Anyone else think Inception might be...

[a happy song]

the best movie they've ever seen and they haven't even seen it yet?

Well, at least up there.

I've a lot of respect for Nolan. His films are mature without forgetting how to celebrate the more visceral aspects. In an age where 3D and Franchise are the carrots seemingly being dangled in front of every exec's nose, Nolan manages to constantly give us something new to salivate after.

Even his take on The Dark Knight (love it or hate it) should be applauded for its efforts to return the comic book ham that (ironically) was unintended by those origins and return to focus of Batman as a detective rather than a freakishly nippled walking merch stand he'd become in previous years.

DiCaprio's inclusion seals the deal for me. I consider him (possibly) the best actor of our generation. His performances usually make the film for me, and after recently watching Blood Diamond, The Departed, and Shutter Island in quick succession, I can safely say he's one of the very few A lists who can make each role he's in believable to the point that I forget about his previous characters as I get sucked into the universe that builds around him. He has that rare gravitas that just makes the film feel as though it was built around him, and he doesn't ever revel in it but absolutely /exists/ in it.

A rare talent, indeed.

The icing on the cake is the inclusion of Mr Joseph Gordon-Levitt. A criminally underused actor who shines an effortless cool and, even though not as galactic in terms of pull, he has that same ability as DiCaprio to live within his characters and make them feel like they're actually breathing.

The rest of the cast is inspired, especially Tom Berenger.

So, initial thoughts about the film?

Inevitable backlash of TDK and DiCaprio hate incoming?

[Tanner]

I haven't seen the movie on account of it's not out yet.

Also, I hate DiCaprio. That guy can eat my poo.

[yahoozy]

I haven't seen Shutter Island yet, but I've been meaning to. I also just accidentally typed that as "Shitter Island," so I know what nickname this film is going to get if I hate it. As for Inception, it looks very promising, even if I'm not the biggest fan of DiCraprio (Ha! Oh, man, the poo jokes just won't stop).

[a happy song]

The hyperbole was for fun.

Tanner has bad taste.

Yahoozy might be cool, though.

[SlappyMcGee]

I've a lot of respect for Nolan. His films are mature without forgetting how to celebrate the more visceral aspects. In an age where 3D and Franchise are the carrots seemingly being dangled in front of every exec's nose, Nolan manages to constantly give us something new to salivate after.

Even his take on The Dark Knight (love it or hate it) should be applauded for its efforts to return the comic book ham that (ironically) was unintended by those origins and return to focus of Batman as a detective rather than a freakishly nippled walking merch stand he'd become in previous years.

I like Leo and Chris Nolan, for that matter, and the concept seems interesting, so I am excited, even in what has been dubbed by some as the worst summer movie season of all time.

But I, of course, feel the need to argue with you. I know.

I'm not sure where you are getting mature. My love of Chris Nolan is that his movies are supremely stupid. Batman Begins, The Prestige, Insomnia and Memento (I'm afraid I've never seen his earliest effort) all thrive on the fact that, while the dialogue is occasionally philosophical in nature, it's pertinence to the plot often feels almost incidental to the film. Honestly, many have trouble deciphering the scenes where Nolan tries to wax philosophical; remember that scene in BB where Liam Neeson burns down Batman's house? It's a strange scene that tends, for me, to represent an overt effort to remove Bruce from the moral past his parent's have finagled onto him. It's an obvious metaphor, but it's also one not presented well. And his films almost universally become gimmicks; Memento is a rather poorly shot movie with a terrific gimmick. (Before somebody jumps on my throat, just because the movie is edited well does not mean it is shot well.) The Prestige, which is probably my favorite of his efforts, relies largely on the twist ending, as did Memento. Batman largely moved away from that, which was refreshing. We were introduced to a villain early on, and I would say that the climax of the film comes together rather smoothly, but I certainly do not consider it mature.

