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 - 10/2/2013 5:00:36 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


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.


Strongly disagree. Having a serious tone enables Nolan's trilogy to get to the heart of vigilantism. Just because the concept on the surface is absurd, why must this automatically mean that it's not worthy of being approached seriously? There's room for both light-hearted fun & grounded seriousness in the superhero genre. I get really irritated by the position that they can only be the former. It's completely disingenuous to some of the many ideas behind their construction - whether that's comic books or something live-action.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo

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.



That however I can agree with.



_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 61
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 5:06:54 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:


Brooker is an absolute genius.





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


Okay, granted, "genius" was hyperbole. But he's not just grumpy and cynical; he is a very witty and smart writer and presenter who is unafraid to point out all the hypocritical bullshit in our culture. We need people like that. What he says is almost always on the mark. And he is funny as fuck.

_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 62
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 5:22:48 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4380
Joined: 5/2/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:


Brooker is an absolute genius.





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


Okay, granted, "genius" was hyperbole. But he's not just grumpy and cynical; he is a very witty and smart writer and presenter who is unafraid to point out all the hypocritical bullshit in our culture. We need people like that. What he says is almost always on the mark. And he is funny as fuck.


I personally think he's gone beyond funny/witty.
He's,for me,gone into a territory of being shock offensive for that sake and some of his criticisms of people appearances and well being just does not sit right with me,especially when its ironic that he criticized the DailyMail of doing precisely that in his earlier publications.Pot calling the kettle black.

So,yeah I've gone off Mr Brooker quite alot.


< Message edited by OPEN YOUR EYES -- 10/2/2013 5:30:07 PM >

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 63
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 5:36:35 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

Strongly disagree. Having a serious tone enables Nolan's trilogy to get to the heart of vigilantism. Just because the concept on the surface is absurd, why must this automatically mean that it's not worthy of being approached seriously? There's room for both light-hearted fun & grounded seriousness in the superhero genre. I get really irritated by the position that they can only be the former. It's completely disingenuous to some of the many ideas behind their construction - whether that's comic hooks or something live-action.



Fair enough if you can look past the "absurd surface", but I find it difficult to take a film about a man-bat flapping around fighting crime too seriously, just as I would a gritty filmic exploration of Rod Hull and Emu in the Big Pink Windmill as a means to analyse split-personality disorder.

I'm not saying it's wrong, or that there's no room for seriousness or darkness in comic adaptations (I love a darker tone). I just struggle to think of the world of Batman as grittily realistic and I think this is what jars with people like Charlie Brooker. It's difficult for us to reconcile a heavy, moody, philosophical tone with a premise as farcical as a man-bat. I don't know how else to explain it!

Like all film, in the end it comes down to personal taste. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong.


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 64
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 5:40:33 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

He's,for me,gone into a territory of being shock offensive for that sake and some of his criticisms of people appearances and well being just does not sit right with me,especially when its ironic that he criticized the DailyMail of doing precisely that in his earlier publications.Pot calling the kettle black.



Really? I don't see that at all. Shock offensive?? Like what??

_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 65
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 5:52:58 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


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.


Strongly disagree. Having a serious tone enables Nolan's trilogy to get to the heart of vigilantism. Just because the concept on the surface is absurd, why must this automatically mean that it's not worthy of being approached seriously? There's room for both light-hearted fun & grounded seriousness in the superhero genre. I get really irritated by the position that they can only be the former. It's completely disingenuous to some of the many ideas behind their construction - whether that's comic books or something live-action.



I find this quite an interesting statement. Is it not actually doing a disservice to an absurd concept by not treating it as something absurd? You wouldn't approach a serious subject with a flippant and lighthearted tone after all.

