- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Christopher Nolan speaks on today's comic book movies
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:35 pm
quote:
Christopher Nolan attended the BAFTA: A Life In Pictures event in London tonight, and Deadline was there to report on some highlights. While speaking at the event, Nolan noted that he was given the “privilege and a luxury” of time when developing his Dark Knight Trilogy.
“That’s a privilege and a luxury that filmmakers aren’t afforded anymore,” Nolan said. “I think it was the last time that anyone was able to say to a studio, ‘I might do another one, but it will be four years’. There’s too much pressure on release schedules to let people do that now but creatively it’s a huge advantage. We had the privilege and advantage to develop as people and as storytellers and then bring the family back together,” he said.
Batman Begins came out in 2005, The Dark Knight in 2008, and then The Dark Knight Rises four years later in 2012. Those kinds of gaps are something you don’t see in the superhero world anymore. Studios are more concerned with cranking out sequel after sequel as quickly as possible. Just look at Batman v Superman. It came out last year and just this month we got its follow-up, Justice League.
Do you think that studios should go back to affording directors the privilege and luxury of time that Nolan was able to have for his Dark Knight Trilogy?
8
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:37 pm to RollTide1987
He had the privilege of making The Dark Knight Rises at his own convenience and it still sucked.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:42 pm to Marciano1
quote:
He had the privilege of making The Dark Knight Rises at his own convenience and it still sucked.
- Currently sitting at 87% on Rotten Tomatoes and 78/100 on Metacritic.
- On Rotten Tomatoes, its average critic score is a lofty 8.0/10.
- On IMDB it holds an 8.4/10 rating, good enough for #64 on the Top 250 list.
- It was listed as one of AFI's Top 10 movies of 2012.
- Was the 14th most critically acclaimed film of 2012 (according to CriticsTop10.com)
It has its flaws, yes, and I understand if you think it wasn't all that great. That's your opinion and I'm not going to hit you for it. But to say it sucked is a bit too much.
This post was edited on 12/1/17 at 8:46 pm
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:42 pm to Marciano1
quote:
He had the privilege of making The Dark Knight Rises at his own convenience and it still sucked.
Yes, but that doesn't make his point wrong
And compared to the average comic movie, it doesn't "suck"
This post was edited on 12/1/17 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:47 pm to RollTide1987
He seems to be talking about DC. None of the Marvel franchises had a director release a movie in back to back years. None of the Marvel directors has even done three movies yet.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:50 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
He seems to be talking about DC. None of the Marvel franchises had a director release a movie in back to back years.
This is true, but Marvel released Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers in a span of just four years. All six of those movies take place in the same universe. The Dark Knight Trilogy took place in the same universe and was filmed over a span of eight years.
Quite the difference.
And DC is now guilty of that, too, where they had five movies released in the span of four years.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:53 pm to RollTide1987
He didn’t have to deal with shared universes. His trilogy was self-contained and story/character-centric rather than trying to connect his stories to a bigger picture. Which made his three (yep.all three) films the greatest movies in superhero movie history.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:53 pm to RollTide1987
Maybe you can say Kevin Feige is overworked but the movies have been fairly consistent in quality. Favreau is the only director who worked on two of those movies.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:53 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
None of the Marvel franchises had a director release a movie in back to back years. None of the Marvel directors has even done three movies yet.
That could be a part of his point, not letting 1 director see things through with their trilogy or however many for a single character
Posted on 12/1/17 at 8:59 pm to lsutigersFTW
That's beside the point. Nolan is talking about the luxury of time, not the luxury of a self-contained universe. And while most of the films in the MCU are helmed by different directors, they all share many of the same production team. I feel like Nolan's point is, these films aren't as good as they could be because the cast and crew aren't allowed enough time to make the best movie possible.
Are they entertaining? Sure. But The Dark Knight Trilogy proved that comic book films can be more than just entertaining.
Are they entertaining? Sure. But The Dark Knight Trilogy proved that comic book films can be more than just entertaining.
This post was edited on 12/1/17 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:03 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
- Currently sitting at 87% on Rotten Tomatoes and 78/100 on Metacritic.
- On Rotten Tomatoes, its average critic score is a lofty 8.0/10.
- On IMDB it holds an 8.4/10 rating, good enough for #64 on the Top 250 list.
- It was listed as one of AFI's Top 10 movies of 2012.
- Was the 14th most critically acclaimed film of 2012 (according to CriticsTop10.com)
It has its flaws, yes, and I understand if you think it wasn't all that great. That's your opinion and I'm not going to hit you for it. But to say it sucked is a bit too much.
it was an abortion. most critics are afraid to shite on Nolan
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:07 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
- Currently sitting at 87% on Rotten Tomatoes and 78/100 on Metacritic.
- On Rotten Tomatoes, its average critic score is a lofty 8.0/10.
- On IMDB it holds an 8.4/10 rating, good enough for #64 on the Top 250 list.
- It was listed as one of AFI's Top 10 movies of 2012.
- Was the 14th most critically acclaimed film of 2012 (according to CriticsTop10.com)
Oh yes, RollTide's selective use of ratings to make a point. Here we go again.
NOW ratings matter...