And since we've arrived on Batman, it's time to start a second paragraph. I do not like how you have definitively stated that we should be commending The Dark Knight or Batman Begins for taking Batman away from camp and making it dark again. We've had this debate at length, so let me just summarize my points:

1) Tim Burton took Batman away from camp with, you know, the first major motion picture. If there is any camp in the first Burton Batman films, it is merely because of the failings of Burton as a filmmaker.

2) There is no bit of Batman being a detective in either film. I don't know if you misspoke, but when I think of Batman being a detective, it's usually in comics where he's outthought the villain so spectacularly that we put down the comic and get lost in the genius that is Batman. There is no instance of Christian Bale out-thinking a villain in these movies; rather, he reacts to every action of the villain. I see the modernized Batman as a muslce-bound idiot with responsibilities, and the modernized Bruce Wayne persona as the same thing minus those responsibilities.

3) Batman is a fucking comic book, for children. Graphic novels are for adults. The reason the vast majority of stories of Batman are dark and feature every single on of his villains that end up actually making it to graphic novels (I'm looking at anything printed by Miller or Loeb) is because the stories are not very good and could not stand on their own. There are virtually no good writers working in "dark" superhero stories and that's because they realize that superhero writing is very constricting and because it is not hard to write a dark story. So, while I would say that you are confusing maturity in his films for darkness, I would also encourage a shift away from the darkness of these films because I believe that superhero movies should be primarily for children and moreover, because the medium has only rarely lent itself to good writing within that classification.

4) Christopher Nolan cannot shoot action sequences. I see him as more of a viewer than director; often, he is doing some pointless shit with the camera. But when it comes to actual physical action sequences; the train sequence at the end of BB, any action in Memento, The Dark Knight's various sequences as the worst offenders to date; when it comes to these sequences, he cuts quickly to try and build suspense but he also does not end up with clear images of what happens. It leads a lot of viewers walking out assuming they just had a brain fart and missed whatever happened in that scene, but I would say it's his one major fault sheerly as a director. And while Inception looks to have cool action, we've only see a trailer, and trailers are frequently edited in the same way his sequences are, and so I am mildly concerned that he will stand in the way of my enjoying this film. Mildly. The cast usually blows most of my concerns away.

[a happy song]

but I certainly do not consider it mature.

Well then I'm lost a little, slaps. I read nothing you wrote there that really counters my assertion that his film making is mature. I could easily put throw back that I found every single thing you stated as a failure to be a success, that I consider his handling of the house burning et al to be perfectly put within the contexts of a comic book universe.

See, this is the point, Nolan knows exactly what the context needs. That's why blunt metaphors like the burning of Wayne Manor work, this was a blockbuster that needed the bangs and drama of these tactics as it just suits the source's style. He obviously had great respect for what he was adapting and new how to make it work within his own vision.

And since we've arrived on Batman, it's time to start a second paragraph. I do not like how you have definitively stated that we should be commending The Dark Knight or Batman Begins for taking Batman away from camp and making it dark again.

So Batman Forever and Batman and Robin didn't happen /after/ Burton's films?

I didn't actually state that Nolan was the first to do anything, merely that he undid the damage that Forever and Robin caused.

2) There is no bit of Batman being a detective in either film. I don't know if you misspoke, but when I think of Batman being a detective, it's usually in comics where he's outthought the villain so spectacularly that we put down the comic and get lost in the genius that is Batman. There is no instance of Christian Bale out-thinking a villain in these movies; rather, he reacts to every action of the villain. I see the modernized Batman as a muslce-bound idiot with responsibilities, and the modernized Bruce Wayne persona as the same thing minus those responsibilities.

For a start, these are Batman's origin stories. He's developing his craft, honing his skills, we're seeing him become the legend.

The first film he was blundering, careless, sloppy, and there's not really any real finesse to any of it.

I'm not sure how you missed the detective work in TDK, though, the marked bank bills he gave to Gordon to put into circulation, the reconstruction of the bullet, the use of the sonar system to monitor cell phones to pinpoint the Joker. Hardly the efforts of a meat-head fool.

And before you get stuck in, remember this is a comic book adaptation and, even in the source material, its larger than life and fantastical in places.

