5150 Lego Posted December 26, 2011 But in the context of this website and topic, that is a discussing Batman movies on a LEGO fan site, I think he's right. It may have been a successful business endeavor, but that doesn't mean that it's a successful Batman movie. The fact that a movie is profitable or not is irrelevant to the conversation. Its all a business endeavor. Movies, comics, video games,.. All are made to make profit. If you think otherwise, then your kidding yourself. And its financial success does have everything to do with it. You may not approve of his vision, but others obviously did. I'll say again, ask any business owner whether or not profit equivalents to success and come back with their answer. And what exactly formulates a good "Batman" movie? Batman is 70yrs old. If every time a new comic book writer used the same formula (or at least the one you want them to use), we'd have nothing new. Just the same old stuff over and over again. Maybe your fine with that, but many aren't. Actually people do pay for things they don't like. If you get the hype big enough and have prior successes, a sequel can make money regardless of how good it is. To a point, I'd agree. previous hype can help in the initial jump of profits. As i said before, Heath Ledger is what made TDK good for me, so it will be interesting to see if anyone in the new movie can live up to Heath Ledger and give a similar performance that Heath gave to the Joker. If i like it, you can bet I'll see it a couple times in the theaters as well as recommend it to friends and family. If i don't like it then i would have wasted $8.00 with no recommendation. Life goes on. You justify the quality of The Dark Knight based on its income. Being profitable doesn't make it good. It is no sign of quality. It's a sign of profitability. Movies are a business for sure, but good movies are generally made in spite of the business, not in conjunction with it. No, i justify the quality of TDK based on That i thought it was a good movie. It had a good story, excellent acting, and good effects. I liked it. And the fact that it made as much money as it does proves that there were others that felt the same as me. Maybe not for the same reasons, but liked it non the less. The point was the profits are proof that the masses approved of what they saw. You had a really long explanation why Transformers 2 was good (it involved money), and I'm not buying it. Doesn't matter whether or not you bought it. You said that profits don't mean success. This is not true. It just isn't. The profits from those movies brought in money for the series to expand. Those are facts.This is in fact, success. Again, ask any business owner whether or not profits mean success. I'll reiterate, I think TDK is a so so film. Didn't hate it, didn't love it. But the argument that a lot of people watched it has no meaning. The public often has atrocious taste. That's fine. You don't have to like, or hate it. And your right the fact that alot of people watched it doesn't have meaning. Its the fact that they paid to watch it, and liked it that has meaning. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/ And who are you to tell others they have bad taste? because they don't like the same entertainment you do? My notion of a successful film, Batman or otherwise, is one that is good, not one that turns a profit. What exactly makes a movie good in your eyes? So if a movie has a 100 million dollar budget but only rakes in 20 million, but was good in your eyes... You'd equivocate that as a "success". I'd like you to explain that to the investors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Siegfried Posted December 26, 2011 Its all a business endeavor. Movies, comics, video games,.. All are made to make profit. If you think otherwise, then your kidding yourself. Well obviously it's for money and I'm a tad insulted you'd imply I thought otherwise. But I still don't think it's relevant. Brazil was arguably a flop but I really don't care. To me it's a good movie... and discussing movie profits is boring. I'll say again, ask any business owner whether or not profit equivalents to success and come back with their answer. Well, once again you seem to want to paint me as an idiot but since you seem to really want an answer to an obvious question, as a business owner I can say "yes, profit is a measure of success". But I will also say that it's not the only one. Example? My business got me a job, one that would have required several years in study and several years in other jobs to get. Also I could be more profitable if I did "bad" things, which I did not, and thus I was a success in that I stood by my beliefs. I think movies are much the same. Ultimately, regardless of profits, most of the cast get paid. Regardless of profits the story was told, and for some directors and writers that is the primary goal. Regardless of profits people have a chance to show what they can do, and can possible use that to get another job. Is that not success? And what exactly formulates a good "Batman" movie? Batman is 70yrs old. If every time a new comic book writer used the same formula (or at least the one you want them to use), we'd have nothing new. Just the same old stuff over and over again. Maybe your fine with that, but many aren't. Well as I've said, Batman has been rebooted several times to match changing times. So the formula is not a constant. I can't think of one comic book/video game based movies that had fans in mind first that was a financial success at the box office. Do you have any in mind? The only movies I can think of that have fans in mind were Japanese, ones like Advent Children and anime sequels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
