Options
Anti-Nolan Trilogy Sentiment: Where'd it Come From?
CageNarleigh
Posts: 729
Ok so, despite everyone's nearly paralyzing fear that 'Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice' is going to be the final nail in the coffin for the DC cinematic universe, suddenly there seems to be hundreds of people coming out of the woodwork decrying the Nolan Batman Trilogy as an affront to the character and history of Batman.
Where the hell did that come from?
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, the world basically drooled over those movies during and after their release. (Ok, so maybe people weren't THAT thrilled with 'Dark Knight Rises', but still, it's not like it was a turdfest of a film.) People, to this day, still tout 'The Dark Knight' as quite possibly the greatest superhero film in decades (if not an achievement in all of film making to being with).
But somehow, some way, lately people have just been expressing their disapproval and sometimes downright hatred of these films. We're talking an unprecedented amount of people. (I'm seeing it on online articles AND on various social media comments and feeds. It's everywhere.)
So what the heck happened?
Where the hell did that come from?
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, the world basically drooled over those movies during and after their release. (Ok, so maybe people weren't THAT thrilled with 'Dark Knight Rises', but still, it's not like it was a turdfest of a film.) People, to this day, still tout 'The Dark Knight' as quite possibly the greatest superhero film in decades (if not an achievement in all of film making to being with).
But somehow, some way, lately people have just been expressing their disapproval and sometimes downright hatred of these films. We're talking an unprecedented amount of people. (I'm seeing it on online articles AND on various social media comments and feeds. It's everywhere.)
So what the heck happened?
Comments
Something similar seemed to happen with the Sam Raimi Spidey films. The third one disappointed some viewers, and suddenly Raimi's entire trilogy was bad, Toby never should have played Peter, yada yada. Lots of fanboys are too invested in the hobby to ever relax and just enjoy a movie.
Sure, re-watching them now, we've had several dozen amazing superhero movies, effects have increased, the bar has been raised. But I don't watch them these days and hold them to the standard I hold modern superhero flicks to. That's just not a thought that enters my mind. Why would it?
This also kinda reminds me of the Green Lantern film. As a huge fan of the character, I was REALLY excited for it and it REALLY, REALLY let me down. But lots of people were saying that it wasn't "that bad" and that there were several highlights and that it was a pretty decent movie. Then everyone and their mother started calling it one of the worst superhero movies they'd ever seen, including the people that had previously said it wasn't all bad.
I was seriously confused. Granted, the GL example might be a case of watching it once in a theater, waiting for home video release and then paying closer attention upon several re-watches to give it a more critical eye. But to go from saying, "Hey, it wasn't half bad" to basically making the GL movie the butt of every superhero movie joke...
...seems like bandwagon opinion whiplash to me. I'm wondering if we aren't seeing others glom onto this "Nolan trilogy sucks" opinion just because so many others are as well.
I think some of the criticism stems from Nolan not doing a "comic book" movie & starting a trend for DC/WB. These same critics claim Marvel Studios makes kid movies. I guess fanboys move the goal posts as needed.
I see Nolan's trilogy as just another interpretation of the character I find very enjoyable. Are there flaws & characteristics of Batman I miss from the source material? Yup. All the movies lack aspects of the character. Hell, I thought Morrison's character lack aspects.
M
Three reasons for the hate:
1. People who never liked something feeling validation.
2.Something is popular enough, sooner or later some people will think it's cool to hate on it.
3.Then there are the people who get caught up in the hype the first time around, then upon revisiting it realize they didn't like as much as they remember and swing in the opposite direction because they feel stupid now.
4. Some people on blogs and social media have some time on their hands, and maybe the kinds of movies that get released this time of the year are out of their wheelhouse (or don't get the kind of reaction and traffic they are looking for).
And it always takes less investment to re-review the old, or take a position on the unreleased; then to just go actually watch new things.
As others have said, I guess it would just be some kind of bandwagon symptom/what-have-you-done-for-me-lately?
It does feel that by now people would have moved on mentally from the Nolan Batman movies. It happens with most every franchise, and indeed it's such a known phenomenon that movie studios plan for it. "It'll take them a few years to get over the last incarnation of this franchise, then we can reboot and start over with new actors."