3) Batman is a fucking comic book, for children. Graphic novels are for adults. The reason the vast majority of stories of Batman are dark and feature every single on of his villains that end up actually making it to graphic novels (I'm looking at anything printed by Miller or Loeb) is because the stories are not very good and could not stand on their own. There are virtually no good writers working in "dark" superhero stories and that's because they realize that superhero writing is very constricting and because it is not hard to write a dark story. So, while I would say that you are confusing maturity in his films for darkness, I would also encourage a shift away from the darkness of these films because I believe that superhero movies should be primarily for children and moreover, because the medium has only rarely lent itself to good writing within that classification.

Batman was never intended for children and graphic novels are not intended for adults. Please don't use such silly absolutes to further your point, it's pretty cheap.

And no, I'm not confusing maturity and darkness thank you, I'm more adept than that! :p

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about my opinions and statements and running with them instead of asking me to clarify what I mean. I could gave been more in depth, I suppose, but you clearly have skimmed over some of my sentences (point 1, for example).

Anyway, more to the point, darkness is good when darkness suits. Darkness suits batman as his story /is/ dark and was always intended to be so.

We've had this discussion before, and I'm being lazy when I do this, but I'm just going to quote the wiki:

Early years


Batman made his debut in Detective Comics #27 (May 1939). Cover art by Bob Kane

The first Batman story, "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate," was published in Detective Comics #27 (May 1939). Finger said, "Batman was originally written in the style of the pulps," and this influence was evident with Batman showing little remorse over killing or maiming criminals. Batman proved a hit character, and he received his own solo title in 1940, while continuing to star in Detective Comics. By that time, National was the top-selling and most influential publisher in the industry; Batman and the company's other major hero, Superman, were the cornerstones of the company's success. The two characters were featured side-by-side as the stars of World's Finest Comics, which was originally titled World's Best Comics when it debuted in fall 1940. Creators including Jerry Robinson and Dick Sprang also worked on the strips during this period.
Over the course of the first few Batman strips elements were added to the character and the artistic depiction of Batman evolved. Kane noted that within six issues he drew the character's jawline more pronounced, and lengthened the ears on the costume. "About a year later he was almost the full figure, my mature Batman," Kane said. Batman's characteristic utility belt was introduced in Detective Comics #29 (July 1939), followed by the boomerang-like batarang and the first bat-themed vehicle, the Batplane, in #31 (September 1939). The character's origin was revealed in #33 (November 1939), unfolding in a two-page story that establishes the brooding persona of Batman, a character driven by the death of his parents. Written by Finger, it depicts a young Bruce Wayne witnessing his parents' murder at the hands of a mugger. Days later, at their grave, the child vows that "by the spirits of my parents avenge their deaths by spending the rest of my life warring on all criminals."
The early, pulp-inflected portrayal of Batman started to soften in Detective Comics #38 (April 1940) with the introduction of Robin, Batman's kid sidekick. Robin was introduced, based on Finger's suggestion Batman needed a "Watson" with whom Batman could talk. Sales nearly doubled, despite Kane's preference for a solo Batman, and it sparked a proliferation of "kid sidekicks." The first issue of the solo spin-off series Batman was notable not only for introducing two of his most persistent antagonists, the Joker and Catwoman, but for a story in which Batman shoots some monstrous giants to death. That story prompted editor Whitney Ellsworth to decree that the character could no longer kill or use a gun.

By 1942, the writers and artists behind the Batman comics had established most of the basic elements of the Batman mythos. In the years following World War II, DC Comics "adopted a postwar editorial direction that increasingly de-emphasized social commentary in favor of lighthearted juvenile fantasy." The impact of this editorial approach was evident in Batman comics of the postwar period; removed from the "bleak and menacing world" of the strips of the early 1940s, Batman was instead portrayed as a respectable citizen and paternal figure that inhabited a "bright and colorful" environment.