The only real statement* that Nolan's Batfilms make about vigilantism is 'only slightly crazy people would do that' (a pretty shallow observation to be honest), and it's arguably quite irresponsible to entertain that idea without recognising its own slight ludicrousness. A film like Super produces essentially the same commentary but treats it with the absurdity that an absurd concept requires. The Dark Knight Returns was intended as a very very dark comedy. Grant Morrison/Dave McKean's Arkham Asylum made Batman's 'craziness' the main theme and got the tone right as well (a sort of halfway point between psychological horror and absurdist comedy). Also compare to X-Men 2 for instance, where ideas about social exclusion and political extremism - which are actually embedded into the fabric of the original concept, rather than conjured out of nowhere a la The Dark Knight Rises's political subtext - are treated with the seriousness they deserve.



(*beyond the usual responsibility stuff and that, which has been covered by pretty much every action movie ever.)

< Message edited by Olaf -- 10/2/2013 5:53:53 PM >


_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 66
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 6:04:46 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4380
Joined: 5/2/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

He's,for me,gone into a territory of being shock offensive for that sake and some of his criticisms of people appearances and well being just does not sit right with me,especially when its ironic that he criticized the DailyMail of doing precisely that in his earlier publications.Pot calling the kettle black.



Really? I don't see that at all. Shock offensive?? Like what??


Shock offensive was an over exaggeration,ironically.

Concerning the whole Batman thing,personally it really is depandant on what you take out of the film.
People like its serious,dark tones (and obvious underground metaphors) and others dont.I really dont have a problem with Nolans Bat franchise and I really don't take them as realism seriously as SOME fans or the director himself takes them.I think his take on Batman was none the less fresh and original.It was just the other side of the coin to other comic character related adaptions.
But I would find it slightly annoying if others went down a similiar route,but that has yet to happen.

OFF-TOPIC:
One of the best comic character adaptions for me are the first two Blade films,which I think hit the mark perfectly interms of the character,gothic visuals and the general mood and being really entertaining.



< Message edited by OPEN YOUR EYES -- 10/2/2013 6:25:50 PM >

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 67
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 6:28:15 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


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!



I think the idea has got legs. The name 'Superted' isn't moody enough though. I suggest simply 'Edward'. Or something obliquely arty like 'Kafka's Nostril'.

_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 68
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 6:42:03 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
The key message of the Nolan films is "Being Batman is a not a good idea".

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 69
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 10/2/2013 9:16:54 PM   
Magneto

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 1/7/2012
From: Scotland
I'd pump Konnie Huq.

That's all I have to add on this matter.

_____________________________

In chess the pawns go first.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 70
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 1:39:02 AM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own
Thank you for that searing insight. What a valuable contribution.

< Message edited by Cloud Cuckoo -- 11/2/2013 2:48:10 AM >


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Magneto)
Post #: 71
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 11:30:57 AM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
If you don't want to see a dark and gritty superhero movie, Batman is not for you. Simple as that. Batman has been dark and gritty since the late 80's, and that's the tone relevant to his character.
If you want fun and witty, then there's the output from Marvel, which is evidently more thing.

Myself, I think both approaches are equally valid, but if they were reversed (dark and gritty Iron Man and fun and witty Batman) it wouldn't work at all, because it's wrong for the specific character.

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 72
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 3:08:22 PM   
Dave Oz

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/5/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

If you don't want to see a dark and gritty superhero movie, Batman is not for you. Simple as that. Batman has been dark and gritty since the late 80's, and that's the tone relevant to his character.
If you want fun and witty, then there's the output from Marvel, which is evidently more thing.

Myself, I think both approaches are equally valid, but if they were reversed (dark and gritty Iron Man and fun and witty Batman) it wouldn't work at all, because it's wrong for the specific character.


Yes, post-Frank Miller's 'Year One' the character (across the main two Batman titles) has been steeped in the shadows. That's not to dismiss the decades of camp up until the beginning of the 70s, but we've seen what an attempt to lighten the mood achieved with 'Batman and Robin' in 1997. I do think something like 'Iron Man' isn't completely jovial and light, but lets be honest, we love to see Batman brooding in the darkness, being a bit of a hard-ass, and generally being no-nonsense. I guess it all depends on the tone of a potential adaptation of the Batman universe. You could argue the animated series from the 90s was kid-friendly, but then you definitely couldn't accuse it of being in 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin' territory.