def Posted December 26, 2011 I'd like you to explain that to the investors. I really couldn't care less what investors think. I can't fathom why you'd make that such a key point. As Siegried mentioned, Brazil was certainly a successful film, regardless of the money. Th Big Lebowski, Scott Pilgrim... All made less than Schumaker's Batman & Robin. But, as you point out, good movies are about popular consensus, not quality I think they're all successful movies, just not financially. I think you have a very business oriented concept of success, one that I don't share It's awesome that you love the film, and I'm not trying to take that away from you. But, the notion that a lot of 14-year old boys went to see a super hero movie four times over the summer does not make it great. The American public bought Vanilla Ice, Avatar and Two And a Half Men. There's absolutely no way that I'm going to take popularity as a measure of quality. I'm a free thinker Again, like it as much as you like, but please don't ask me to care what investors think, it's not going to happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess Muttonchops Posted December 26, 2011 What strikes me in all of this discussion is how Christopher Nolan is approaching the heady heights of George Lucas in terms of fanboyism. He has obviously struck a cord with the masses, because anyone who disagrees with his vision of Batman and says so publicly will often be met with skepticism and the question of "Why?", accompanied by a look that suggests you are one stubbie short of a six-pack (well, at least that's my personal experience). But then I often find myself "not getting" the latest hot sensation. Harry Potter for example, I read the first book and found JK Rowlings' vision of magic just too infantile and nonsensical to read anymore, and look how astronomically well the series went. I haven't read/watched any of the Twilight incarnations, but to be honest I've hit saturation point with vampire stories. So I think maybe I should hire myself out to hollywood studios to preview movies/TV shows, and whatever I don't like, then that's the one to go for, it's bound to be a box office smash... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr jones Posted December 26, 2011 What the public has never seen is a live action Batman that's true to the source. but there isn't anything that you could call a source Like Penguin pointed out, there are so many different incarnations of the Batman in the comics on there own. For example, we have: - Frank Miller's batman in All-star; a lunantic who's ready to mistreat a child and who, although maybe not on purpose, kills people in his wild campaigns - Arkam asylum/ city, a dark batman, who wears what you might call an armor. - the sixtees Batman; as in the TV-show, really campy - Kelly Jones' Batman, a dark gothic monster -... You see, they are all really different from each other, why make them holy and despice Nolan' version? it's just another view on Batman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Penguin Posted December 26, 2011 but there isn't anything that you could call a source Like Penguin pointed out, there are so many different incarnations of the Batman in the comics on there own. For example, we have: - Frank Miller's batman in All-star; a lunantic who's ready to mistreat a child and who, although maybe not on purpose, kills people in his wild campaigns - Arkam asylum/ city, a dark batman, who wears what you might call an armor. - the sixtees Batman; as in the TV-show, really campy - Kelly Jones' Batman, a dark gothic monster -... You see, they are all really different from each other, why make them holy and despice Nolan' version? it's just another view on Batman. Wait a second here. Different incarnations indeed, but basically in comic books the core of the character, the motto and the world stays the same. yes, even in 60-s! Gotham is still a demented weird city like no other. A bit offtopic: in my view it is actually Gotham that rules the heroes of Batverse, not heroes..... - Would you lindly remind me what you actually mean here? I don't really recall Batman mistreating children..... - To my mind Arkham Asylum/City stays quite true to the comics. As for armour, it's still very tight on his muscular body, so it looks very Batman-sh. If they ever included anything like that in the movies I wouldn't have been complaining about full plate rubber armour that Batmans tend to have in the films. - Campy means the visual style, but the origins and the relations with the characters and the characters remain true to the sourse. - Kelly Jones' Batman was never very popular among wide fan community not to mention that it even created lots of jokes on the matter. I don't know, why people hated pirate Batman! I liked Admiral Cobblepot! Just joking. Otherwise someone might use that as an argument point! Good day, ladies and gentlemen! ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Siegfried Posted December 26, 2011 but there isn't anything that you could call a source Like Penguin pointed out, there are so many different incarnations of the Batman in the comics on there own. For example, we have: - Frank Miller's batman in All-star; a lunantic who's ready to mistreat a child and who, although maybe not on purpose, kills people in his wild campaigns - Arkam asylum/ city, a dark batman, who wears what you might call an armor. - the sixtees Batman; as in the TV-show, really campy - Kelly Jones' Batman, a dark gothic monster -... You see, they are all really different from each other, why make them holy and despice Nolan' version? it's just another view on Batman. "In the comics"? Ones a game, the other is a TV show and the other two are deliberate attempts to do things different. I could swear you're just trying to be argumentive... but I'll answer your question just the same. The Killing Joke Pick that as a reference and you can't go too far wrong... and you'll find most Batman fans will agree. Even Nolan. I don't know, why people hated pirate Batman! I liked Admiral Cobblepot! He's pretty cool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr jones Posted December 26, 2011 Wait a second here. Different incarnations indeed, but basically in comic books the core of the character, the motto and the world stays the same. yes, even in 60-s! Gotham is still a demented weird city like no other. A bit offtopic: in my view it is actually Gotham that rules the heroes of Batverse, not heroes..... - Would you lindly remind me what you actually mean here? I don't really recall Batman mistreating children..... In The Miller/Lee book, All-star Batman And Robin (The Boy Wonder) phew a title that's way to long. he starves the kid (Robin) beats him up, and that stuff. "In the comics"? Ones a game, the other is a TV show One's a game, true. But it is a version that you accept as good, not? and the other, not so much, in the 60s, the tv-series had so much succes they adapted the style of the comicbooks to it. Ask Penguin, as he'll have more knowledge about the subject. Oh and yes, The Killing joke still is one of my favorite comics of all time, glad we brought that one up, I have no defence against it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Penguin Posted December 26, 2011 he starves the kid (Robin) beats him up, and that stuff. and the other, not so much, in the 60s, the tv-series had so much succes they adapted the style of the comicbooks to it. Ask Penguin, as he'll have more knowledge about the subject. Interesting, that it seems that I'm not aware of it. It needs checking. As for the show, quite on the contrary, it was actually the comic books that made the show. And it lasted not that long. Then Batman went to a decline to be reboosted by Tim Burton only in 1990-s. Good day, ladies and gentlemen! ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr jones Posted December 26, 2011 As for the show, quite on the contrary, it was actually the comic books that made the show. Thanks, and I think that makes my example even better. Oh, what would we be without the knowledge of the mighty Penguin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
def Posted December 26, 2011 Interesting, that it seems that I'm not aware of it. It needs checking. As for the show, quite on the contrary, it was actually the comic books that made the show. And it lasted not that long. Then Batman went to a decline to be reboosted by Tim Burton only in 1990-s. Good day, ladies and gentlemen! ) Your memory of things is certainly off of mine. The Dark Knight Returns and Year One were out before the Burton films, and A Death in the Family had already shook up the comics. The first Burton movie certainly gave him a boost; that's when the Arkham Asylum graphic novel came out, and the Legends of the Dark Knight series started, but he was already the #1 DC character. I think he'd already punched out Guy Gardner at that point I wasn't around at the time, but I always think the Denny O'Neil stories were what saved the character from becoming a joke. About what dr jones was saying about the 60's show... when comic books were utterly defanged in the 1950's by the comics code (see this Google page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham), they were literally made for kids, though lots of adults read them up to that point. That was when Batman really started going camp. The show was a step up, it was as much a comedy as it was a superhero show. About the accepted interpretations of Batman, I don't find that much discrepancy. Particularly from the 70's onwards, there seems to be a pretty clear vision, that includes his 70's detective work (O'Neil and Adams), his gritty 80's stuff (Miller), and into the next century (Hush, The Long Halloween). Bringing up All-Star Batman is a real weak argument, since it was near universally hated, and the story was never even finished. Frank Miller was quite amazing in the late '80's, but he's, quite honestly, lost his mind. And most of his fans have given up