Batman just SUITS the darker tone perfectly. /Especially/ when the concept is to root it a little in reality (Nolan's inspiration for TDK was drawn partially from Heat, for example) and that the reality of the birth of tBatman is tragic and horrific and the entire concept of the Batman himself is a little perverse.

Darker doesn't suit other comic book adaptations, of course, but then I'd have thought that was obvious from the material itself.

4) Christopher Nolan cannot shoot action sequences. I see him as more of a viewer than director; often, he is doing some pointless shit with the camera. But when it comes to actual physical action sequences; the train sequence at the end of BB, any action in Memento, The Dark Knight's various sequences as the worst offenders to date; when it comes to these sequences, he cuts quickly to try and build suspense but he also does not end up with clear images of what happens. It leads a lot of viewers walking out assuming they just had a brain fart and missed whatever happened in that scene, but I would say it's his one major fault sheerly as a director. And while Inception looks to have cool action, we've only see a trailer, and trailers are frequently edited in the same way his sequences are, and so I am mildly concerned that he will stand in the way of my enjoying this film. Mildly. The cast usually blows most of my concerns away.

I'd agree with you to a point.

In begins, his camera work was far too unfocused and scrappy. In TDK, however, the action sequences are gloriously shot. He uses wide pans and slow arcing shots to really give us a perspective of the action instead of relying on faced paced mtv edits and Greengrass shaky cam gimmicks. It's much more in keeping with Cameron than it is with Bay, and I consider his work on TDK in terms of action shooting to be amongst the best on offer in Hollywood history. TDK's action is clear, precise, and articulate.

I'm honestly quite amazed that you consider it to be any less, it's one of those things that just seems glaring to me.

[deltainferno]

When I first saw the previews in the cinema, I thought ''Holy crap! This looks epic!'' But after the adverts etc. being on TV a lot, I can't really see how a story can be built around it, and in movies the story usually is what grips me, and of course good acting makes the story and characters believable.

That said, sometimes things like this can pull shit out of the bag, so I hope I won't be sorely disappointed with this movie when I eventually go and see it.

[a happy song]

While I'm a firm believer in hype letting you down, I'm not sure how you can really worry with the 100% fresh RT scores and some of the most glowing praise that's been hurled at a film in years.

Obviously the film can cope with what it's attempting for the majority so far. Whether it will resonate with the masses (or more precisely perhaps, whether it will penetrate) remains to be seen.

What I'm saying is there's more to show that the ambitious nature of the film is realised in its execution than it isn't, so preconceptions of the positive kind have more to back them up than worrying does.

I can't really see how a story can be built around it, and in movies the story usually is what grips me, and of course good acting makes the story and characters believable.

Well, if it helps alleviate concerns then read through the reviews here.

[deltainferno]

I can't really see how a story can be built around it, and in movies the story usually is what grips me, and of course good acting makes the story and characters believable.

Well, if it helps alleviate concerns then read through the reviews here.

<3 Danke.

[SlappyMcGee]

Honestly, the scene featuring Joker and the dogs in the building with the heat vision? I'm one of the seven viewers who was not overwhelmed by Speed Racer and I found this scene fucking confusing.

One scene does not a bad director make, it's just a continuing trend in his career, for me. A lot of what I've tried to pick out and criticize here have been screenwriting decisions, and that's largely what I have a problem with in The Dark Knight. Neither of us know the extent to which he was involved in the writing process for any of his movies, since WGA are notorious liars, but we're safely assuming here that he has final say. My main criticism, outside of that mishandled scene, is the jumbled mess the movie seems to be; overstuffed, and not thematically cohesive.

But yeah, let's go into stuff you said.

See, this is the point, Nolan knows exactly what the context needs. That's why blunt metaphors like the burning of Wayne Manor work, this was a blockbuster that needed the bangs and drama of these tactics as it just suits the source's style.

