction of the action wouldn't have allowed Nolan the level of directorial control he wanted over how the films FEEL. It's not old school Bond type action where it's a sideshow to the narrative during which the narrative waits for the action to be over.The action is just a part of the whole narrative and the state of play for characters changes during it. Which is more or less why a director like Nolan would want to direct it himself.

Are all hischoices perfectly executed? No, but I think I prefer the occasional noble failure to the all bullshit you can end up with when the action and the character interaction are constructed as separate elements, by people with different professional, imagination and intellectual prioities then edited together.

And Charlie Brooker is a professional piss taker. So it's best not to believe even HE believes everything he says. It's also best to remember who he works for. A broadcaster with a very high level of self regard that doesn't exactly want to encourage people to not watch television (which is the reason you wont be seeing, for example, programmes looking at how complex and emotionally engaging and morally cloudy in a genuinely adult way some computer games are on that channel,because it would encourage people to do things that mean people might spend tens of hours not getting their entertainment from the BBC and discovering that the BBC isn't really 'the best at everything' that it promotes itself as being).

The generalisation that film x is too whatever and film y is just for kids is arse biscuit material. Real people can veer between escapism and silliness and harder, heavier material whenever they want, if they aren't too influenced by whatever people say to just do what they want. Blazing Saddles one night, maybe Inland Empire the next, that's me. Whatever,whenever, my choice,because I'm not a robot who has decided what works best for me and shunning everything else as 'for plebs' or whatever.

Charlie Brooker can be very funny. And even if I like the things he rips on, I can still laugh at the things he says. And anyway, historically, superhero films, comics etc, fantasy too, rise to be more prominent when there aren't any real heroes and people get tired of cunts trying to tell them what to do and think. No real heroes= the rise of fictional ones.So maybe super hero films being so prominent right now is a reflection of something bigger than the focus placed upon it by someone who has established himself as a professional hater of popular culture so firmly that he's actually being completely absorbed into it


Agree.

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 54
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 10:10:27 AM   
Dave Oz

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/5/2010
I'm a bit of a Brooker fan, but I don't think he completely "gets" movies (which is even more strange considering he writes decent television scripts). He seems to apply the criteria he uses to judge the worth of, for example, dodgy news reporting with what a film should be. It's a bit strange because someone as clearly as astute as Brooker, you'd think he'd have read a book or two on cinema. Case in point, in last weeks Weekly Wipe he starts having a go at 'Django Unchained'. He couldn't seem to wrap his head around the depiction of violence and the way in which slavery was handled in the film, which is fair enough, but what did he expect in a Tarantino film; a touching character study?

< Message edited by Dave Oz -- 10/2/2013 10:12:19 AM >

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 55
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 11:36:47 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7026
Joined: 18/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dave Oz

I'm a bit of a Brooker fan, but I don't think he completely "gets" movies (which is even more strange considering he writes decent television scripts). He seems to apply the criteria he uses to judge the worth of, for example, dodgy news reporting with what a film should be. It's a bit strange because someone as clearly as astute as Brooker, you'd think he'd have read a book or two on cinema. Case in point, in last weeks Weekly Wipe he starts having a go at 'Django Unchained'. He couldn't seem to wrap his head around the depiction of violence and the way in which slavery was handled in the film, which is fair enough, but what did he expect in a Tarantino film; a touching character study?



actually charlie did not get that 'django' is not about slavery but quentin raiding movie genres again.
though his 'film review' bit in 'wipe' is may be a piss take of the current 'film 2013'.

(in reply to Dave Oz)
Post #: 56
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 12:45:06 PM   
Dave Oz

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/5/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dave Oz

I'm a bit of a Brooker fan, but I don't think he completely "gets" movies (which is even more strange considering he writes decent television scripts). He seems to apply the criteria he uses to judge the worth of, for example, dodgy news reporting with what a film should be. It's a bit strange because someone as clearly as astute as Brooker, you'd think he'd have read a book or two on cinema. Case in point, in last weeks Weekly Wipe he starts having a go at 'Django Unchained'. He couldn't seem to wrap his head around the depiction of violence and the way in which slavery was handled in the film, which is fair enough, but what did he expect in a Tarantino film; a touching character study?



actually charlie did not get that 'django' is not about slavery but quentin raiding movie genres again.
though his 'film review' bit in 'wipe' is may be a piss take of the current 'film 2013'.


Okay, so I did not get that. Probably a bit subtle for me, lol!

But he plays it so straight, without a hint of irony.

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 57
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 4:28:54 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van

I think Nolan did take it too far the other way. Sure I think he got the characterisation spot on but in doing so he has removed any sense of fun to be had from a slightly deranged person who dresses up as a bat.



Precisely. This was Brooker's entire point. I enjoy Nolan's Batman films as much as the next girl, but given that they are quite literally about a rich man who fights cartoon criminals dressed as a big bat, the terribly serious tone IS ridiculous. Picture a film noir version of Superted and you might see what he means.

Brooker is an absolute genius. He is the god of relentless cynicism, scathing reviews and ascerbic comment. I have worshipped at his altar since he described Susan Boyle as looking like "a cross between a 1970s Soviet president and a haunted tree", a description so imaginative and yet cruelly accurate that I nearly choked to death on my own laughter. The man is not "over-hyped" - he has earned it all. Thank fuck for broadcasters like Charlie Brooker.


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 58
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 4:50:41 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo
Picture a film noir version of Superted and you might see what he means.


I have and holy shit, I want to see that now!

quote:

Brooker is an absolute genius. He is the god of relentless cynicism, scathing reviews and ascerbic comment. I have worshipped at his altar since he described Susan Boyle as looking like "a cross between a 1970s Soviet president and a haunted tree", a description so imaginative and yet cruelly accurate that I nearly choked to death on my own laughter. The man is not "over-hyped" - he has earned it all. Thank fuck for broadcasters like Charlie Brooker.


Yup.

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 59
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 4:53:00 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4403
Joined: 5/2/2012



quote:


Brooker is an absolute genius.





Yeah,praise the lord for producing grumpy,cynical twats like Charlie Brooker.

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125