Christopher Nolan on how the 'Dark Knight Trilogy' prepared him for 'Dunkirk'

Christopher Nolan is hard at work on his second movie since wrapping up his amazing Dark Knight Trilogy back in 2012. The new movie is called Dunkirk, and it's based on true events that took place during World War II.

Nolan was in Las Vegas at CinemaCon this past week, and the Los Angeles Times caught up with him to chat about his intense new war movie. A few Batman questions were thrown in at the end of the interview, you can check those out below.

Did you carry anything from your time on ‘The Dark Knight’ trilogy to ‘Dunkirk’?
I think the time I spent making large scale entertainment — with respect to entertainment, this is suspenseful entertainment. My 10 years of working with the character [of Batman] is essential to understanding imagery and sound, and push-and-pull in a particular direction.
Ben Affleck, who plays the new Batman, is also here in Vegas. Do you follow the new Batman films?
No, no, I don’t want to go into that. I’m here to talk about “Dunkirk.”

Ok then! You can check out the Dunkirk trailer below.

SOURCE: Los Angeles Times

148 comments

Vi$h Gau§§

March 31, 2017

This is amazing.

Christopher Nolan's foreword to Man Of Steel and Zack Snyder.

Two GOATS acknowledging each other 🔥

https://www.instagram.com/p...