on him. Between the horrifically crap Dark Knight sequel, the horrible All-Star Batman, and the written-for-Batman racist rant that is Holy Terror, well, it's simply best to leave him out of the conversation. I don't know who it was that hurt Miller so badly, but he certainly was hurt bad. In all this discussion about representing Batman well in films, I think we do need to bring up Paul Dini again and again. He has correctly interpreted Batman in animation (and short films), and I think he was a writer in the Arkham games. He really seems to realize what people of all ages find cool about Batman. I'll hold off in passing any judgment about the next Nolan film. I really liked Batman Begins, far more than I expected to, but was let down by the Dark Knight. I find his 'realism' policy silly, in that villains like Poison Ivy and Killer Croc are off-limits. Ironically, I think Nolan might have done those characters quite well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Penguin Posted December 26, 2011 Your memory of things is certainly off of mine. The Dark Knight Returns and Year One were out before the Burton films, and A Death in the Family had already shook up the comics. The first Burton movie certainly gave him a boost; that's when the Arkham Asylum graphic novel came out, and the Legends of the Dark Knight series started, but he was already the #1 DC character. Ironically, I think Nolan might have done those characters quite well. I was just about to apologize for misinformation only to find that I was immediately corrected. Indeed so. He might. Or might not, since he considered Penguin to be very hard to portray in his "realistic" universe. That's almost a quotation. Good day, ladies and gentlemen! ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5150 Lego Posted December 26, 2011 Well obviously it's for money and I'm a tad insulted you'd imply I thought otherwise. But I still don't think it's relevant. Brazil was arguably a flop but I really don't care. To me it's a good movie... and discussing movie profits is boring. I apologize if you felt insulted. That was not my intention. But I'm glad were on the same page concerning money. Now where i believe i faulted was giving you the impression that because it makes money meant its automatically good. I can see where you could have taken that, and that's not where i was going. Its all a Business. This is true. Making money regardless of it being a movie, comic, game, TV show, etc is the all in all key. My point in bring up the financial success of TDK was to illustrate that while you may not approve of Nolan's vision of Batman, other did. Millions across the globe felt it was a good Batman movie. You may not have felt his formula was the right one, but many others did. Like it or not, he did something right. Do you have to like it? No. Is your vision of what makes a good Batman movie wrong? No. Is Nolan's vision of Batman the only way to go? No. Are you wrong for not liking Nolan's movies? No. Well, once again you seem to want to paint me as an idiot but since you seem to really want an answer to an obvious question, as a business owner I can say "yes, profit is a measure of success". No ones painting anyone as an idiot. I brought up that question because of def's original statement of.. Money and profit is never a sign of success. It is a sign of money and profit. This is just a false statement. There's no other way around it. Now it seems that what he should have said was... "Money and profit are never a sign of something good". Then he could have debated his point. But I will also say that it's not the only one. Example? My business got me a job, one that would have required several years in study and several years in other jobs to get. Also I could be more profitable if I did "bad" things, which I did not, and thus I was a success in that I stood by my beliefs. I never said it was the only measure of success. Also I'm not sure what your referring to as "bad", but if that implies doing something illegal, then of course that doesn't apply. At no point did i ever imply that one should break the law in order to gain profits and make money. In my business many I have gained many customers due to my knowledge and customer relations. Not to mention the quality of work. In my business i build emergency vehicles from the ground up One of my polices is we solder all electrical connections and don't use butt or "crimp" connectors. Crimping the wires together is much faster and therefore if i used this method, i could turn out vehicles faster and make more money. But by doing so I'd be giving up the quality of my builds. I won't do that. I have a reputation of building the best quality emergency vehicles in the western United States. That reputation brings back my customers, and gains me new ones. But the kicker is when i bid on jobs, i bid on them according to how long its going to take. While i won't give up my values, i have to make rent. I have to put food on the table. I think movies are much the same. Ultimately, regardless of profits, most of the cast get paid. Regardless of profits the story was told, and for some directors and writers that is the primary goal. Regardless of profits people have a chance to show what they