Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
yadre

YES.

by
"I wouldn’t want people to think we're doing for Superman what we did for Batman... [Man of Steel] is very much Zack’s film and I think people are going to love what he's done. I think it's really remarkable to take on that character. Superman is a completely different character than Batman. So you can't in anyway use the same template."
-Christopher. Freaking. Nolan.

YES. YES. YES. YES!!! No Nolanized Superman!!!

Honestly? "This is very much Zack [Snyder]'s film" from that man's mouth is exactly what I needed to hear to actually feel safe being excited about this film.
Viewed: 12 times
Added: 5 years, 9 months ago
 
Crimsonred
5 years, 9 months ago
I'd like some background on this, why is Nolan bad for Superman?
yadre
5 years, 9 months ago
The tone Nolan struck in his Batman films is decidedly... un-superheroy. Avengers has shown us that an unironic appreciation of the source material can work in a big way in film (which is pretty much what every single superhero fan has been screaming for DECADES). I enjoyed Nolan's Batman films, but my biggest criticism of them by far is that both the tone and the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman are just... not quite right. So what I want to do with them is enjoy them on their own merits and have them go away. The problem is that DC/Warner Bros seem bound and determined not to just take the awesome characters they own and put them on the screen, they think Nolan's films were successful BECAUSE they were grim and dark and unfaithful to the source material, not IN SPITE of the fact that they were grim and dark and unfaithful to the source material. They were successful because they were great films, but Nolan's approach is not one I want emulated.
Crimsonred
5 years, 9 months ago
There's so very much in the spectrum of Batman, including very much some darker material, gritty and bad. And frankly? This version of Batman was dark, but he still was Batman. He worked in the shadows, worked in the dark, and despite all that, he didn't kill. He used wit, technology, and the world around him to defeat superior foes, not overwhelming super powers and sheer power of the protagonist. It was dark and gritty, yes, but it felt like a good superhero movie, a better one than most that had come before it.
yadre
5 years, 9 months ago
And that would work for Superman?

I disagree on several levels. The problem with Nolan's Batman is he isn't remotely in character. For Nolan, Batman can only be either obsessed with his parents' death and a tortured soul, or not Batman at all. That isn't Batman. Batman isn't a one-note character. He eventually moves on with his life, but continues being Batman. He's psychologically healthy and Batman at the same time. That's been consistent through the comics and every version of the character but Nolan's.

Another problem: he develops martial prowess and technology, but never detective skills. In every other version he's known as the World's Greatest Detective. When the going gets tough, what does Nolan's Batman do? Turns every cell phone in Gotham into a microphone.

And don't even get me STARTED on Rachel Dawes... (I hate, hate, hate, hate that character with every fiber of my being and cheered outloud when she got blown up during The Dark Knight.)

Nolan's films were great films in and of themselves, but there was a lot about them that is impossible to reconcile with the rest of the Batman franchise. Moreover, even though this tone works to some extent with Batman (with stated reservations), but it really ought not to become more widespread. We've seen that unironic appreciation of the source material WORKS (just the way comic book fans have been saying it would for years), there's no reason to keep throwing these franchises to directors who are embarrassed to be doing superhero films and embarrassed by their source material.
Crimsonred
5 years, 9 months ago
It wouldn't work for Superman, but then again, Superman is not exactly one of my favorites, nor is he much of a mortal or relatable character. Superman is never dark, never gritty, and I highly doubt Nolan would cast him that way. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with the film, but frankly, I'll be surprised if it turns out as well as the Batmans did. The Trilogy was significant in that not only was it was a series of good films, but some of the more successful DC adaptations that have been released in a long time. Decent super-hero movies have long been Marvel's thing (I've always much prefered Marvel's roster, but that's a personal taste) and Batman begins was a good start to it. I'm concerned though, because other recent DC movies have been weak. Thor came out around the same time as Green Lantern, and you tell me which did better, which was better? Marvel has released a respectable string of good movies, and I don't know if DC source material can hold up to that.
yadre
5 years, 9 months ago
Green Lantern could be an incredible movie if they didn't thoroughly mess it up. The problems with that film were a weak screenplay, weak acting, and just all around horrible movie-making. What really makes me really angry about DC's horrible history of adaptations is they have GREAT source material to work with and they keep screwing it up. Just look at their ANIMATED features, they're about 100 times better than anything they're putting out in live action. Maybe they should just hire the creative team behind their animated features (ESPECIALLY the Green Lantern and Superman films) to do all of their live action stuff.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.