EpicNoobsFTW
March 31, 2017
powerful words from him there
Black Adam
March 31, 2017
Soo, the guy responsible for this mistreatment Snyder is enduring since Man Of Steel is none other than Nolan? Ain't life a b***...
Seriously, we don't deserve Snyder. MoS - Greatest superhero origin movie of all time.
1. Schuyler Finley
  March 31, 2017
  True, but I think they presented that when Clark had found the scout ship. He was overjoyed to finally return home and tell his mom the good news. Even Smallvile did something similar.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    March 31, 2017
    It makes sense though. Most people wouldn't have an infectious personality if they've been wondering why they're so different from everyone. It's why I believe JL and future films will give us that happy Clark Kent. In BvS, he had the weight of the world on his shoulders. In future films, he will have help from the League to take some of the weight off his shoulders.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      March 31, 2017
      I just think it's better to see him grow into the role of the Icon, not see him immediately become the Icon.
    2. Schuyler Finley
      March 31, 2017
      If Batman goes back to his no-kill rule, I still see him being able to inspire people with it. It's like a former addict persuading people from making the same mistakes he had made. Batman has seen the monster he almost became. He can still persuade others like Jason from going down that dark path because he's walked it himself. He knows where the path will lead to. Instead of asking "what was lost?", you should instead ask "what was gained?". Through killing, Batman has gained understanding.
    3. Schuyler Finley
      April 1, 2017
      But there are people who have compromised their ethics, for good or bad reasons. Batman can now show to audiences that even if you do compromise, you can still redeem yourself. His villains always have that option, but most of them never take it because they enjoy being a monster or they think that there's no going back. Batman can show them otherwise.
    4. Gonk
      March 31, 2017
      Exactly. even though he is an alien, his upbringing and personality make his choices in the world weighted by human experience and equally of one who knew he was an outsider.
      He doubts his position in the world, anyone in his position would, he as a character doesn't know what he is yet.
2. Ryan
  March 31, 2017
  Wow.. that's almost the dumbest shit I've ever heard.. are u John campea?
3. residentgrigo
  March 31, 2017
  MoS is the 6th biggest US market success in that sub-genre:
  http://www.boxofficemojo.co...
  I would put Guardians above it but that one ain´t a solo film.
4. ShadowGuardian
  April 1, 2017
  That "greatest superhero origin movie of all time" belongs to a little film called Batman Begins.
5. Alan Conn
  April 1, 2017
  For the life of me how do people get tortured from Man of Steel?!?!?! Maybe unsure at times? CERTAINLY contemplative A LOT!!! To me he is in his own mind a lot and i can completely relate to that and trying to figure out the world and yourself. Tortured?! I never got tortured. Unsured? Confused? Maybe What people ignore are the times where he actually IS QUITE HOPEFUL in these films... people see what they wanna see tho and thats where any controversy GOOD OR BAD comes from w the DCEU. And as negative o a person as i usually am i absolutely see the good.
6. Joker
  April 2, 2017
  " MoS - Greatest superhero origin movie of all time." No....absolutely not.
Joe K.
March 31, 2017
Thank you Chris Nolan for all you've done for the genre, and believing in Snyder. Zack's trilogy is going to go down as the best CBM trilogy.
1. Vi$h Gau§§
  March 31, 2017
  We need a MOS 2 reunion, but keep Goyer as far away as possible this time.
  https://ewedit.files.wordpr...
  1. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
    March 31, 2017
    https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
  2. OGmacrazy
    April 1, 2017
    And Snyder and his wife.
    1. Vi$h Gau§§
      April 1, 2017
      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    2. OGmacrazy
      April 1, 2017
      http://i.memeful.com/media/...
2. dugzino
  March 31, 2017
  Snyder's visual storytelling is beyond amazing.
  That's what Kubrick was awesome at and hated for it as well.
  And I can't wait to see what Nolan brings to the table after Interstellar, which is my favourite movie of all time. I'm not a fan of his Batman trilogy, only actually loved Batman Begins but the rest of his movie portfolio are great with Inception being one of those original movies that pops out every few years.
  1. Vi$h Gau§§
    March 31, 2017
    Dunkirk will be great!
    1. ShadowGuardian
      April 1, 2017
      Dunkirk is going to be amazing. One of my most anticipated movies of the year. Nolan hasn't let me down yet. Plus Tom Hardy's in it.
3. Jack Thorne
  March 31, 2017
  Snyder's trilogy is 0 for 2 in terms of critical acclaim. Even if JUSTICE LEAGUE gathers 99% RT scores, his trilogy will never be heralded as great. That ship has long since sailed.
  Nolan on the other hand hasn't even had a bad movie yet. The Nolan Trilogy is one of the best trilogies let alone the best comicbook movie trilogy ever.
  I suspect it will be for a very long time to come.
  1. Joe K.
    March 31, 2017
    I don't care about critical acclaim, box office, or the directors track record. Nolan is an amazing movie director. No shit. I love those movies too. But when it comes to CBMs, he doesn't come close to achieving what Zack has done, which is bringing Gods to life. Every time a character of his enters a scene there is this... Alex Ross, holy shit they are larger than life feeling. Nolan achieved that with the Joker, and for me personally with Jim Gordon. But in 3 movies his Batman never owned a scene like Snyder's. I'll give you that it's the best CBM trilogy out now, but that's until November and this story comes together right now, over me. Sorry I had to.
    1. Jack Thorne
      March 31, 2017
      You have a perverse understanding of the term “comicbook movies”.
      Comicbook movies literally mean movies that have comicbook characters in them. Guess what? Nolan’s Trilogy are comicbook movies. And that’s it. Period. There’s no precondition of “bringing Gods to life”, or having crazy artistic visuals for the film to be called a CBM. There are a wealth of comicbooks out there that don’t have "Gods", crazy desat visuals and are nothing like Snyder's films. Snyder did not create the comicbook movie.
      THE LONG HALLOWEEN is more Nolan than it is Snyder in comicbook feel.
      PS. Many would balk that you would talk about "best________movies", but not even include critical acclaim for a movie as a measurement for that.
    2. Joe K.
      March 31, 2017
      a bunch of shit CBMs have been critically acclaimed or have high rotten scores.
    3. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      They're probably not "shit" then.
    4. Kriss_Kringle
      April 1, 2017
      You do realize that 2001 was met with mixed reviews back in '68 and Blade Runner originally had bad reviews,right?.Now,before you get your panties in a bunch about me comparing Snyder's MoS and BvS to those two classics,I'm not.
      I'm just saying that a lot of movies were critically panned at first,only for them to be reevaluated years later with different eyes.
    5. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      Yeah...I know. I'm not disputing initially bad movies can later become really good movies after time.
      What I'm saying is if people think BvS will be considered good after time, then they need to show WHY they think BvS will become good after time and not just stay shit like 99% of shit movies do.
      For every initially 'bad' movie that's now considered 'good', I'll list 100 bad movies that stayed bad. Unless you can show otherwise, BvS is one of them.
    6. Kriss_Kringle
      April 1, 2017
      Well,this thing about BvS being bad is subjective.There's no way you can objectively prove it's bad,since people don't like the same thing and critical reception means very little.
      This video is proof that it isn't just your run of the mill superhero movie and there was quite a lot of thought put into BvS. You don't see that sort of craftsmanship and risk taking in Marvel movies and you definitely don't find new things when you revisit them.Whether it was to your liking or not is an entirely different matter,but saying it's shit as if it's a done and dusted case isn't exactly accurate.
      https://vimeo.com/189876347
    7. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      I’ve seen this. Just because a film alludes to religious, historical or artistic allegories, themes or symbolisms, it doesn’t therefore mean the film is ‘good’. There are lots of films out there that have limited allegories, themes or symbolisms that are really good. Likewise, there are many films that do allude to them and turn out to be less than stellar – BvS is one of them.
      These ‘messages’ are the cherry on top of films – they can make really good films great, but only if the foundations, the basics of a film, are done well ie. compelling story, coherent and comprehensible plot, well-defined characters (motivation, personality and growth), and good ‘structural and momentary’ editing. If you don’t do this right, you don’t have a good film. BvS didn’t do any of these right (except maybe momentary editing), therefore it wasn’t a good film. In contrast, THE DARK KNIGHT is a great film, because the story, plot, characters and editing are superb, AND it has the philosophical, allegorical, thematic and symbolic weight to be a timeless juggernaut.
      These 'messages' in themselves are a NECESSARY condition to making a great film, but they are not a SUFFICIENT condition to making a great film. Big difference.
      Lastly, most of that video is just about good camera work. We all agree Snyder knows how to shoot and frame, so it’s no surprise a lot of his compositions are repeated. Other shots are just pure coincidental. If you’re a cameraman or a photographer (like me), you’ll know that certain compositions work best (eg ‘The Golden Ratio’).
      https://www.youtube.com/wat...
    8. Kriss_Kringle
      April 1, 2017
      "These ‘messages’ are the cherry on top of films – they can make really good films great, but only if the foundations, the basics of a good film, are done well ie. compelling story, coherent and comprehensible plot, well-defined characters (motivation, personality and growth), and good ‘structural and momentary’ editing. If you don’t do this right, you don’t have a good film. BvS didn’t do any of these right (except maybe momentary editing), therefore it wasn’t a good film."