can do, and can possible use that to get another job. Is that not success? Most of the cast gets paid? That's acceptable to you? As a business owner would you be OK only paying some of your employee's? Now one thing i will say is when making a movie there is no guarantee for profit. There's no guarantee that the story that the director sets forth will in even break even, let alone make a profit. But that's why companies like paramount, and DC comics, hire people like Nolan vs. Uwe Boll to direct a movie. (At this point, Boll has such a bad rep, he has had to fund the last couple movies he's directed with his own money) It is possible to get work regardless of the profit you made on your last project. But that's a long shot. IN the case of a movie, its an investment. Studio fronts the money in hopes of a profit. As i said before, there's no guarantee that a movie will make money. But that's the hope. When a company is fronting millions up front, who do you think there going to look to hire first? Boll or Nolan? Most (including the general public ) know both of these directors reputations, and that's going to be part of the driving force to wanting to see the movie. Well as I've said, Batman has been rebooted several times to match changing times. So the formula is not a constant. Exactly. There is no formula. Only what you, I and the next guy would personally like to see (in this case) a batman movie. And that, is largely subjective. My vision, is no more right or wrong than your vision. Do you have any in mind? The only movies I can think of that have fans in mind were Japanese, ones like Advent Children and anime sequels. Mortal kombat is probably the one that instantly comes to mind. Both movies were corny, bad acting and dialog, but very entertaining at the same time. I liked them alot. Very much Mortal Kombat. Defiantly had fans in mind before anything else. I really couldn't care less what investors think. Of course you don't. That wasn't the question. :septic: Your not the one fronting the money for said movie.Consumers don't care about profit. Your the consumer and just want to be entertained. I can't fathom why you'd make that such a key point. As Siegried mentioned, Brazil was certainly a successful film, regardless of the money. Th Big Lebowski, Scott Pilgrim... All made less than Schumaker's Batman & Robin. But, as you point out, good movies are about popular consensus, not quality I think they're all successful movies, just not financially. You obviously haven't read anything i said. I clearly addressed that a movie that makes more money than another does not mean it was better. I'm going to say this one more time.. The point of bring up the profit of Nolan's Batman movies is to show that others liked his vison. If you or anyone else didn't like it then fine. You don't have to. No ones forcing you. But you can't just dismiss that his vision was wrong or didn't capture Batman. Again, if it didn't to you, then fine. But one can't dismiss that others did in fact approve. I think you have a very business oriented concept of success, one that I don't share In a business aspect Yes. I define profit as success. Movies as you have already admitted, are a business. It's awesome that you love the film, and I'm not trying to take that away from you. But, the notion that a lot of 14-year old boys went to see a super hero movie four times over the summer does not make it great. The American public bought Vanilla Ice, Avatar and Two And a Half Men. There's absolutely no way that I'm going to take popularity as a measure of quality. I'm a free thinker Again, like it as much as you like, but please don't ask me to care what investors think, it's not going to happen. 1.- Nor am i trying to take anything away from you. I respect your views on the movie and never tried to convince you, or others otherwise.c 2.-Maybe you didn't feel it was great. But you know what? I bet those 14yr olds boys that spent there allowance to see the movie 4 times did. 3.- You don't have to measure the popularity as quality as what's quality to you, me, and the next guy is subjective. 4.- Please re-read my last post. I never asker you to care what the investors think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
def Posted December 26, 2011 The point of bring up the profit of Nolan's Batman movies is to show that others liked his vison. If you or anyone else didn't like it then fine. You don't have to. No ones forcing you. But you can't just dismiss that his vision was wrong or didn't capture Batman. Again, if it didn't to you, then fine. But one can't dismiss that others did in fact approve. You're really not making any point. Basically, you're saying that Nolan's version is good because people liked it. And the fact that I didn't love it is irrelevant to the matter because others did. So, people who liked it have relevant opinions, people who don't have irrelevant opinions. After all, I can't dismiss the fact that others approved By that measure, let's hypothesize, some comic hating director gets selected to make a Batman movie, and he decides to camp the hell out of the movie. He has the bat-nipples, he goes further and gives Batman a pink cape, and makes Batman speak like John Wayne. Somehow, this