That's a pretty interesting point. Contextualized into a comic book blockbuster, then this kind of ham-fisted metaphor might be really effective, no doubt. I don't think it's even a terrible metaphor. The problem for me, outside of the obviousness of it, was just that it is presented as another action beat. My main criticism at that point in writing was that he is not mature; I would say that the way this scene is presented does not bring together the metaphor and the action beat, but instead shows us an action beat that seems outside the story. Most of the things I was trying to point out was how uncohesive I found his philosophical musings with his need to make a bankable action movie. We've seen twist endings before, and we've seen dark films. What he does more interesting and almost seemed to push against with The Dark Knight for me, was the structure of Memento or the era and feel of The Prestige. Like, the best twist in Memento comes in to the film ten minutes when you realize you are watching a backwards film. The Dark Knight was loaded with cool characters and action beats and 'suspense' but I don't think it had a lot of an intelligent background and outside of duality, I can't pin out a theme or a motif that caught me about the film. Granted, by saying outside of duality I'm eliminating a large portion of what the film is about, but I feel that Nolan made us try and grasp at that theme rather than presenting it to us.

I'm not too sure why you think everything I listed as a failure as a strength. I do not find a reliance on twist endings to be a strength. And I feel like, even with Batman, a lot of what kept me from being disappointed at the end of that movie was the Joker Card. And with The Dark Knight, I was supremely disappointed with the ending, because that scene had so little to do with a movie that was already so large. The last scene is legitimately akin to advertising for another movie. It seems to me like Chris Nolan can't end a movie without trying too hard to be surprising. It's the kind of thing that makes my mother really like a movie (She owns The Butterfly Effect on Bluray) but doesn't do a whole lot for me outside of cheapening the experience.

I didn't actually state that Nolan was the first to do anything, merely that he undid the damage that Forever and Robin caused.

Fair enough, my bad. Many associate The Dark Knight with not just the first dark comic book movie ever made, but the DARKEST THING EVER PRINTED TO FILM. You are not they.

The first film he was blundering, careless, sloppy, and there's not really any real finesse to any of it.

That's awesome if it's intentional, but it's never alluded to in either film. I don't see a legit transformation between the two films outside of "more pissy because even more responsible". I feel like a mature filmmaker might have made that more evident; I found the Batman in film one to be less careless and blundering and more genuinely "awesome".

I'm not sure how you missed the detective work in TDK, though, the marked bank bills he gave to Gorden to put into circulation, the reconstruction of the bullet, the use of the sonar system to monitor cell phones to pinpoint the Joker. Hardly the efforts of a meat-head fool.

I'll admit that I overlooked two of those things but that my point still stands. Any rich person could do this. I continue to believe that we've yet to see an intelligent Batman, much less a detective Batman. It often seems like Alfred is the smarter of the two among them. That sort of dichotomy exists in the comics or the Timm cartoon but it's often because Bruce does not understand the limits of the human body. So, while he might be doing detective work in this film, it's more like CSI and less like Sam Spade.

And before you get stuck in, remember this is a comic book adaptation and, even in the source material, its larger than life and fantastical in places.

Not sure entirely what that was brought up in regards to, but I realize that it's larger than life. I'm no stickler for realism.

Batman was never intended for children and graphic novels are not intended for adults. Please don't use such silly absolutes to further your point, it's pretty cheap.

I find it a little bit ludicrous if you are going to argue that /superhero comic books/ are intended for adults. Detective Comics always found it's audience in young teens. I bet if you tracked who purchased Batman comics throughout the last century you would see a vast, vast majority of people below the age of eighteen. Anyway, I might have used absolutes, so I'll try and clarify. Graphic novels tend to be, in modernity, collections of comic books OR larger stories usually targeted at older audiences. That's because it is easier to sell a more expensive product to people with their own disposable income. Which isn't to say that exclusively adults buy them, but certainly if you look at the graphic novels released by DC, whom I prefer to Marvel, you'll see, under the DC Comics imprint, tons of omnibus' and collections of comic book runs and virtually zero original stories whereas when you look under the Vertigo imprint you have a large number of never before printed original stories. Graphic novels become traditionally adult because comic publishers are hesitant to release something significant to the comic book world exclusively in a format that many could not afford to purchase as opposed to relatively cheaper comic books. In the realm of a comic book line obsessed with continuity, single format issues anyone can buy are king.