      According to you.For others it had a compelling story,coherent and comprehensible plot and well defined characters,so as I said,it's all very subjective in the end.
      Really now,you don't have to go through all the trouble of calling people out for liking BvS just because you think it's a bad movie.A lot of people hate it and a lot like it.It's just that the ones that don't like it are the most vocal,like yourself.
    9. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      No. Your love for a film is SUBJECTIVE. The ability to assess a film as 'good' or 'bad' is OBJECTIVE. You're confusing the two. It's the reason why the vast majority of critics bash a film and praise another. It's also the reason why so many fans think BvS is 'good', they're confusing it with their emotional response to it.
      There's nothing "subjective" about an contradictory story. There's nothing "subjective" about an incoherent plot. There's nothing "subjective" about poorly defined characters with inconsistent motivations and actions. And there's nothing "subjective" about pacing, tempo and flow problems.
      These are OBJECTIVE values. There is an understanding of how they are done well, and how they are done poorly.
    10. OGmacrazy
      April 1, 2017
      God damn. Someone call the fucking firemen!
    11. Kriss_Kringle
      April 1, 2017
      You really have nothing to go on,no matter how much you try to act superior,because I can spin it just as well as you can.
      Your hate for a film is SUBJECTIVE,too,therefore everything else you just wrote about assessing it makes your reply all the more contradictory.
      You don't get to choose what fans should think is good or bad,so get off that high horse.
      What's contradictory in the story?What's incoherent in the plot?You're just throwing words around for the sake of it.I watched it four times in theaters and that's considered the "butchered" version of BvS,which I understood just fine and obviously enjoyed since I went back for repeated viewings.
      And what's with all the TDK comparisons ?When did I ever mention it and why must you put them besides each other?
      It seems to me that your expectations were so high that you were let down by them in the end and now you're coming for everyone who has anything good to say about it for some reason.
      Instead of wasting your time talking about a movie you obviously didn't like and continue to do so one year after it came out,why don't you just move on and talk about the things that you like,you know,like the rational person you claim to be?
    12. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      “You really have nothing to go on, no matter how much you try to act superior,”
      Really? That’s the reply you’re choosing to go with? Ok then. Lol.
      You're getting upset and accusatory. I find it sad how badly you’re reacting to having your arguments dismantled. Look at all of your posts, each of them has been convincingly refuted with concise, backed-up, rationally persuasive arguments, while you have been incapable in refuting mine beyond simple rhetoric.
      Contradictory story means when the narrative in internally inconsistent. In the case of BvS, the story is supposed to be DKR meets the THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN. It doesn’t work, because Superman’s death was about the death of pure good, while in DKR, Batman raison d’etre for fighting Superman is because in the latter stages of their careers he CHANGED and adopted views that no longer corresponded to his good nature. But in BvS, Superman isn’t that righteous good, he's 'Batman-Light', so the premise of why they are fighting – the ideological struggle- the death of pure goodness, and the fight at the end of their careers, is non-existent. Snyder took two comicbooks with two contradictory meanings and moronically put them together as a first meeting between Bats and Supes.
      An incoherent plot means circumstances where what happens (A to B, B to C etc) do not make sense, either for the story or for the characters. On a number of occasions the plot forces itself through in circumstances that make the characters do incoherent things. In other cases, the characters don’t even react to plot events. If you have that level of inconsistency between the film and characters, then the plot is incoherent. The characters are not well-defined either. Their motivations turn on a dime, their internal states do not align with their actions, they make unjustified or confusing decisions, and there’s little growth. The structural and temporary editing is a mess. There is no flow to the tempo or pacing. A scene with one character will occur (usually with no dramatic build-up), only to be followed by something completely disparate that undermines the momentum and energy of everything that came before it.
      It’s funny that you complain about me mentioning TDK but you have no problem in raising and criticizing Marvel?! Don’t blow out another’s candle just to try and make your candle brighter. I brought up TDK because it’s the perfect example of a Batman film that does what you protest BvS does. Therefore, it’s designed to show you how factually wrong you are about BvS.
      As soon as you’re interested in having a debate about the issues rather than venting at me just because you lack the skills to form a compelling, logically sound argument, let me know.
    13. Kriss_Kringle
      April 2, 2017
      "Look at all of your posts, each of them has been convincingly refuted with concise, backed-up, rationally persuasive arguments, while you have been incapable in refuting mine beyond simple rhetoric."
      Examples,please.Otherwise you're just adding window dressing on your arguments to sound more convincing to whoever else is reading around here with the hope that they'll upvote your post.
      "Contradictory story means when the narrative in internally inconsistent. In the case of BvS, the story is supposed to be DKR meets the THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN. It doesn’t work, because Superman’s death was about the death of pure good, while in DKR, Batman raison d’etre for fighting Superman is because in the latter stages of their careers he CHANGED and adopted views that no longer corresponded to his good nature. But in BvS, Superman isn’t that righteous good, he's 'Batman-Light', so the premise of why they are fighting – the ideological struggle- the death of pure goodness, and the fight at the end of their careers, is non-existent. Snyder took two comicbooks with two contradictory meanings and moronically put them together as a first meeting between Bats and Supes."
      Completely wrong.You're mixing up inspiration with direct adaptation.Just because BvS borrows inspiration from TDRK,Death of Superman,Injustice,Superman for Tomorrow and other films,doesn't mean it's going to limit itself by slavishly reproducing the same themes seen in those comics.It stands alone as a story from them and has it's own thematic arcs that it wants to explore.
      You're thinking in very black and white terms about the story,as MoS and BvS choose to go for a more grey area.First,by Superman killing Zod at the end of the first film,which represents a departure from how superhero adaptations usually tend to end,and second,by Batman starting to become more cruel as he gets older and realizes he's powerless after seeing what happened during the Black Zero Event.He's like Don Quixote fighting the windmills,as I like to compare him.
      Basically,you can't expect to go to war without getting blood on your hands.
      It's been set from MoS that there are no black and white decisions and these characters are flawed,just like any person is.They make mistakes when they're starting out or they get lost along the way.It's human nature.
      You're so narrow minded to understand this simple concept,since you can't even catch onto the fact that what happened at the end of MoS created a moral precedent,therefore making your argument about "pure good" and how the clashing ideologies should have been handled completely null and void.
      I've said this multiple times around here and it seems like it's rocket science for some,so I'll repeat it.You judge what you see on screen,not what you want it to be based on your personal preference or how it was presented in the source material.All on-screen incarnations of these characters are the equivalent of an Elseworlds tale,which changes something about them in order to explore other interesting angles.
      "An incoherent plot means circumstances where what happens (A to B, B to C etc) do not make sense, either for the story or for the characters. On a number of occasions the plot forces itself through in circumstances that make the characters do incoherent things. In other cases, the characters don’t even react to plot events. If you have that level of inconsistency between the film and characters, then the plot is incoherent. The characters are not well-defined either. Their motivations turn on a dime, their internal states do not align with their actions, they make unjustified or confusing decisions, and there’s little growth. The structural and temporary editing is a mess. There is no flow to the tempo or pacing. A scene with one character will occur (usually with no dramatic build-up), only to be followed by something completely disparate that undermines the momentum and energy of everything that came before it."
      All I read here was a generalization of your experience with the film.Give me examples,because,as I've seen in your previous complaint,you have a very rudimentary way of seeing things,so I won't be surprised at all if you completely missed out on things due to frustration or lack of attention.
      "It’s funny that you complain about me mentioning TDK but you have no problem in raising and criticizing Marvel?! Don’t blow out another’s candle just to try and make your candle brighter.'
      It's not funny at all.First off,the TDK trilogy is a self contained one,which doesn't have to work with the headaches shared universes come with,therefore a comparison between that particular film and BvS isn't what I'd call fair.It's a more complicated affair when making something that fits in a larger world as opposed to a self contained story.Another thing is that BvS approaches these characters 50% larger than life and 50% grounded,while TDK takes larger than life characters into a grounded setting.