captures the zeitgeist, and makes more money than even your golden Dark Knight did. Under your logic, I must respect it because it was popular. Even if by all logic it sucks. After all, America likes it, and I can't dismiss that No, I really don't care, and everything you write about businesses, money-grossed, and popularity is irrelevant to the success of a movie. And just to close this little discussion, since you seem to be arguing in the way only people on the Internet can, here is the prime dictionary definition of success: the accomplishment of an aim or purpose Nothing is written about money. Nothing. When I wrote about he "success" of a movie, I was not talking about business success. Accept it and move on. Maybe when you watch a movie, you care about what the people funding the movie were aiming for, but most of the planet doesn't. I certainly don't. When I sit down in a movie theater, and the lights go out, I never ever consider whether the movie is a business success. So, you can drop the semiotic argument on what success business investors want. Honestly, I don't think anybody was disagreeing with your hypothesis that business people want to make money. Quality is not a matter of consensus. If we listened to the crowd, Justin Bieber would be crowned the greatest musician of all time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr jones Posted December 27, 2011 You're really not making any point. Basically, you're saying that Nolan's version is good because people liked it. And the fact that I didn't love it is irrelevant to the matter because others did. So, people who liked it have relevant opinions, people who don't have irrelevant opinions. After all, I can't dismiss the fact that others approved If we listened to the crowd, Justin Bieber would be crowned the greatest musician of all time. But you are saying that the one's who disliked the movie, like you, have a more relevant opinion than the one's who liked it, or at least, that is how you make it seem. The fact is that millions of people enjoyed the movie, and thought it was great. Now of course there are people who dislike the movie, and it's their full right to do so. But the one's who like the movie outnumber the one's who didn't big time, so there must be something good about the movie, or else the millions of people wouldn't like it. If we listened to the crowd, Justin Bieber would be crowned the greatest musician of all time. Are you sure he isn't? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
def Posted December 27, 2011 But you are saying that the one's who disliked the movie, like you, have a more relevant opinion than the one's who liked it, or at least, that is how you make it seem. To me, I have a more relevant opinion than the movie-going public, to the extent that when I see a top-grossing movie and think it's terrible, I don't blame myself for not getting it. I trust my own opinion. Whether you want to place any value in that opinion is your own choice, and I would suggest paying attention to what has been written, and weighing those words, seeing whether they are sensible or not. I don't think you've paid attention to what I've written, since you think I disliked the movie, and I never said anything of the sort. I thought it was so-so. The fact is that millions of people enjoyed the movie, and thought it was great. Now of course there are people who dislike the movie, and it's their full right to do so. But the one's who like the movie outnumber the one's who didn't big time, so there must be something good about the movie, or else the millions of people wouldn't like it. Keeping in mind that I have already said the movie is alright... Has anybody here said the movie is uniformly terrible? That there is not a single thing good about it? Find that quote, and then you can reply to their quote and explain to them that if millions of people like something, there must be something good about it. Are you sure he isn't? Pretty much I don't get why Bat-fans are so sensitive about the movie. In general, people aren't trashing it as bad. But any comment that isn't talking about how orgasmically awesome it was seems to draw them out of the woodwork. I was of mixed emotions about the new flick. Not dying to see it or anything, but I was going to be happy to check it out on DVD at least. But the tone of Nolan/Batman supporters in this thread is making me find it insufferable. If the fans get as rabid over this film, I may just take the Titanic route on it, wait ten years to see it when it's on TV. Thanks Internet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr jones Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) I don't get why Bat-fans are so sensitive about the movie. In general, people aren't trashing it as bad. But any comment that isn't talking about how orgasmically awesome it was seems to draw them out of the woodwork. I guess I misenterpreted some of your thoughts then. And I apologize for placing you in the wrong box. But my points still stand. Not against you persé, but against people who think more in the lines of Siegfried. (Not that I mean any disrespect to him) As to the sensitivity, I think the Bat-fans are more sensitive about people liking the movie. And I think you as