This post was edited on 12/1/17 at 9:08 pm
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:09 pm to Carson123987
quote:
it was an abortion. most critics are afraid to shite on Nolan
And yet they did that with both The Prestige and Interstellar.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:12 pm to RollTide1987
Nolan would still have the "privilege of time" if he went up to Warner Bros. and said "I'd like to make 3 more Batman films over the next 8 years."
Do you think they would deny him???
Conversely, if Scott Derickson went to Marvel, even now, and said, "I'd like to make 3 Moon Knight films over the next 8 years," do you really think they'd green light that?
Additionally, Nolan helped shepherd a genre, this is what happens to culturally relevant genres. Westerns in the 40s and 50s? Slasher films in the 80s and 90s? When a genre becomes a cultural focus, people scramble to make films. This is nothing new.
Here is a list of Western films released during the 1940s:
LINK
I don't even want to count that list, but it's obviously over 100 films. That's averaging at least 9-10 films a year which is far above the superhero average even right now.
Do you think they would deny him???
Conversely, if Scott Derickson went to Marvel, even now, and said, "I'd like to make 3 Moon Knight films over the next 8 years," do you really think they'd green light that?
Additionally, Nolan helped shepherd a genre, this is what happens to culturally relevant genres. Westerns in the 40s and 50s? Slasher films in the 80s and 90s? When a genre becomes a cultural focus, people scramble to make films. This is nothing new.
Here is a list of Western films released during the 1940s:
LINK
I don't even want to count that list, but it's obviously over 100 films. That's averaging at least 9-10 films a year which is far above the superhero average even right now.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:13 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Oh yes, RollTide's selective use of ratings to make a point. Here we go again.
1. I'm using facts
2. While I haven't been as kind to the MCU as many of you on this board have been, I don't think I have ever come out and said that any of those movies sucked or were an abortion.
What's funny is, I gave Spider-Man: Homecoming an A- and not a single one of you even noticed. But as soon as I lobbed a C- at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. II and a C+ at Thor 3, the downvotes came a callin'.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:17 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
1. I'm using facts
2. While I haven't been as kind to the MCU as many of you on this board have been, I don't think I have ever come out and said that any of those movies sucked or were an abortion.
What's funny is, I gave Spider-Man: Homecoming an A- and not a single one of you even noticed. But as soon as I lobbed a C- at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. II and a C+ at Thor 3, the downvotes came a callin'.
Yes, but if you want to use ratings, nearly every single Marvel film is better than every single DC film except for Wonder Woman. And three of them are better than TDKR. That's why I made that comment. You use ratings when convenient, especia.ly when defending TDKR, when it's a crap film, regardless of ratings.
Look, I don't put a lot of stock in ratings, but you seemingly do. By all ratings and metrics even The Avengers > TDKR. And so is Guardians. So are ratings important or are they meaningless?
By your measure, it is a fact that MCU is grossly superior to the DCEU.
This post was edited on 12/1/17 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:17 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
That's averaging at least 9-10 films a year which is far above the superhero average even right now.
You're talking about saturation, Nolan is talking about something different. Nolan is clearly talking about the shared universes of the MCU and the DCEU. How many of those Westerns were part of a shared cinematic universe that was staffed by the same production team?
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:24 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Yes, but if you want to use ratings, nearly every single Marvel film is better than every single DC film except for Wonder Woman. And three of them are better than TDKR.
Which three are you referring to? If we're going by the average rating on Rotten Tomatoes (not the percentage that everyone obsesses over), only one Marvel film even matches The Dark Knight Rises and that is The Avengers. No other MCU film eclipses a 7.7/10 average rating. Both TDKR and The Avengers are at an 8.0/10 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
And Iron Man is the only film superior to it on Metacritic.
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:26 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
You're talking about saturation, Nolan is talking about something different.
They are two sides of the same coin. Have you watched old westerns? There are numerous actors that appear in lots of films. John Ford made dozens of westerns over 20 or so years. This speed of film making is not new.
quote:
Nolan is clearly talking about the shared universes of the MCU and the DCEU. How many of those Westerns were part of a shared cinematic universe that was staffed by the same production team?
Have you noticed that Marvel buffers against this in a few ways?
1) They rarely use the same directors
2) Movies have significant amounts of CGI which reduces workload of actors
3) Large creative decisions are made above the director
And on and on.
Marvel built itself to do this, and I'd suspect WB is working on building out their full pipeline. They aren't making movies in the same way as Nolan. And while that might not give us "Nolan-esque" results, not every film needs to be "Nolan-esque" and honestly, I'd rather not every film be Nolan-esque. I know you don't believe it, but Marvel has found a good balance between letting creators use their voice - Winter SOldier vs. Guardians vs. Thor 3 - while keeping everything on track.
It isn't perfect, but neither is Nolan.
This post was edited on 12/1/17 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 12/1/17 at 9:33 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
John Ford made dozens of westerns over 20 or so years.
The vast majority of those being shorter, silent films made between 1917-1930. And there's a reason why you know John Ford's name. It's not for the quantity of his work, but the quality of it. The man won four Oscars for directing, more than any other in the history of the business.
quote:
1) They rarely use the same directors
The director isn't the only man/woman on set. They almost always utilize the same producers and much of the same creative staff.
quote:
2) Movies have significant amounts of CGI which reduces workload of actors
Granted.
quote:
) Large creative decisions are made above the director
You speak of this as if it's a good thing.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News