< Message edited by Dave Oz -- 11/2/2013 3:09:11 PM >

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 73
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 4:28:09 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

If you don't want to see a dark and gritty superhero movie, Batman is not for you. Simple as that. Batman has been dark and gritty since the late 80's, and that's the tone relevant to his character.
If you want fun and witty, then there's the output from Marvel, which is evidently more thing.

Myself, I think both approaches are equally valid, but if they were reversed (dark and gritty Iron Man and fun and witty Batman) it wouldn't work at all, because it's wrong for the specific character.


I have absolutely no problem with Batman being dark and gritty, it IS the right tone for a Batman movie as the narrative and the character is dark in nature. What I have an objection to is Nolan's insistence that it be ultra realistic too. This IMO is not right as it completely removes some of the important fantasy elements that also make the Batman universe appealing so what you end up with is a cop movie which also happens to have a guy who wears a mask in it for a bit. In Nolan's universe, Gotham is not Gotham, the batmobile is turned into an awful militarised SUV and you loose the magic that makes that universe uniqu. I'm not even going to mention the fact that this ultra realistic approach makes a mockery of any future JLA hookup.

The other problem I have with this dark and gritty approach is that now that the Bat's trilogy has been a financial success, EVERY frikkin new film HAS to adopt this approach as Hollywood execs aren't intelligent enough to now when that approach is or isn't appropriate. I think of it as the new "shaky cam" another gimmick which became all the rage a few years ago and which we are now plagued with so that every other movie gives me a headache due to the fact that they just can't keep the camera still. Dark and gritty IS the new shaky cam.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 74
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 4:36:13 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4380
Joined: 5/2/2012

quote:




The other problem I have with this dark and gritty approach is that now that the Bat's trilogy has been a financial success, EVERY frikkin new film HAS to adopt this approach as Hollywood execs aren't intelligent enough to now when that approach is or isn't appropriate.


What on earth are you on about.

edit: I would go as far as to say that Burtons films were far more gritty and dark than that of Nolans trilogy.


< Message edited by OPEN YOUR EYES -- 11/2/2013 4:39:41 PM >

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 75
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 4:41:04 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
The first time I've ever seen anything negative written about the Tumbler. Really? You think it's awful?
My favourite Batman stories have always been the ones with minimal fantasy elements... I just see Batman as more realistic generally, because of his lack of superpowers, and every time there's a story with fantasy elements in the comics or cartoons, it just seems seriously out of place. When he's just being a highly skilled detective/martial artist in a costume fighting crime, that's when I think Batman is at its best. That's why among my favourite Batman stories are the ones written by Jeph Loeb and Scott Snyder. Apart from one issue of The Black Mirror, that's a completely down to earth mystery story, and the same goes for The Long Halloween. The Dark Knight Trilogy took that concept and ran with it, and ended up being the purest form of what Batman is for me. It's not completely realistic... there's no way the Bat in TDKR would fly, for instance. In fact out of all three movies, the only one that didn't have a comic book feel throughout was The Dark Knight. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises were both far more outlandish... only difference was they all took place in a real world. And thank God for that, because the rest of the DC Universe is pretty stupid by comparison.

Also, not every movie is going for a dark and gritty style. Out of all of the comic book movies released this decade, there has been a grand total of one that can be described that way, and that's the Batman one. The new Spider-Man takes place in a more grounded reality than the first trilogy, but it was a fairly light-hearted film, despite some of the emo angsting. Same goes with X-Men: First Class, which was produced by Bryan Singer, and Singer's X-Men films have always taken place in a grounded reality, so that's not the Batman influence.

All of the rest have reveled in their sense of humour, and colourfulness. It seems to me that Warner Bros., Disney, Sony and Fox all know exactly the right tone for their respective superhero franchises, and this is why they've all been so successful over the last few years.