well missed some things as I was not defending the movie as a Bat-movie, I was just defending it as a movie, which happens to star Batman. On another note, I'm watching all the episodes of Batman The Animated Series again, and I must say. This is Batman, as I think he was meant to be. Edited December 27, 2011 by dr jones Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Siegfried Posted December 27, 2011 But my points still stand. Not against you persé, but against people who think more in the lines of Siegfried. (Not that I mean any disrespect to him) So please tell me how I think. (...and be as disrespectful as you want.) If you're going to say I don't accept any changes then you've got me 100% wrong. All I want is a Batman movie that stars Batman. I'm not that hard to please. I even liked Avatar. One's a game, true. But it is a version that you accept as good, not? It's OK, but it's doing the movie mistake and killing characters too easily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr jones Posted December 27, 2011 , but it's doing the movie mistake and killing characters too easily. Yes I hate that in about every superhero movie, all the villains die! So I really liked the fact that nolan at least kept the main vllain of TDK and Scarecrow alive. And reportedly Ra's is alive as well, compeletey breaking Nolan's rule with what seems to be a Lazarus pit. So the only real villain he offed, was Two-Face, who was not given enough screentime to evolve into Two-face. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lothos Posted December 27, 2011 Entertainment's success is determined by 2 factors that matter to people that fund said entertaining piece of technology/art whatever. According to a marketing perspective. 1. Revenue, if you make something and sell alot of it, congradulations you're a success. 2. Critics: If they like it, you're golden. Before I go on, I'll say this, this is a marketing stand point. Back in the 80's/mid 90s every adventure movie had a toy that went with it, every saturday morning cartoon, action figures and play sets galore. Lego was the exception as they didn't have any big boy licenses behind them and sold, pardon the phrase "Generic brand" of action figure thingy. Kids bought the action figures, tv shows ran. Look at TMNT stuff's been around from the mid 80's, and thanks to a semi "Successful", see above, movie franchise it can prosper and grow. Marketing is a fun and interesting situation. batman will sell to kids and adults. The movies will make 20 somethings and older teens get their fan boy on, the independent movie crowd, who will complain about Nolan "Selling out" as opposed to finally being appreciated for the film making he does, will complain but still go see the film. Exceptions. 1. Fan boy isms: Alot of people will be a cult following. ROcky Horror did piss poor in theaters. But, loads of people to this day still do the shows, buys the merch, etc. When the goth market sky rocketed thanks to Manson and other dark bands, or whatever, everyone was a sweet transvestite from Transylvania. Fans hardly every bring something back, Family guy, Futurama are pretty awesome examples. /weep firefly. And finally, personel taste. I like the batman flicks, the nolan ones idealize the vision of batman that I've always wanted to see. Others don't. Personel taste is fun for the whole family. Someoen could say why something is successful because they like it, but from a marketing point of view, money and critics are what make the world go around. Like it or not. Ps The Keaton batflicks were good, I enjoyed the first oen alot. Batman Forever was good because it was camp done right, B and R? Well much like Highlander 2 or the matrix "Trilogy" they don't exist in my universe. Personel taste. Good times. You could argue that taste is dumb and yada yada, but the key factor is personel. Not everyone will like what everyone else does, and that's ok. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
K-Nut Posted December 27, 2011 So the only real villain he offed, was Two-Face, who was not given enough screentime to evolve into Two-face. That's what I hate! My favorite villain is killed before he can even become the villain! Maybe he's just in a coma... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr jones Posted December 27, 2011 That's what I hate! My favorite villain is killed before he can even become the villain! Maybe he's just in a coma... Sadly no. :cry_sad: Nolan said he was dead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5150 Lego Posted December 27, 2011 You're really not making any point. Yes, yes i am. You obivouly can't read. Since in the very post you quoted of mine, i said that you don't have to like the movie, nor are you wrong for not not liking it. Basically, you're saying that Nolan's version is good because people liked it. And the fact that I didn't love it is irrelevant to the matter because others did. So, people who liked it have relevant opinions, people who don't have irrelevant opinions. After all, I can't dismiss the fact that others approved NO, i never said that. I said that others thought it was good. You obviously have a hard time comprehending words, so there's no point in trying to explain it any further to