@Lvenger said: Seriously there are good reasons for disputing this premise. Your Nolan fanboyism is laughably obvious for one. Two, it was the gritty realism that isolates Nolan's films from more comic booky films. Third, it's far from the most creatively comic book franchise as it's down to subjectivism. Fourthly, Bale's depiction of Batman was awful. More like Maguire's Spider-Man. So yeah that's destroyed your pathetic little argument as to how I can be a Batman fan and not be on board with all of Nolan's films. Nice try though but better luck next time with your awful whining
So, allow me then counselor - your 'serious' reasons for drawing doubt upon my well warranted statements amount to your four points of contention listed here along with your favorite cynic and a poorly written blog? Goodness - your honor we the defense cannot rest as the burden has been met by the state so empirically! But allow me to parlay some small points before you sentence my client to a lifetime of listening the to the prattle of the delusional;
1 If support for a Director with a proven track record of providing films which satisfy the general public and the niche market which forms its capital bearing base is to be defined as 'fanboyism' then we plead guilty though we find it funny that anyone on a comic site built for opinions on the same would use the word in a pejorative manner. ** In case this isn't clear I'm calling you ridiculous for calling anyone a 'fanboy' particularly when your icon on this site is a newly released image of none other than Superman drawn by Jim Lee.
2 That same gritty realism hasn't isolated anyone according to box office numbers nor fans of my own kin whom find it to be as true to the character as any film adaptation might aspire to accomplish. And given that I'm fairly certain I've been reading Batman longer than you've had itches in your pants - I'm not terribly concerned with your obviously less informed opinion.
3/4 If interpretation of the films by any objective means isn't your forte (READ: how much money they gross, their robust critical rating off of any web site, number of sequels etc..) then why would you make this faux pas of telling me everything is too muddied by relativist milieus AND then throwing tomatoes at Bale's acting ability? Make up your damn mind, boy.
Your two videos you posted indicate that you've established some objectively good reasons as to why the Nolan films are poor as cinematic examples of achievement - but you haven't established anything! Amazing! Instead your cynical two videos are similar to your own self-absorbed blog whereby you attempt to blast everyone else for the films not getting the creative thumbs up from you before being cast in the film - which is laughable. Are you some sort of Director in super secret disguise - managing to barely hold these forum discussions before whisking out to prevent cinematic injustice?? Sounds like a life of intrigue and danger. YOUR subjective impressions of the Bat mythos are what leave you at the altar - not everyone else's. And what's more is that you have turned a bold face lie into a self-induced reality as you REFUSE to listen to the objective indicators that this film is the best thing for the Bat mythos that could have been hoped for while being mass marketed to the general audience. So I tell you what Spielberg - next time, just go steal the script yourself and make your own film. I have money that says you don't do quite the job that industry professionals are paid to do it in.