< Message edited by AxlReznor -- 11/2/2013 4:43:01 PM >

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 76
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 4:44:33 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

If you don't want to see a dark and gritty superhero movie, Batman is not for you. Simple as that. Batman has been dark and gritty since the late 80's, and that's the tone relevant to his character.
If you want fun and witty, then there's the output from Marvel, which is evidently more thing.

Myself, I think both approaches are equally valid, but if they were reversed (dark and gritty Iron Man and fun and witty Batman) it wouldn't work at all, because it's wrong for the specific character.


I have absolutely no problem with Batman being dark and gritty, it IS the right tone for a Batman movie as the narrative and the character is dark in nature. What I have an objection to is Nolan's insistence that it be ultra realistic too. This IMO is not right as it completely removes some of the important fantasy elements that also make the Batman universe appealing so what you end up with is a cop movie which also happens to have a guy who wears a mask in it for a bit. In Nolan's universe, Gotham is not Gotham, the batmobile is turned into an awful militarised SUV and you loose the magic that makes that universe unique.


Well said, I agree with this wholeheartedly. I enjoy Nolan's vision but ultra realism is to the detriment of Gotham and its colourful inhabitants. The more fantastical elements become silly rather than enjoyable.


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 77
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 5:31:53 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

If you don't want to see a dark and gritty superhero movie, Batman is not for you. Simple as that. Batman has been dark and gritty since the late 80's, and that's the tone relevant to his character.
If you want fun and witty, then there's the output from Marvel, which is evidently more thing.

Myself, I think both approaches are equally valid, but if they were reversed (dark and gritty Iron Man and fun and witty Batman) it wouldn't work at all, because it's wrong for the specific character.


My problem is the words 'dark' and 'gritty' being joined at the hip. Grant Morrison's work on Batman in the last decade has been often incredibly dark, but it's been shot through with a healthy dose of sci-fi surrealism (see also the weird places the character was going in at the start of the 70s despite being quite grim storylines).

'Dark' is relevant to the character (he's the Dark Knight after all). But 'gritty' isn't a requirement for me personally, which is why the Silver Age stuff and the creative successors to that more heightened style (Morrison, Moore etc) interests me way more than stuff like The Long Halloween. I *still* maintain that The Dark Knight Returns isn't meant to be gritty at all, and while I actually love Year One, the bulk of it isn't really a Batman story at all for me - you could write the same story about a random vigilante and it'd be the same. though it's quite clever on the part of Miller to focus on the most (only?) down-to-earth aspect of what makes Batman Batman, ie his relationship with Gordon, which is why it's the only 'gritty' take on Batman that really works for me.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 78
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 5:43:19 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4380
Joined: 5/2/2012
Dark and Gritty:link
I wouldn't want to see Batman rolling around in this.

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 79
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 6:05:59 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007
Interesting debate, I guess many people enjoyed Nolan's tone as the trilogy was an undoubted success but I'm glad a few seem to agree that by making them in this fashion, he has removed some of the magic. I have to say the ultra realistic tone doesn't work for me. It's a story about a man who dresses up as a Bat to take on larger than life villians, you've already blown realism out of the water with that alone tbh, not to mention that Batman is part of the much larger DC universe which includes many superpowered hereos and villians, many of whom have played a prominent role in Batman stories.

Nolan has basically ignored all of ths extended universe by clapping his hands over his ears and shouting "la la la, I'm not listening" very loudly which to me at least makes it very jarring because as a long time follower, you KNOW those elements are their. I'm not for one minute saying that Batman and Robin is the right answer either as that film definately goes too far into camp\silly territory but there is a happy balance to be found and Nolan's insistence on completely ignoring the fantastical elements isn't the right answer either IMO. Just a shame that no director seems to have got that balance right till now IMO.


(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 80
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 6:47:16 PM   
Dave Oz

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 12/5/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van

Interesting debate, I guess many people enjoyed Nolan's tone as the trilogy was an undoubted success but I'm glad a few seem to agree that by making them in this fashion, he has removed some of the magic. I have to say the ultra realistic tone doesn't work for me. It's a story about a man who dresses up as a Bat to take on larger than life villians, you've already blown realism out of the water with that alone tbh, not to mention that Batman is part of the much larger DC universe which includes many superpowered hereos and villians, many of whom have played a prominent role in Batman stories.