      The comparison with Marvel is merely about how they do their business process wise.They have an assembly line way of making their products that's high on carbs and light on protein.It's completely fair for a comparison between the two studios since they both use the shared universe trend now.
      " I brought up TDK because it’s the perfect example of a Batman film that does what you protest BvS does. Therefore, it’s designed to show you how factually wrong you are about BvS."
      The last bit is baffling and further proves how rigid your thinking is.TDK is perhaps the best film adapted from a comic book ever and is a favorite of mine,but I wouldn't go around saying it's a perfect Batman film,because there's no such thing.
      If you were to say "it's an almost flawless film that happens to have comic book characters in it",then I would have agreed,so how exactly am I wrong factually?Just because you think that the TDK way is the only way it should be done,doesn't make your argument stand.It goes back to my previous mention of Elseworlds tales.
      "As soon as you’re interested in having a debate about the issues rather than venting at me just because you lack the skills to form a compelling, logically sound argument, let me know."
      I'm not sure there's much to squeeze out of this debate after this,to be honest,as you've failed to be convincing in any way,but nonetheless you'll come back with a vengeance and say the same thing about me.
    14. Joker
      April 2, 2017
      Dude...give up. He ripped you a new one.
    15. Jack Thorne
      April 10, 2017
      “All I read here was a generalization of your experience with the film.”
      I gave an uncontroversial and brief assertion about the plot of BvS, primarily because it’s obvious to those that exercise reasonable amount of critical thinking what the problems were, and because there are too many examples of these problems. But if you wish me to illustrate plot weaknesses, I’m more than happy to in extensive detail.
      The Nairomi scene
      Luthor must have known that Lane wanted to interview the leader, hence why his security force was first in place. How was Luthor able to get his security force in Nairomi long enough to be TRUSTED and hired by a group of TERRORISTS – all this BEFORE Lois Lane decides to interview him? It’s a total contrivance that the leader of a dangerous terrorist group would just nonchalantly hire a white, western, private security force to protect him while he’s so infamous he’s being bombed by a western power. The force would’ve had to be in place a long time to be trusted by the terrorists, but how was Lex able to anticipate Lois would want to interview him in advance? Secondly, if the whole frame operation is supposed to be covert in order to blame Superman, why not use non-specialized munitions instead of magic bullets that can be traced back to Lex? The favored choice of weapon of insurgents across the globe is the one readily available, cheap and can’t be traced back – the AK-47. It makes no sense unless Luthor wanted to be found out. Third, why did Superman not see suspicious guys on motorbikes leaving the scene? Worse, after he’s saved Lois and seen the charred bodies, he just lets the culprits go. Fourth, why is no-one investigating what really happened apart from Lois? Why is no-one calling BS on the actress, least of all actual people that live in Nairomi who wouldn’t recognize her from the village? Why is an actress the only voice we hear from Nairomi? Why isn’t the World’s Greatest Detective on top of this? Why is there a hearing about the collateral damage in a counter-terrorism operation, and not on the thousands dead in a US city?
      The problem with the Nairomi scene is it exists for only two ridiculous reasons. The first is so the movie can have the government ask if maybe Superman should be regulated, which exists solely so the government can get involved with Lex Luthor’s attempt to build an anti-Superman weapon, which itself exists solely so the Finch can say “Hey, stop making that anti-Superman weapon”, which exists solely so Lex can illegally import a big hunk of kryptonite anyway, which exists so Batman can try and steal it in a giant action set piece.
      Capitol Hill story arc
      The second reason for the Nairomi scene is to contrive the Capitol Hill story arc and the framing Superman for the explosion. But this doesn’t even work, the plan is defeated as soon as it happens because Luthor portrays Wally as the suicide bomber. So what was the point of the Hill explosion – to get Clark upset? The scene’s been building up since Nairomi but it has no impact on the story. Nothing changes. People still hate Superman, and even though the poorly done frame job defeats itself, he still mopes off into the mountains, has a hallucination and returns a new man within minutes of the film. It made no sense for him to leave, and as for Batman, the next scene has him stealing the kryptonite, but the explosion didn’t accelerate this, he was already trying to get the kryptonite from the very beginning.
      Luthor’s Mansion
      Luthor invites Clark and Bruce to his party. He knows their respective secret identities, and in the case of Bruce has been laying breadcrumbs for him to follow about the kryptonite. So why invite them? It can’t be to give Bruce access to the information since he already knows that Batman knows he has the information, and that he can extract it unprompted. It can’t be to foster their animosity because Clark doesn’t know Bruce is Batman, and Bruce doesn’t know Clark is Superman. The only thing that motivates Clark to fight Batman is kidnapping Martha. Likewise, Batman was ALREADY wanting to fight Superman from the beginning. If it was so Luthor could gloat then it didn’t do a great job in showing that. By inviting them both he sowed the seeds of his own downfall. The information secured led to WW ultimately helping Superman and Batman against Doomsday. His whole data tracking plan also allowed Batman to trace Martha.
      The scene a contrived plot mess. It was created to have an establishing relationship between Bruce and Clark, and Bruce and Diana, but in doing so it creates one big plothole. Again, the scene makes a character look inexplicably dumb and contradictory, while feigning to have any effect on others. This wasn’t some irony at play, it was lazy storytelling and moronic character motivations.
      The Batmobile chase scene
      Bruce hits the truck with a tracking bug. He could've left it at that, going back for the goods later and deftly extracting it from LexCorp under the cover of darkness. Instead, he immediately engages in a high speed reckless pursuit — creating an incredible ruckus, explosions, wanton property destruction, and numerous, needless, indiscriminate deaths. It also announces his intentions to Lex Luthor and attracting the attention of Superman. Later, he does what he was going to do: extracting it from LexCorp under the cover of darkness with such ease we don’t even get to see it. The argument that he’s crazy and not thinking straight doesn’t work because half the time in the film he acts strategically and methodically. The film requires a huge spectacle with the Batmobile, and a first encounter between Batman and Superman, so the scene is contrived to make this happen, but in forcing through a plot point it makes Batman look like a third rate vigilante idiot.
      These scenes are an example of the plot forcing through events to progress the story, but in doing so it either has no effect on the characters, or makes their actions look stupid. Not only does it constantly trade character development for more plotholes, it destroys the character’s coherence and consistency. That’s a cardinal sin in filmmaking: the characters should always affect the plot, not the other way round.
      There are plenty of other plotholes, especially around Luthor’s grand planning, such as knowledge about secret identities, Bruce’s intel on the WP immediately after its loaded with kryptonite, the’ Bat-branding’, the titular fight, the Doomsday fight, the spear adventures etc. Virtually every major plot point has a plothole. I mentioned the biggest ones that have a dramatic effect on the coherence of the directed plot. More than happy to go into much further detail.
      The truth is that you lost this argument long before your first comment, but perhaps you didn’t know it then. I reply to you now because you said I was more interested in getting upvotes. That seemed to reveal more about you and your own deep-seated frustrations that no-one with any real rational sense is agreeing with you than it did about me. Now, I do not think anyone will be reading and upvoting my extensive replies to an old thread, yet I’m more than happy to reply – because I like crushing arguments.
      Reply or don’t reply, nothing will change the fact that your argument has been crushed, and it seems those who read this thread agree with me.
      Someone “call the firemen” indeed.
    16. Jack Thorne
      April 10, 2017
      You’ve already lost control of this argument, and now you’re embarrassing yourself by losing emotional control too:
      “You’re so narrow minded to understand this simple concept…so I won't be surprised at all if you completely missed out on things due to frustration or lack of attention…. you're just adding window dressing on your arguments to sound more convincing to whoever else is reading around here with the hope that they'll upvote your post…..panties in a twist....come back with vengeance".
      LOL. You’re upset; not only have others started tearing into you, ridiculing the poverty of your argument, they’ve gone out their way to praise me and my argumentation a number of times. You’re now focusing more on my character because you lack the means and emotional control to deal with the legitimate criticisms. Perhaps if you spent more time delivering a well thought out argument you wouldn’t need to rely so much on sham rhetoric that’s now spectacularly backfired.
      Examples of your failed argument?
      Your argument that because BLADE RUNNER originally had bad reviews, BvS will THEREFORE achieve similar post-release greatness is absolutely flawed reasoning. In fact, it’s the worst type of reasoning because it doesn’t bother to explain WHY BvS WILL “be re-evaluated years later with different eyes”, and if you weren’t saying it will, then what was the point of the counter-example? It’s the worst type of reasoning I’ve seen on this thread.