So, that is a lengthy explanation of why I said that graphic novels are more adult and comic books tend to be for children. We got into an argument over Bob Kane's intentions with Batman in the Dark Knight thread. I'm not saying there is not a darkness to the original Batman, but I would say quite definitively that the burden of proof falls on you to prove, maybe from a Kane or Finger quote, that Batman was not created to entertain children and teens. (I would also argue that the original darkness of the comic does not translate into the modern dark Batman stories.)

And if it is not a darkness thing that you find so mature about Batman, what is it? I find that the only thing Nolan's really done in his Batman series to make the movies really serious. Is this what you are saying is maturity? I apologize for accusing you of mistaking darkness for maturity, but maturity is a very difficult quality to define in a film. I would say that Toy Story 3 is as mature a piece of filmmaking as Margot at the Wedding, but only one of them has a scene where a Ken doll tries on outfits for us.

It's much more in keeping with Cameron than it is with Bay, and I consider his work on TDK in terms of action shooting to be amongst the best on offer in Hollywood history.

That last bit is rather bold, but anyway, I don't consider Cameron and Bay the two opposite ends of the spectrum of action filmmaking. I would say that Micheal Bay, in spite of the fact that he's a stupid guy who isn't big on themes or characters, is a pretty wonderful -director-, not writer, but -director-. His action sequences, in spite of their increasingly large scope, continue to impress me and be visual, clear and fantastic. Granted, he over-relies on CGI, but I think he has a good eye for it. I feel the same way about Cameron, although I don't believe he is as strong a -director- as Bay. And I don't think that Nolan is in league with either of them. Not that some of his filmmaking isn't good, but if you could point me to an action scene from TDK that you find particularly good, I'll take a look at it.

Also, I hate to bring better non-action directors into this shit, but I think there are quite a few directors that have shot better action sequences in the last ten years than any of those three. Since we are talking about comic books, Raimi comes to mind rather strongly.

[a happy song]

His action sequences, in spite of their increasingly large scope, continue to impress me and be visual, clear and fantastic.

I'll in depth reply when I get the time, but dude... did you watch both films? The action sequences were a mess. Especially anything involving two of the heavily overcomplicated mechs scrapping. Flailing metal parts and camera angles, you can barely make out the shape of the combatants let alone what they're actually doing!

He's not an awful director, imo, but one that only knows how to light up the screen with the relevant bang to appease that mass factor.

EDIT: sorry, little sleep, I've probably made a bunch of errors in all of these...

[SlappyMcGee]

His action sequences, in spite of their increasingly large scope, continue to impress me and be visual, clear and fantastic.

I'll in depth reply when I get the time, but dude... did you watch both films? The action sequences were a mess. Especially anything involving two of the heavily overcomplicated mechs scrapping. Flailing metal parts and camera angles, you can barely make out the shape of the combatants let alone what they're actually doing!

He's an awful director, imo, but one that certainly knows how to light up the screen with the relevant bang to appease that mass factor.

I found those sequences rather easy to comprehend. The reason these scenes have massive appeal is because they are shot in a way that everybody can understand, or at least the most people can understand. That's what the visual communication of a director is all about.

But all I'm saying is that if I have trouble understanding a scene as simple as the dog scene from TDK and even if I have the same amount of trouble understanding the GIGANTIC ROBOTS FIGHTING IN EGYPT MICHEAL BAY scene, the latterformer has done a better job because he had a much larger scope to convey.

edit: latter

[a happy song]

I found those sequences rather easy to comprehend. The reason these scenes have massive appeal is because they are shot in a way that everybody can understand.

The /reason/ that they appeal is that they cater to the greatest ratios of explosions and flashing lights per second mindset that makes Bay's films so popular.

I very much doubt half the audience members who went to see the film could even make out which way the transformers were standing half the time, but they didn't care as they made lots of loud clunking sounds, booms and big explosions, and had so many moving parts that the sheer amount of movement on screen lulled them into hypnosis.