Nolan has basically ignored all of ths extended universe by clapping his hands over his ears and shouting "la la la, I'm not listening" very loudly which to me at least makes it very jarring because as a long time follower, you KNOW those elements are their. I'm not for one minute saying that Batman and Robin is the right answer either as that film definately goes too far into camp\silly territory but there is a happy balance to be found and Nolan's insistence on completely ignoring the fantastical elements isn't the right answer either IMO. Just a shame that no director seems to have got that balance right till now IMO.


I'm eagerly awaiting the third take on the Batman mythos which rests nicely between the gothic fantasy of Burton and the almost jarring realism (albeit rather cool) of Nolan's Batman. Very excited!

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 81
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 6:51:51 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

If you don't want to see a dark and gritty superhero movie, Batman is not for you. Simple as that. Batman has been dark and gritty since the late 80's, and that's the tone relevant to his character.
If you want fun and witty, then there's the output from Marvel, which is evidently more thing.

Myself, I think both approaches are equally valid, but if they were reversed (dark and gritty Iron Man and fun and witty Batman) it wouldn't work at all, because it's wrong for the specific character.


My problem is the words 'dark' and 'gritty' being joined at the hip. Grant Morrison's work on Batman in the last decade has been often incredibly dark, but it's been shot through with a healthy dose of sci-fi surrealism (see also the weird places the character was going in at the start of the 70s despite being quite grim storylines).

'Dark' is relevant to the character (he's the Dark Knight after all). But 'gritty' isn't a requirement for me personally, which is why the Silver Age stuff and the creative successors to that more heightened style (Morrison, Moore etc) interests me way more than stuff like The Long Halloween. I *still* maintain that The Dark Knight Returns isn't meant to be gritty at all, and while I actually love Year One, the bulk of it isn't really a Batman story at all for me - you could write the same story about a random vigilante and it'd be the same. though it's quite clever on the part of Miller to focus on the most (only?) down-to-earth aspect of what makes Batman Batman, ie his relationship with Gordon, which is why it's the only 'gritty' take on Batman that really works for me.


Okay... people who like any Silver Age comics have no hope.
Although, I do enjoy what Grant Morrison did with that stuff, making it all hallucinations as side-effects of prolonged exposure to the many gases and poisons he'd been exposed to, as well as an all-but-forgotten isolation experiment story. Was an interesting way to make all of that canon, and makes a frankly embarrassing period of comic book history far more grounded and realistic.

Also, if Frank Miller didn't intende The Dark Knight Returns to be gritty, he failed dramatically...

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 82
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 6:53:55 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van

Interesting debate, I guess many people enjoyed Nolan's tone as the trilogy was an undoubted success but I'm glad a few seem to agree that by making them in this fashion, he has removed some of the magic. I have to say the ultra realistic tone doesn't work for me. It's a story about a man who dresses up as a Bat to take on larger than life villians, you've already blown realism out of the water with that alone tbh, not to mention that Batman is part of the much larger DC universe which includes many superpowered hereos and villians, many of whom have played a prominent role in Batman stories.

Nolan has basically ignored all of ths extended universe by clapping his hands over his ears and shouting "la la la, I'm not listening" very loudly which to me at least makes it very jarring because as a long time follower, you KNOW those elements are their. I'm not for one minute saying that Batman and Robin is the right answer either as that film definately goes too far into camp\silly territory but there is a happy balance to be found and Nolan's insistence on completely ignoring the fantastical elements isn't the right answer either IMO. Just a shame that no director seems to have got that balance right till now IMO.




That alone is why I have no interest in the rest of the DC Universe. It just doesn't make sense to have non-superpowered heroes in a world with Superman.

