Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Forum Oi! → Cinema & TV → Matt Reeves talks about the Nolan films and how his will be very emotional

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 14


Nolan did not take the genre seriously at all. He discarded all the genre conventions, so how can that be taking it seriously? Perhaps he wanted to make serious films and got lumbered with Batman Begins, but there is little evidence that he actually wanted to work
with these characters. Instead, Nolan made sub-Michael Mann style thrillers, with a character dressed up a little like Batman from the comics. He lost all sense of horror after the first film - Batman relies on fear and does all he can to build a sense of terror in his prey - and none of Nolan's Batman films has any sense of place.


Apparently the Matt Reeves article mentions that Mark Bomback (who co-wrote both the Ape films) is doing the Batman rewrite


I must watch Reeves' Ape films. When the first came out, my wife refused to see it - in the cinema or at home - "because the monkey gets hurt"; so we didn't go and I didn't watch it on my own. A few months ago, she casually mentioned that they were all really good films - she'd watched them without me. "What about the monkey?" I asked "Oh! I fast forwarded through that".
At least it showed that Mrs M watches genre films because she likes them, not just to keep me happy. This is not the case for my geeky colleagues.


This is clearly just PR spin to address the people who were burned from the last few movies.
Is it going to address Batman killing in any respect? Or is he just going to gloss over that and ignore it and pretend Bats wasn't cutting down nameless goons with a chain gun?


Yeah, I don't think I'm going to like this Matt Reeves-directed Batman. Still grieving Ben.


BvS did address that...I'm sure JL will as well...if they do a Red Hood movie I could see them possibly addressing it though Jason killing people and Bruce tells him to stop he would reply with something like "so I can't kill but you can?" with Bruce saying he made a mistake and that he let his rage consume him...or maybe a Nightwing cameo setting up his film where he briefly mentions the killing is why he left Bruce....but other then that I can't think of anyway other way they could address it without it feeling forced or out of place and unnecessary


It wasn't any conversation talking about that in the movie it was just a quick Glimpse to a bat suit with hahaha spray painted on it. And that really confuse the audience because the general audience aren't aware of Jason Todd.
They need to establish these characters before they expect visual storytelling with them to make sense.
Bottom line until they can get things in order they need to have the characters actually talk about their problems. What motivates them what are their reasons for doing this? Etc.


He's directed the best movies involving talking apes ever made. While I am a little sad that Affleck's script got thrown out, if it means we get a better product at the end of it all I'm all for it.
As long as he doesn't jump into camping Silver age wackiness to offset the Grim and gritty tone of the last few movies because the reactionary and prone to panic DC and Warner Brother executives mandates it.


Yeah, I share a lot of these feelings. I was honestly underwhelmed. It was a step in the right direction from the preceding campy films, though. (Certainly following Batman and Robin! O.o)
Most fans enjoy their superheroes most when they fell like they could really exist in our actual world, I think. The overall trend toward making superheroes feel like they could be for us that way really begins with X-Men in 2000. That is the first true "serious" superhero movie, best I can see.
Prior to and up to the Nolan trilogy, also helping make the shift in the more reality based orientation that is common today are Hellboy, Spider-Man, and Iron Man. The MCU uses humor but it basically follows the premise that these heroes really exist in our world, and therefore they have a certain gravity. They they aren't approached like some sort of daydream in the mind of child reading a comic book. Which is what superhero films were like prior to 2000.


I'm not doubting his directorial skills, it's just his "very few statements" that he has made towards the film as we were waiting for him to finish his Apes commitment ... and, I know I may be in the minority here, but his sentiments about Nolan's trilogy and where he, himself, may go with the franchise don't leave a good taste in my mouth. I want Batman, a real Batman. The one we've gotten in the DCEU, who is everything that The True Dark Knight/World's Greatest Detective should be ... I know there's division amongst fans with Snyder's portrayal, namely the "killing" aspect -- and people can debate it all they want, but he has also killed ... in every movie, including 'TDK' trilogy (Nolan just hid it better). But, The Batman of the DCEU is a very different creature, of a different emotional and career-state than any other depictions of him have been in film, and those of us who support Snyder's vision and Affleck's amazing portrayal may (speaking for myself and a few friends) feel Reeves just might not be the right person who we'd ultimately want for a DCEU-Batman.
But, I digress, it doesn't matter. It's already done, over, poof.


Completely agree about the change in tone and approach, but I would argue that it started with 1998's Blade. X-Men was a lot like the Nolan films for me, eschewing genre conventions like codenames and costumes in favour of a pseudo-serious grounding; though they did lampshade this in the text. The seachange really happens when Sam Raimi made Spiderman - he made a comic, but filtered through the soul of a highly creative middle-aged man. The artistic success of Spiderman has to have something to do with the fact that Raimi was steeped in the genre and had worked on fantastical film his entire career and had even attempted to launch a superhero franchise with Darkman. Raimi clearly loves pop culture and this is in stark contrast to the likes of Burton and Nolan.


It's been a long time since I watched Blade but having recently rewatched some scenes from it on You Tube, it struck me that there are more camp elements than I thought. I'd have to rewatch the entire film to be sure, though. One thing it does in the direction of realism is to try make the villain feel like a real threat, but in other areas to me it still feels noticeably on the camp or cheesy side. Blade contributed strongly but I don't think we're almost entirely camp-free until X-Men 2 years later.


I'd argue we are not camp free yet, but I don't know if we need to be. Some of the properties are pretty camp and films walk a knife-edge in being true to the genre conventions and source material whilst also trying to be realistic and of serious intent. Is there a way to do Green Lantern that isn't camp?
It's been a few years since I watched Blade too. A friend described it as "hyper-frenetic bollocks" on release - but I've always loved it. Some of the dialogue is positively Shakespearean: "catch you fûckers at a bad time?" for example. smile


Agree that we'll probably never be entirely camp-free just because of the subject matter. But there's obviously a big difference between films like BvS and Logan and the 1966 Batman film.
Also in the evolution of any genre it becomes increasingly self-aware and self-reflexive, commenting on its own conventions and themes. The genre starts out as concrete and opaque but progressively more transparent and abstract, and eventually pokes fun at or parodies itself. With the superhero genre we got the self-parody at the front end with films like 1966's Batman!

Posts: 14

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Cinema & TV → Matt Reeves talks about the Nolan films and how his will be very emotional

Similar topics in this forum