Bay isn't awful, but he's no master. Nolan proved with TDK that he is on his way and going by the current feedback Inception might be his emergence.

[SlappyMcGee]

I found those sequences rather easy to comprehend. The reason these scenes have massive appeal is because they are shot in a way that everybody can understand.

The /reason/ that they appeal is that they cater to the greatest ratios of explosions and flashing lights per second mindset that makes Bay's films so popular.

I very much doubt half the audience members who went to see the film could even make out which way the transformers were standing half the time, but they didn't care as they made lots of loud clunking sounds, booms and big explosions, and had so many moving parts that the sheer amount of movement on screen lulled them into hypnosis.

Bay isn't awful, but he's no master. Nolan proved with TDK that he is on his way and going by the current feedback Inception might be his emergence.

No doubt Inception could be his masterpiece.

Anyway, I believe you underrate the majority of people if you think they see movies to see shit blow up. Like, there's a large amount of crossover between the millions of people who saw Transformers and the millions who saw The Dark Knight. And a lot of people preferred the latter, in spite of the fact that more shit blew up in the former.

Point being, I find it sort of elitist to look down on the viewing public as proles who are looking for explosions but then in the same breath argue that they were right about the Dark Knight.

[a happy song]

Point being, I find it sort of elitist to look down on the viewing public as proles who are looking for explosions but then in the same breath argue that they were right about the Dark Knight.

And I find it slightly naive to consider that Bay's films aren't popular because they cater to the obvious and expected blockbuster archetypes. The problem is, they have very little else to back them up.

TDK was a blockbuster and used similar techniques, but it /also/ had a great cast, a well written script, well realised characterisation, etc...

Transformers had potty jokes, tits, and sports cars.

TDK did so well because it not only catered to those who go to films for the glitter and sparkle predominantly, but also to those expecting a little more in terms of substance.

Transformers couldn't compete as it lost out to the latter demographic in general.

[SlappyMcGee]

Point being, I find it sort of elitist to look down on the viewing public as proles who are looking for explosions but then in the same breath argue that they were right about the Dark Knight.

And I find it slightly naive to consider that Bay's films aren't popular because they cater to the obvious and expected blockbuster archetypes. The problem is, they have very little else to back them up.

TDK was a blockbuster and used similar techniques, but it /also/ had a great cast, a well written script, well realised characterisation, etc...

Transformers had potty jokes, tits, and sports cars.

TDK did so well because it not only catered to those who go to films for the glitter and sparkle predominantly, but also to those expecting a little more in terms of substance.

Transformers couldn't compete as it lost out to the latter demographic in general.

Although I question the well realized characterization and script, it's certainly better than transformers. All I'm saying is that Bay has a way of communicating his often shallow points extremely effectively. Honestly, if you look at some of the sequences from Armageddon, it's like you are watching old propaganda tapes to BUY AMERICAN. He's a stupid man, but his direction is very effective for what it tries to do. People appreciate that. It's why Micheal Bay movies get seen by a ton of people and a movie like Green Zone or Predators will never do as well. Many movies have explosions and action; his are consistently successful because he's better at presenting that than most.

Honestly, if I was saddled with directing one of the scripts I had written and it had a large scale action sequence, I would call up Peter Jackson first and Micheal Bay second. Nobody else, Nolan included, tries to do things on the magnificent scale of Bay. And unfortunately, The Island, his most ambitious and imo interesting picture yet was rejected by audiences and so he's fell back to Transformers.

[a happy song]

I would call up Peter Jackson first and Micheal Bay second. Nobody else, Nolan included, tries to do things on the magnificent scale of Bay.

Cameron would do a job that would put him to shame. Avatar's action sequences were off the chart in comparison. Clarity, scope, fluidity... Bay will never reach the level achieved there.

Cameron outshines Bay in all areas /especially/ vision.