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 83
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 7:05:06 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don_a_van

Interesting debate, I guess many people enjoyed Nolan's tone as the trilogy was an undoubted success but I'm glad a few seem to agree that by making them in this fashion, he has removed some of the magic. I have to say the ultra realistic tone doesn't work for me. It's a story about a man who dresses up as a Bat to take on larger than life villians, you've already blown realism out of the water with that alone tbh, not to mention that Batman is part of the much larger DC universe which includes many superpowered hereos and villians, many of whom have played a prominent role in Batman stories.

Nolan has basically ignored all of ths extended universe by clapping his hands over his ears and shouting "la la la, I'm not listening" very loudly which to me at least makes it very jarring because as a long time follower, you KNOW those elements are their. I'm not for one minute saying that Batman and Robin is the right answer either as that film definately goes too far into camp\silly territory but there is a happy balance to be found and Nolan's insistence on completely ignoring the fantastical elements isn't the right answer either IMO. Just a shame that no director seems to have got that balance right till now IMO.




Heaven forfend. My retinas are still recovering. I'd take Nolan's clinical uber realism over that paint shop explosion anyday.

I know it's not very fashionable any more but I did rather like Burton's gothic take, particularly his sequel - it suited the world well (and Michelle Pfeiffer will always be Catwoman for me). I would like to see a version a bit darker and more monstrous though, by someone, like Burton, with a great imagination and artistic sensibility. Too bad Guillermo Del Toro has already done Hellboy.


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Don_a_van)
Post #: 84
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 7:15:20 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4380
Joined: 5/2/2012
There is still time for Burton to finish his own Batman trilogy.
But,I think,deep down Burton has become either stale or immersed in commercialized mainstream fare,basically I think he's lost whatever egde he had.

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 85
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 7:37:32 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

If you don't want to see a dark and gritty superhero movie, Batman is not for you. Simple as that. Batman has been dark and gritty since the late 80's, and that's the tone relevant to his character.
If you want fun and witty, then there's the output from Marvel, which is evidently more thing.

Myself, I think both approaches are equally valid, but if they were reversed (dark and gritty Iron Man and fun and witty Batman) it wouldn't work at all, because it's wrong for the specific character.


My problem is the words 'dark' and 'gritty' being joined at the hip. Grant Morrison's work on Batman in the last decade has been often incredibly dark, but it's been shot through with a healthy dose of sci-fi surrealism (see also the weird places the character was going in at the start of the 70s despite being quite grim storylines).

'Dark' is relevant to the character (he's the Dark Knight after all). But 'gritty' isn't a requirement for me personally, which is why the Silver Age stuff and the creative successors to that more heightened style (Morrison, Moore etc) interests me way more than stuff like The Long Halloween. I *still* maintain that The Dark Knight Returns isn't meant to be gritty at all, and while I actually love Year One, the bulk of it isn't really a Batman story at all for me - you could write the same story about a random vigilante and it'd be the same. though it's quite clever on the part of Miller to focus on the most (only?) down-to-earth aspect of what makes Batman Batman, ie his relationship with Gordon, which is why it's the only 'gritty' take on Batman that really works for me.


Okay... people who like any Silver Age comics have no hope.
Although, I do enjoy what Grant Morrison did with that stuff, making it all hallucinations as side-effects of prolonged exposure to the many gases and poisons he'd been exposed to, as well as an all-but-forgotten isolation experiment story. Was an interesting way to make all of that canon, and makes a frankly embarrassing period of comic book history far more grounded and realistic.

Also, if Frank Miller didn't intende The Dark Knight Returns to be gritty, he failed dramatically...


To be honest, I'm a Marvel sort of guy since my childhood and they fared much better during the Silver Age artistically speaking (the first hundred or so issues of the Fantastic Four are probably better than any Batman book I've ever read, personally), so I think that's why my affections generally lie there. It makes me sad that the period's taken such a beating from fans since the Nolan films came out though, since the originality and creativity of a lot of those comics gets overlooked due to them being 'silly' or unrealistic. And Schumacher's Batman films aren't really accurate in terms of reproducing that for me, contrary to popular belief.