      Your argument about films being subjective was hollow and meaningless special pleading that ignores the general consensus found in all films. As I mentioned before, it conflates a film as being good and bad with loving or hating a film. And yes, while you can love a film for being great, loving a film even though it’s objectively poor and using that as an excuse to say that films are subjective is the worst form of special pleading.
      Furthermore, you don’t need to show a couple of minutes video of similar shots to tell me how ridiculous that was as evidence that this was a good film. Your piece of ‘evidence’ defeats itself without any help from me: ‘Oh look, a shot that looks like a painting – what an amazing film!' LOL. It’s also interesting that I’ve yet to hear any counter argument to the video I sent you, which was much more precise, comprehensive and withering in its analysis and rebuttal of your video. It’s like you’re too afraid to watch it…
      “TDK is perhaps the best film adapted from a comic book ever and is a favorite of mine, but I wouldn't go around saying it's a perfect Batman film, because there's no such thing.”
      Good job I never said “it’s a perfect Batman film”. I said: “I brought up TDK because it’s the perfect example of a Batman film that does what you protest BvS does". This is craven, you’re willing to misread what I wrote in a contemptuous attempt to win support and upvotes. Needless to say, it appears you have spectacularly failed.
      “The comparison with Marvel is merely about how they do their business process wise.They have an assembly line way of making their products that's high on carbs and light on protein. It's completely fair for a comparison between the two studios since they both use the shared universe trend now.”
      Well…no. This is what you originally said: “You don't see that sort of craftsmanship and risk taking in Marvel movies and you definitely don't find new things when you revisit them.”
      It’s staggering how you think you can criticize the relevance of comparing BvS with TDK, yet you think it’s absolutely fine to raise Marvel. Notwithstanding your description of the video depicting “craftsmanship”, we weren’t referring to Marvel at any point at all. Nor was it meaningful to raise it, since the critique was not about Marvel, it was about BvS. Comparing BvS to a Marvel film enriches the debate as much as comparing it with a Transformers movie, the comicbook element is meaningless since it is not a prerequisite to a great movie. Let us assume for a moment that the average Marvel film had less craftsmanship than BvS - so what? Since we are appraising the film on its OWN right, how does a comparison with Marvel enrich or enlighten anything about BvS? Films stand on their own, not by constantly and obsessively bringing down non-relevant films in order to make a piece of crap look good. All you’re showing us is your own insecurity over BvS as a competent piece of “craftsmanship”.
      We’re simply talking about what is a good film, a good Batman film in relation to BvS. THEREFORE, raising THE DARK KNIGHT is a perfect case study, while bringing up Marvel is just bewildering nonsense. Complaining about TDK being part of a trilogy is neither here nor there, since we’re not raising anything about the trilogy, just the one film, the one film that does everything you protest BvS does. These are about issues that EVERY great movie should do – regardless of the shared universe, regardless of the reality, regardless of the fictional element. Not only are you still special pleading for TDK and BvS to be treated differently, you’re now dancing on the head of a pin why they should. It just looks like you got triggered into bringing up Marvel because you got upset at the legitimate criticisms directed at BvS, and you’re now trying to dismiss TDK because it renders your whole argument meaningless. It’s a combination of false analogy, smokescreen fallacy, and special pleading, and it isn’t working.
      “You judge what you see on screen,not what you want it to be based on your personal preference or how it was presented in the source material.All on-screen incarnations of these characters are the equivalent of an Elseworlds tale,which changes something about them in order to explore other interesting angles.”
      You write about the fact that Superman in MOS is imperfect because he kills Zod, and is partly responsible for the destruction of Metropolis. This is irrelevant to my point. I’m not disputing any of this. One half of my point is that this characterization of Superman we’ve seen since MOS undermines the very importance of his ‘death’, because it is an incoherent fit, and secondly the character is not well-defined.
      BvS doesn’t retain the meaning and message of Superman in the DEATH OF SUPERMAN, therefore his ‘death’ in BvS loses its importance. It’s hollow. DOS had significance because Superman was portrayed as inspirational, purely selfless, the perfect embodiment of good - his sacrifice at the end added to this. His death was tragic, and yet ultimately heroic. He earned his death in DOS. He doesn’t earn his ‘death’ in BvS, because he isn’t the perfect embodiment of good, he doesn’t inspire people, and the nature of his ‘sacrifice’ is neither tragic nor heroic, because he was never portrayed as a hero in the first place. Therefore, BvS has the death of Superman, and yet has none of the meaning, significance and importance of DOS. These are problems with the CHARACTERIZATION of Superman by Snyder. “It’s not rocket science”. Your argument is an explanation of Superman’s characterization, it is NOT a justification on how this moody characterization fits with the selfless, tragic, yet heroic death in DEATH OF SUPERMAN.
      The second reason why the ‘death’ doesn’t work is because the character is poorly defined. Superman’s death in DOS works because he is well-defined, has likable traits, and has a good, well-crafted personality with clear motivations. The opposite is true in BvS. Although he commits good acts, he does so with reluctance and awkwardness, moping around more often than not. His motivations are never truly explained because we never truly hear from him, and it appears that his ‘heroic’ act at the end was because of “his world” – Lois. That’s completely the opposite of Superman in DOS. Therefore, Superman’s ‘death’ in BvS is a copy of his death in DOS without the justification, motivation and meaning. It’s an unearned event borrowed from the comics, but which choses to ignore everything that made it important, tragic and ‘superheroic’. Your criticism was to highlight his pre-existing characterization in MOS – his lack perfectness. But one of my points is his characterization doesn’t fit the death because all meaning and significance is lost. Your criticism also misses a second point – the character is poorly defined which makes his death utterly unearned for the audience.
      The same characterization problems exist with the fight that was BORROWED from DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, because it doesn’t carry any meaning and significance. The fight in DKR is momentous because it comes at the end of their careers, in the context of a long friendship that since deteriorated into open hostility. The fight is also rationally persuasive because the last thing either of them wishes to do is kill the other, since both recognize the good in each other. The battle between two former friends carries a significance and poeticism that BvS doesn’t.
      The fight in BvS is at best a case of misunderstanding first impressions, and at worst an inexplicable lack in common sense judgement. Batman’s first impression leads to wanting to kill Superman, even after 18 months. Furthermore, the struggle in DKR is an ideological one: it’s defined with a clear understanding why BOTH need to fight one another, what their end goals are, and how those goals makes sense. Batman is represented as the will of the people, Superman as an establishment lackey who follows orders. The lines between both heroes, what they stand for, and why they must defeat each other, are clearly demarcated. They are diametric opposites of good. This division, and the clarity it brings, does not exist in BvS because Superman is not Superman, but ‘Batman-Lite’, a variation of him. He’s moody, barely cracks a smile, ‘lones’ it out more often than not, is uncomfortable in public, and eschews attention. The battle isn’t black and white so much as two different shades of grey, and that means it loses its significance because we struggle to find a strong differentiation between both of them. Again, these are characterization issues.
      However, like DOS, the battle lifted from DKR also suffers because the characters are poorly defined. The fight in DKR worked because we had a clear understanding of the character, their internal states and their motivations. We had a clear understanding why they were fighting. This was not the case in BvS. Superman’s motivations for fighting Batman don’t make a great deal of sense. Worse still, Superman’s internal state does not align with his external actions. He’s upset about Batman’s abuse of civil liberties, yet this doesn’t bother him enough to arrest him when he initially stops Batman after murdering some guys, and even this two-hour line of development stops when Luthor tells Superman it was all contrived and what really forces him to fight Batman is his kidnapped mother (the ‘Superman is a unilateral threat’ story also gets dropped before the end). But even then, he cares more about fighting Batman than saving his mom. Furthermore, no-one feels invested in Superman for fighting Batman because he’s never made into a relatable or likeable character with a well-developed personality. The failure of this character to have clear and precise ‘uncontradictory’ motivations, and the failure to produce a character that is sympathetic, relatable and/or likeable, are the major reasons why this battle fails while it works well in DKR. . Therefore, there is a clear incoherence in what drives Superman to his fight with Batman.
      Batman’s characterization also ensures the battle between him and Superman is a mess. In order for the conceit of the fight to work, he is made to look like an idiot. 18 months on, and the World’s Greatest Detective can’t figure out Superman is actually a good guy who happened to cause unintended, unfortunate collateral damage (just like Bats did with his car), or that his “1% chance” argument is elementally irrational - especially in light of other metahumans existing that actually want to destroy humanity. This is primarily a characterization problem, but in Batman’s case this is because his motivations are so poorly written that he’s made to look nothing like Batman. It leads to undermining the character itself; in order for us to believe his premise about Superman, we need to accept that he isn’t Batman, but a total blind idiot. Having characters that have a personality that is well-defined, likeable or sympathetic, with clearly developed motivations would have immeasurably helped strengthen the meaning and significance of the fight, like it was in DKR. Instead, much like the ‘death’ of Superman, this is a hollowed out event that carries no weight.