But to say that Nolan's Batman is on par with the Halle Berry Catwoman film, or that Dark Knight Rises is the same deal as Spider-Man 3? That's just nonsense. If people are actually getting to the point of saying that, it just seems like one-upsmanship fostered by a thoughtless social media mindset.
If some people never liked the Nolan Batman films all along, that's fine. When they were coming out, I remember that some people did indeed not like them. But if masses of people are just suddenly changing their mind on them now, that's just silly, probably due to peer-pressure trendiness or whatever... and it plays in so well to what Warner Bros. WANTS audiences to think anyway. They WANT us to be excited for the next movie and the next actor to play the character. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the Nolan movies were SO well received that I wouldn't put it past WB to actually have paid people to start this stuff on social media themselves. Snyder is not a beloved director and Ben Affleck was a controversial choice at first; if the Nolan films are derided in the blogosphere, it would give the new incarnation a lot of cover.
So I have decided to never watch one of his films more than once.
Nolan gave me the Batman I'd been wanting. I found Burton's and Schumacher's versions too silly and too caught up in horrible writing. Nolan/Bale's Batman had me at the first "Swear to ME!". To me part of the point of Batman is that he scares the shit out of you if you're on the wrong side of the law. Batman Begins was the first person to really bring that point home.
I really don't care what other people think about it. Nor do I care what other people think of what I think about it. To quote Murtaugh: "I'm too old for this shit." :)
The 2nd movie of the trilogy is in my top twenty list to this day.
Perhaps some of this backlash is due to the fact that it's perceived that Nolan's stuff delayed the potential for crossovers and universe building with the rest of the DCU? Who knows. Who cares.
Haters gonna hate. Entitled to their opinions. They're not going to change mine.
\m/
I also think there is a reason for the Batman '66 resurgence...people want a friendly Batman. We've had 30 years of angry, mentally ill Batman, and it's time for a New Batman. I think it's why Morrison's Batman did so well both in his JLA run and when he took the reins of the series and I think it's why the TV series is seeing so much love.
Just my opinion, though.
Do people forget that there are the many incarnations/story-lines of Batman at play? The Nolan trilogy was "Dark Knight". We have to remember that this story-line of Bruce is often much darker and bitter.
I would be fine seeing Batman without the bitter mid-life crisis feel, but don't want it to turn into "Zoinks" or "Blamo". It seems that finding the middle ground between forlorn and campy can prove a challenge at times for comic based characters.
You can have a friendlier Batman without going camp...look at the Batman of the early part of Julie Schwartz's tenure or the David V Reed stuff of the 70's and you get a Batman who still is serious but comes off as a bit less "God Damn Batman" than the character does now.
M
In many ways, the only difference between him and the Punisher is the Punisher uses guns and doesn't wear a cape.
Denny is write; the Bruce Wayne stuff always slowed the story. It's why the love interest angle never worked.
And mask. Castle doesn't wear one.
M
As for the love interest angle never working, Steve Englehart's amazing run on the book would care to disagree. ^_^
Denny was right for his time. That was 20 years ago and why Judge Dredd writers did a good job under him. I think the stories with Bruce Wayne (i.e. Batman Incorporated, No Hope In Crime Alley, Batman Year One, etc...) work so well.
But we've disagreed on this one before. As long as they don't bring back Bob Kane's "Superman lite" stuff from 1950 - 1963 era, I'll deal.
The experienced general angle is not being all smiles & happy because he's seen too much loss during the war on crime. Not taking it seriously, throwing inexperienced soldiers, and being under prepared leads to more loss.
M
A lot like Judge Dredd - Dredd himself is boring, it's the world and villains that make him interesting. Batman is a LOT more than that when he's in the hands of someone like Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Alan Moore (who used "old chum" in that great Superman annual) and others.
What's always fascinated me about the character more then anything else has been the motivation of keep moving forward. Taking the hits, reaching his limits, but keep moving forward. That's what I've tried to emulate about the character more then anything else.
M
e
L nny
I don't think it's just limited to his Batman movies now. When Inception first came out, everyone seemed to love it, but now there's a good number of people out there who seem to feel the need to make fun of it whenever they get a chance.