you. You hear what you want to hear. You read what you want to read and attempt to twist it in your favor. It didn't work. You've acomplished nothing. No, I really don't care, and everything you write about businesses, money-grossed, and popularity is irrelevant to the success of a movie. Your just flat out wrong. I never said it was the only factor, but it is a big part. Your wrong. You can deal with it or not. But you are in fact, wrong. Nothing is written about money. Nothing. When I wrote about he "success" of a movie, I was not talking about business success. Accept it and move on. Yet you admit that movie making is in fact a buisness, but yet the buisness aspect has nothing to do with it from a movie making point of view. Now your a hypocryte. (And i'm not calling you that to insult you. You said yourself, that movie making is buisness) Page 14, post 198.. Movies are a business for sure, but good movies are generally made in spite of the business, not in conjunction with it. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it, but that fact that it's buisness (that you admit to) proves that profits are not only important, but have to be concidered. Again, from a movie making stand point. I already covered that the consumer donesn't care. There the ones giving there money, so there main concern is that they are enterained and feel they've gotten there moneys worth. And rightfully so. Entertainment's success is determined by 2 factors that matter to people that fund said entertaining piece of technology/art whatever. According to a marketing perspective. 1. Revenue, if you make something and sell alot of it, congradulations you're a success. 2. Critics: If they like it, you're golden. Before I go on, I'll say this, this is a marketing stand point. Back in the 80's/mid 90s every adventure movie had a toy that went with it, every saturday morning cartoon, action figures and play sets galore. Lego was the exception as they didn't have any big boy licenses behind them and sold, pardon the phrase "Generic brand" of action figure thingy. Kids bought the action figures, tv shows ran. Look at TMNT stuff's been around from the mid 80's, and thanks to a semi "Successful", see above, movie franchise it can prosper and grow. Marketing is a fun and interesting situation. batman will sell to kids and adults. The movies will make 20 somethings and older teens get their fan boy on, the independent movie crowd, who will complain about Nolan "Selling out" as opposed to finally being appreciated for the film making he does, will complain but still go see the film. Exceptions. 1. Fan boy isms: Alot of people will be a cult following. ROcky Horror did piss poor in theaters. But, loads of people to this day still do the shows, buys the merch, etc. When the goth market sky rocketed thanks to Manson and other dark bands, or whatever, everyone was a sweet transvestite from Transylvania. Fans hardly every bring something back, Family guy, Futurama are pretty awesome examples. /weep firefly. And finally, personel taste. I like the batman flicks, the nolan ones idealize the vision of batman that I've always wanted to see. Others don't. Personel taste is fun for the whole family. Someoen could say why something is successful because they like it, but from a marketing point of view, money and critics are what make the world go around. Like it or not. Ps The Keaton batflicks were good, I enjoyed the first oen alot. Batman Forever was good because it was camp done right, B and R? Well much like Highlander 2 or the matrix "Trilogy" they don't exist in my universe. Personel taste. Good times. You could argue that taste is dumb and yada yada, but the key factor is personel. Not everyone will like what everyone else does, and that's ok. :) Thank you Lothos. You got out what maybe i had a hard time conveying. And i highlighted the personal aspects because when it comes down to taste and what someone thought is good or bad, its all about personal tatse. Basicly someone's opinion. Their nor right, nor wrong. Just their opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
K-Nut Posted December 27, 2011 Sadly no. :cry_sad: Nolan said he was dead. Eh, whatever. He'll come back in the next series of films! On another note, has anyone here heard of the plot-line of the unmade fifth Burton Batman film? I came across it recently and it sounded interesting. It supposedly had Man-bat, Harley Quinn, and Scarecrow. The best part is, Alicia Silverstone got killed off in the first 19 pages of the script! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
def Posted December 27, 2011 Yes, yes i am. You obivouly can't read. Ah, so success is only a matter of money (and not referring to the quality of a film), even though I have explicitly said that when I used the term, I was referring to the quality of it. Got it. Not only can I not understand words in your posts, apparently I can't use them in my own, even when I use the dictionary to get the definition of the word And the profitability is a factor in me enjoying a movie. I'll be sure to refer to a movie's "success" on Rotten Tomatoes before I decide if it's good from now on. Congratulations 5150 Lego, you are a winner! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