      You can have characterization changes within characters. There’s nothing wrong with having an imperfect Superman, or even an angry and out of control Batman. The point is that this type of characterization doesn’t work with borrowing from DKR and DOS if the characters are not defined well enough. A mopey ‘Batman-Lite’ Superman characterization doesn’t work if you can’t define his character and motivations well enough to like or feel invested in him. Ditto Batman.
      In order for the DKR fight to work well, both superheroes, their characterizations, and character development need to support that. But in order for the DOS ‘death’ to work too, Superman’s characterization and character development needs to support that too. They can’t do both because they are asking different things from the characters. The film tries to do too much, and it as at least 2 movies in 1.
      So when you bewilderingly start talking about “personal preference” of the “source material”, and “on-screen incarnations of these characters are the equivalent of an Elseworlds tale”, you’ve utterly, incomprehensibly misunderstood the difference between characterization and character development and definition. I mean, it’s unexplainable how you got the two confused.
      TDK did well because of character development and character definition, which in turn fed into a great, compelling story. The second part is because of plot, which is what I will now turn to.
    17. OGmacrazy
      April 3, 2017
      "In the case of BvS, the story is supposed to be DKR meets the THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN. It doesn’t work, because Superman’s death was about the death of pure good, while in DKR, Batman raison d’etre for fighting Superman is because in the latter stages of their careers he CHANGED and adopted views that no longer corresponded to his good nature. But in BvS, Superman isn’t that righteous good, he's 'Batman-Light', so the premise of why they are fighting – the ideological struggle- the death of pure goodness, and the fight at the end of their careers, is non-existent. Snyder took two comicbooks with two contradictory meanings and moronically put them together as a first meeting between Bats and Supes."
      This could probably be the best review you could give BvS. You can love it, hate it, like it, be indifferent, but this is pure fucking fact. It would be the perfect paragraph to analyze the story of the film. This alone would be enough to give the film a poor review. The story just doesn't work. Period.
      Kudos, my friend.
    18. Jack Thorne
      April 10, 2017
      Well, one paragraph was never enough for him, so I can't wait to see how he responds to the other story, plot and character problems. The truth is you and I have been here before - they will always find a way to deflect, smokescreen and special plead their way into believing BvS is great. It's like a virus.
      'Oh look! That Snyder shot looks like a 19th century painting! Amazeballs!!!'
    19. OGmacrazy
      April 11, 2017
      It's funny and sad at the same time. I think they'll realize this, even if it is a few years down the line. They'll rewatch it, thinking of it highly as they do now, and when they finish it they'll probably think "Jesus H Christ, what was I thinking?"
      It's not like they will hate it for life then, they'll probably still like/love it. Hell, I fucking love Man of Steel. But to consider them as good movies? No. No way. The most brilliant aspect of all this is that what will happen is the complete opposite of what they've been saying that will happen. They constantly spout "2001 was hated back then! Citizen Kane had poor reviews!" ad nauseum, but when they realize that BvS does not belong anywhere even close to those movies, and is just a shitty Snyder-fest, I wish I could be there, just to see their reactions.
      That last sentence is so fucking funny too! It's as if they actually believe that is an actual positive in favor of the movie... If that's the case, then almost every douchebag, pretentious movie student is just another Kubrick in the making...
    20. Joker
      April 2, 2017
      "For others it had a compelling story,coherent and comprehensible plot and well defined characters"
      Those others you're talking about are just stubborn DCU fanboys like yourself. No matter how hard people hit you with facts, you will deny it all. The DCU is trash, if you think it's brilliant, good for you. I wish we can all enjoy trash like yourself.
    21. Kriss_Kringle
      April 7, 2017
      Great argument,man.You,who didn't like it,are right,and others who did,are wrong because they're stubborn DCEU fanboys.You are clearly objective and bring only hard facts to the table.
      What a load of shit.
    22. Joker
      April 7, 2017
      Those are objective criticisms, you half-wit.
    23. Kriss_Kringle
      April 7, 2017
      Objective according to who?To you?How can you prove they're objective?And now they're criticisms,not facts.My,my,how you like to spin them around.
      Grow the hell up and accept other opinions instead of acting like a douche with a superiority complex.
    24. Joker
      April 7, 2017
      I don't have to repeat what Mr. Jack Thorne explained to you previously. Do you know how to read or not? Not going to waste my time with a simple-minded fanboy, like yourself.
    25. Kriss_Kringle
      April 7, 2017
      https://68.media.tumblr.com...
    26. Joker
      April 7, 2017
      Gotta love it when a simpleton responds with a meme because he's incapable of countering what I said.
    27. Kriss_Kringle
      April 8, 2017
      Gotta love it when a troll uses someone else's reply as a counterargument and acts like he's the shit.
    28. Clay Castille
      April 3, 2017
      Critical reception means a shitload. It's why Batman Begins made so little money coming off Batman and Robin and th Dark Knight made bank coming off Begins. You can't say that something which has been paramount to the success to the artform for 100 years is irrelevant because a movie you like wasn't enjoyed by critics. If you don't care about things like pacing, consistency of tone, believable motivations, editing, characterization, score, cgi quality then how can you claim to care about movies.
    29. Kriss_Kringle
      April 7, 2017
      What a condescending thing to say.I suppose that in your opinion no one is allowed to like a film/tv show/music album if it has bad reviews,because critical reception means a shitload!How dare we like what the critics don't?Who are we to mess with them?After all,they're not just people like ourselves,are they?
      I'm also sure that you agree 110% with the critics every single time.They're fool proof and can't be wrong when they go see 3 movies per day and might not even pay attention,like the genre,or the approach.
    30. Clay Castille
      April 7, 2017
      Well statistically that's impossible, so I disagree with your assumptions. It's equally condescending to dismiss an entire career in the arts because it hurts your feelings.
    31. Kriss_Kringle
      April 7, 2017
      So you admit you're not on the same page with the critics all the time,but you still hold their opinion as the end all-be all and you disagree with me because I was exaggerating on purpose to prove that point.What are you referring to by "to dismiss an entire career in the arts"?
      Their profession,while helpful and sometimes even educational when well written,is just as flawed as anything else,because at the end of the day it's their opinion that you're reading.
      Let's say that a critic watches a movie and loves it the first time,then he goes to see it again and doesn't like it as much,or it's the other way around.Does he go back to rewrite his review and give it another grade?More than likely it's not going to happen,because they have so many movies to see and write about that they're not gonna go through all the trouble to update their opinion by working overtime and not getting paid for it.
      Other than that,nowadays everyone is writing or record reviews and after they start to gather a following,RT's aggregator will collect their reviews and start to put them on their site,so your assumption that all critics have degrees in the arts and know better than me or you is very,very inaccurate.
      But,please,continue to hold their opinions in the highest regards and never doubt their judgement.
    32. Clay Castille
      April 7, 2017
      Don't put words in my mouth, Kringle. This is a Nolan comment thread, the irony of dismissing critical reception is lost on you anyway.
    33. Kriss_Kringle
      April 7, 2017
      Sure it is.You just K.O'd me with that counterargument.
    34. Clay Castille
      April 7, 2017
      Stop. Now I'm getting a boner
    35. Kriss_Kringle
      April 7, 2017
      You get horny from the weirdest things.
      http://www.gifbin.com/bin/0...
    36. Jack Thorne
      April 10, 2017
      That really does sum up the problem many have. They are unable to dispassionately assess a film away from their emotional attachment to it.
      You said it in a much more pithy and concise way.
    37. Clay Castille
      April 10, 2017
      Not everybody is a critic even if they think they are, it's important to have ones around for discourse but it's not important to agree with them. They simply provide some oversight that studios will not. I love tons of shitty movies, and yes, it is hard to eventually break from your natural emotional response to low tomatometer scores and just like what you like. But bashing oversight is for the corrupt.
    38. Gonk
      March 31, 2017
      Maybe some people feel like their comic book movies cannot compete with classic movies like Nolans Batman ;)
    39. You
      April 1, 2017
      are correct. Fans are wrong in differentiating between MOVIES and comic book MOVIES. Dark Knight trilogy is legendary, but Nolan's Batman was a fraction of what Batman is in the books.
    40. ShadowGuardian
      April 1, 2017