[SlappyMcGee]

I would call up Peter Jackson first and Micheal Bay second. Nobody else, Nolan included, tries to do things on the magnificent scale of Bay.

Cameron would do a job that would put him to shame. Avatar's action sequences were off the chart in comparison. Clarity, scope, fluidity... Bay will never reach the level achieved there.

Cameron outshines Bay in all areas /especially/ vision.

This might be nitpicky, but I've always been much more impressed by the scripts of Cameron than the direction. And also, Micheal Bay gets more out of a budget, I think.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't rather see any Cameron movie over a Bay; just that if we are talking about directorial talent, Bay is my candidate.

also avatar sucks

[a happy song]

This might be nitpicky, but I've always been much more impressed by the scripts of Cameron than the direction. And also, Micheal Bay gets more out of a budget, I think.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't rather see any Cameron movie over a Bay; just that if we are talking about directorial talent, Bay is my candidate.

Well, I guess we should just leave it at that then or it'll just be walls on walls.

also avatar sucks

Long term? Aye, it's not worth much to me.

[rocket_thumped]

the best movie they've ever seen and they haven't even seen it yet?

Well, at least up there.

Yes, this is going to be amazing.

I've a lot of respect for Nolan. His films are mature without forgetting how to celebrate the more visceral aspects. In an age where 3D and Franchise are the carrots seemingly being dangled in front of every exec's nose, Nolan manages to constantly give us something new to salivate after.

I agree, with all aspects of this.

DiCaprio's inclusion seals the deal for me. I consider him (possibly) the best actor of our generation. His performances usually make the film for me, and after recently watching Blood Diamond, The Departed, and Shutter Island in quick succession, I can safely say he's one of the very few A lists who can make each role he's in believable to the point that I forget about his previous characters as I get sucked into the universe that builds around him. He has that rare gravitas that just makes the film feel as though it was built around him, and he doesn't ever revel in it but absolutely /exists/ in it.

Wrong! Daniel Day-Lewis is actually the greatest actor of our generation. DiCaprio has benefited a great deal from being used by Scorsese in a ton of films. I'm always very aware that DiCaprio is acting.

While Daniel Day-Lewis /is/ the people he is portraying.
Hey look, some examples. 1 2 3 4 5 6

The icing on the cake is the inclusion of Mr Joseph Gordon-Levitt. A criminally underused actor who shines an effortless cool and, even though not as galactic in terms of pull, he has that same ability as DiCaprio to live within his characters and make them feel like they're actually breathing.

I agree, ever since I saw him in (500) Days of Summer I've wanted more. The rest of the cast is really great as well.


Edit: I've read some of your guys back and forth. I just wanted to say that Michael Bay is the most overrated anything ever. Lets just put tons of explosions and shit everywhere, and make the fight scenes so fast and wild that no one knows what the fuck is going on. okay I'm done.

[a happy song]

The Departed, Blood Diamond, and Shutter Island just seal it for me.

I love Day, especially in There Will Be Blood, but I find his characters to be just a little on the self-indulgent side. Too much melodrama, even when the role calls for it.

Of course, this is literally nit-picking at two of the finest actors of our time to establish a personal favourite. The flaw I mention in Day's technique isn't one that stands out unless I'm doing just that.

[SlappyMcGee]

Nicolas Cage is leagues better than Day or DiCaprio.

/me loses any shred of credibility this thread afforded me.

[blackson]

I'm interested in how Page performs in a non comedic role.

Also, I agree with all of those above me and think that Robert Downy Jr. is the best actor of our time.

[otters~1]

As far as sheer acting goes, Depp has to be mentioned, along with everyone else already covered. Including Nick Cage, yes. (Others: Freeman, Hanks, Bridges, etc)

With Inception, I agree that Leo and Nolan are a good team, but I still don't think the movie will be worth much.

Also, some great movies are being belittled here, like The Departed and TDK.

[Tanner]

Nicolas Cage is leagues better than Day or DiCaprio.

/me loses any shred of credibility this thread afforded me.

I love you. I may hug you for too long when I arrive on the 27th.