And I will argue this about TDKR to my death. I don't know how anyone can tell me it's a gritty story with a straight face, despite its sci-fi dystopia setting, obviously absurd social satire, deliberately exaggerated character designs (there's a reason David Mazzuchelli didn't do this one), giant Batmobile tank with a neck(!), fight scenes with bulky cannibalistic mutants who then switch sides and call themselves 'SOBs', dat Ronald Reagan and A GIANT FIGHT AT THE END BETWEEN BATMAN IN A MECHANICAL SUIT VS SUPERMAN

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 86
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 7:49:20 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
I hated that era of comics long before Nolan's take on it. Had no interest in Batman even as a child until I became one of the first in my class to see Burton's 89 film (I was like, 5 at the time, and we managed to get our hands on a pirated copy before it was released in cinemas). Now this Batman was cool. Not the fat man in a stupid costume from the TV show that my dad kept on trying to get to me to watch. To this day, the only thing about the 50's and 60's Batman that I can like is the Batmobile from the TV show. Everything else about it was awful.

I got The Black Casebook which compiles some of the Silver Age stories that Grant Morrison was drawing from for his run on Batman, and even if the stories themselves weren't awful, the writers make whoever wrote See Spot Run look like Tolstoy. (Caption: And then Batman reached out and grabbed a ledge, saving himself from the fall, Villain: Oh, no! Batman grabbed a ledge, saving himself from the fall!, Robin: Wow, Batman! You just grabbed a ledge, saving yourself from the fall!... I'm not even exaggerating... that was the quality of writing). Hell, I'd take Batman & Robin over the 50's and 60's...

Early Spider-Man and X-Men did tend to be a lot better than that, though, I agree. Never liked Fantastic Four.

< Message edited by AxlReznor -- 11/2/2013 7:50:11 PM >

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 87
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 7:51:22 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

And I will argue this about TDKR to my death. I don't know how anyone can tell me it's a gritty story with a straight face, despite its sci-fi dystopia setting, obviously absurd social satire, deliberately exaggerated character designs (there's a reason David Mazzuchelli didn't do this one), giant Batmobile tank with a neck(!), fight scenes with bulky cannibalistic mutants who then switch sides and call themselves 'SOBs', dat Ronald Reagan and A GIANT FIGHT AT THE END BETWEEN BATMAN IN A MECHANICAL SUIT VS SUPERMAN


Well no need to watch it now.

Spoiler warnings please.

_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 88
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 7:54:02 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

And I will argue this about TDKR to my death. I don't know how anyone can tell me it's a gritty story with a straight face, despite its sci-fi dystopia setting, obviously absurd social satire, deliberately exaggerated character designs (there's a reason David Mazzuchelli didn't do this one), giant Batmobile tank with a neck(!), fight scenes with bulky cannibalistic mutants who then switch sides and call themselves 'SOBs', dat Ronald Reagan and A GIANT FIGHT AT THE END BETWEEN BATMAN IN A MECHANICAL SUIT VS SUPERMAN


Well no need to watch it now.

Spoiler warnings please.


This is the comic book I'm referring to (The Dark Knight Returns). can't be having spoiler warnings on comic books published nearly thirty years ago.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 89
RE: Charlie Brooker and superhero films - 11/2/2013 7:54:24 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

And I will argue this about TDKR to my death. I don't know how anyone can tell me it's a gritty story with a straight face, despite its sci-fi dystopia setting, obviously absurd social satire, deliberately exaggerated character designs (there's a reason David Mazzuchelli didn't do this one), giant Batmobile tank with a neck(!), fight scenes with bulky cannibalistic mutants who then switch sides and call themselves 'SOBs', dat Ronald Reagan and A GIANT FIGHT AT THE END BETWEEN BATMAN IN A MECHANICAL SUIT VS SUPERMAN


Well no need to watch it now.

Spoiler warnings please.


It was written in the 80's, and is one of the best-known comic book stories in the world. There's got to be a statute of limitations on "spoilers"... especially in threads which discuss comics.

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 90
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

0.109