      What does that even mean? Movies are movies. Bale's Batman may not look the part like Affleck's, but other than that the characterization of Nolan's Batman is so much closer to the comics and that's way more important.
    41. Design,
      April 2, 2017
      physicality, intellect, history, psyche, technology, and the world the character is set in. In every department batfleck beats Bale's Batman. Snyder's take is most definitely closer to the books.
    42. ShadowGuardian
      April 1, 2017
      It's really nice to have you around mate. One of the few on this website who isn't a completely blind fanboy. Not saying liking the DCEU is bad, but some people's arguments for it are piss poor. Your arguments are constantly strong and well thought out, while being very reasonable and sticking to facts. While I lurk here I constantly find myself agreeing with you. Just my 2 cents.
    43. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      Thanks buddy! That's by far and away the kindest thing anyone has said to me on here (not that difficult!).
      Yeah, I never ceased to be floored by the level of cognitive dissonance that's on display here. It seems that a great number of Snyder/BvS fans don't want to think critically and honestly, and would rather sham reason their way, making fallacies, bad analogies, charged rhetoric, and in lots of cases just start plain insulting.
      People think that when you criticize something they love, you are criticizing them and their worldview, and most just lack the emotional coping mechanisms to deal with it let alone understand they have it wrong.
    44. OGmacrazy
      April 1, 2017
      Right on!
      I don't think that dude really cares about movie quality. He just cares about having multiple characters show up in one movie, in a shared-universe capacity, and have huge CGI-crapfest battles going on. It's sad, but it's probably true. What Nolan did is leaps and bound beyond anything Snyder's ever done or ever will, but some people just like to see the surface and not beyond that.
      I still find it funny how there's two Batman solo movies that made more than a Batman-Superman movie (not counting the old ones, which adjusted for inflation, almost all made more than it, as well)...
    45. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      The Nolan Trilogy is incredible, and whilst RISES has issues I honestly believe we'll never have a film like THE DARK KNIGHT again. Nolan and Snyder are on different dimensions.
      I have a theory. I loved BATMAN RETURNS when it came out (which Batman fan wouldn't aged 10 years old?). Although I still adore it, over the years I've come to realize the film really skews a lot about the character, and that perhaps the film really isn't a good film at all.
      I have a firm belief that a lot of these Snyder fans will look back in 10 years, when they have accumulated more understanding about films, and really bash BvS. I'm betting on them to be better, more critically minded people down the road.
    46. StarTheory
      April 1, 2017
      "Snyder fans will look back in 10 years..."
      If JL flops and Snyder is out, you'll immediately see a change of tone. They did it with Nolan and they'll do it again. Praise who is in charge then bash once they are gone.
    47. OGmacrazy
      April 1, 2017
      Absolutely. I still don't believe any one of them who say they are actual fans of his and like his other movies like "Guardians of Ga'hoole" or "Sucker Punch". It's a lie they tell themselves or others to justify their love for these DC movies he's helming.
    48. StarTheory
      April 1, 2017
      Someone actually said they liked Sucker Punch? Wow
    49. OGmacrazy
      April 1, 2017
      Oh my god! You've been missing out, dude! I can't really remember names right now, but I'm 99% sure that Residentgrigo guy said it. You know, the dude who always agrees with anything Snyder-related, and always had the same thought previous to the announcement? That dude should work for Snyder. He'd be the perfect yes-man.
    50. StarTheory
      April 1, 2017
      http://i.imgur.com/nfw2fi0.gif
    51. Schuyler Finley
      April 1, 2017
      Why is that you guys can't just let people enjoy the films? I expect this from OG and Jack, but you, StarTheory, aren't an asshole like them. Everyone has their own definition of a masterpiece. Do I consider BvS a masterpiece? No. Do I consider any of the Nolan Batman films a masterpiece? No. The film that comes close to my definition is V for Vendetta.
    52. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      "Why is that you guys can't just let people enjoy the films? I expect this from OG and Jack, but you, StarTheory, aren't an asshole like them."
      And that is why you will never be taken seriously as a person by me, because you don't take yourself seriously as a person.
      Until you learn to stop humiliating yourself like that if you want to be taken seriously. Be a better person.
    53. Schuyler Finley
      April 1, 2017
      And why should I care about your opinion?
    54. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      Since you the felt the desire to call me an "asshole" without any prompting from me, I figured you would at least accept my responsible opinion in return. Obviously, even that innocuous thing is too much for you to cope with.
      You can choose to think that insulting us is fair, mature and respectful. Or, you can become a better person, and realize that you're just humiliating yourself in front of everybody with your infantilism and lack of intelligence.
      I'll talk to you when you become open minded, respectful and mature. In the meantime, jog on. You aren't worth anymore words or time.
    55. Schuyler Finley
      April 1, 2017
      I'm content with calling you an asshole. And if I'm "humiliating" myself as you say I am, I simply don't care.
    56. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      I sometimes wonder if Marvel and their fans didn't exist, would you have this much religiosity towards Snyder and BvS?
      It's like in politics, what seems to define groups these days is being against the 'Other'. If there was no Marvel then I wonder if fans would still be so protective of Snyder and BvS.
    57. OGmacrazy
      April 1, 2017
      Oh, for sure. I had the same type of realization with the Rocky series. Even though the first is still my all time favourite movie, I used to fucking love and eat up the sequels, including three, four and even five. Nowadays, even though I still love them, I find them pretty mediocre to outright terrible (the fifth one) movies. And that's the thing. Loving something but knowing it simply ain't all that good. But some of these guys have to reach for such outlandish arguments (calling BvS a masterpiece is such an hilarious fuck up, I can't even stop myself from smiling everytime I read it) just to justify their love for something that doesn't live up to their appreciation for it, in a quality sense. It's more pathetic than anything, but they just don't see it. Personally, I find nothing wrong with loving these movies. But to try and find a justification and reach as high as they do to find qualities in these movies where they don't exist? And then call others haters because they disagree, even though we do give reasons? That's just sad.
    58. Joe K.
      April 2, 2017
      right on!
    59. Agreed
      April 1, 2017
      BvS has replaced TDK as my most favourite CBM.
    60. Joe K.
      April 1, 2017
      Me too.
    61. Joker
      April 2, 2017
      Sad.
    62. Joker
      April 2, 2017
      " I'll give you that it's the best CBM trilogy out now, but that's until November and this story comes together right now, over me. Sorry I had to"
      LOL!!! This is one of the dumbest comments of the day, congrats. You are a moron, good ser.
  2. residentgrigo
    March 31, 2017
    Citizen Kane was 0 for 1 in terms of success when it came out. The film was WAY more controversial than any comic film to date too. The financial failure of it then rubbished Wellees´ meteoric career. Wanna talk about that?
    1. Jack Thorne
      March 31, 2017
      Yeah OK buddy. BvS is the new CITIZEN KANE...
      *head in hands*
    2. residentgrigo
      March 31, 2017
      For comics films, sure. The film even directly references Charles Foster Kane´s death in the opening. Not that you have likely seen the film.
      Edit: Good to know i was right. You couldn´t even name the reference.
    3. Jack Thorne
      March 31, 2017
      Nothing you say makes any sense. So because BvS references CITIZEN KANE, it will also become a critically acclaimed film like CITIZEN KANE? Why? When? Twelve months last week? You're special pleading.
      Edit: I am aware of the CITIZEN KANE reference - most are. It's got absolutely nothing to do with being a good film. You need to justify why referencing CK means anything at all.
    4. Kriss_Kringle
      April 1, 2017
      It means something because it's the source of inspiration for Martha,the name that creates the bond between the two characters,just like Rosebud makes the reporter find out what it means and through him we learn about Kane's life.
      That's the justification,no matter what you think about the Martha moment.
4. royal emperor
  April 1, 2017
  look man nothing can compare to the dark knight. it has batman in it but it is more than a batman movie. remove the masks and makeup and it will still be an awesome movie. the movie was all about defining people by the choices they make in a situation . TDK was never a great comic book movie. it was a great movie with comic book elements in it.
  1. OGmacrazy
    April 1, 2017
    Making it a great comic book movie. End of story.
5. OGmacrazy
  April 1, 2017
  Sorry, and it can be you favourite, but that is utterly impossible. The vast majority will never see it that way, the critics will never see it that way. Only inside the DCEU fanbase will you ever find people who agree with that, and even then, not everyone will agree.
6. gdeuce
  April 2, 2017
  what trilogy?
7. Joker
  April 2, 2017
  " Zack's trilogy is going to go down as the best CBM trilogy."
  Says who?
Schuyler Finley
March 31, 2017
I don't see anything special about this. Game recognizes game, simple as that.
Ryan
March 31, 2017
Lmfao Nolan yes.. Snyder fuck no!
Alan Conn
April 1, 2017
Holy crap this is awesome. O.O i love this.
Jenarius
April 3, 2017
Two GOATS is a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? So let us toss Snyder away from the equation entirely. Brilliant visual director, but other than that, he's not even in league with Nolan.

OmegaCorleone

March 31, 2017

http://media.tumblr.com/e46...

Black Adam

March 31, 2017

DC haters: "Huh, epic fail DC! Even Nolan said he hates DCEU."
Nolan: "No. What I said is that I want to talk only about..."
DC haters: "Hey man, no worries. I got you. *wink wink* See!? He hates it! FAIL!"
Nolan: "Could you please stop that."
DC haters: "Yeah, yeah! Let 'em roast a bit. Smart, man. EPIC L DC!"
Nolan: "..."

Pit
March 31, 2017
Must be fun in your little world
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
March 31, 2017
Having fun?
residentgrigo
March 31, 2017
He hates them so much that some of his own money ended up being invested in them. Not for long but he got the ball rolling.
1. OGmacrazy
  April 1, 2017
  As well as Transcendence. Or are you now going to be the world's only champion of that fucking atrocity? It does have some nice camera work at times, I guess. You do seem to think that's the most important reason as to why a movie is good, so I wouldn't be surprised.
ShadowGuardian
April 1, 2017
I haven't seen anybody do this, whether it be here or comic book forums or Reddit.
Remember, haters are not the same as people that disagree with you or dislike something you like.
1. OGmacrazy
  April 1, 2017
  This guy has made some pretty epic contradictions before. He's an incredibly hilarious character in these comment sections. He loves to play the victim card, much like some other fanboys do. It's wonderful, really.

Jack Thorne

March 31, 2017

Lord Snyder followers, your "savior" is a false Prophet that will lead you to ruin. ;)
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Aheaney15
March 31, 2017
Where's Quentin Tarantino (my all-time favorite director, with Kubrick, Spielberg, and Nolan as runner-ups)? Otherwise that's awesome.
1. residentgrigo
  March 31, 2017
  On the right in the background. The Judas stand in. This is also an edit of a Snyder meme.
  1. Aheaney15
    April 1, 2017
    Thanks! I guess I was looking on the wrong side?
    I know about the meme. I never got why it even exists, cause not one of Snyder's films are even close to masterpieces. Some are good, yes, but no more than that. So calling Snyder a Jesus figure to me is stupid, especially considering that all of these directors have made masterpieces (though I haven't actually seen that many of Scorcesse's films). So I think this is great.
OGmacrazy
April 1, 2017
Damn. This shit is the best thing I've seen all day!

I'm Batman Man 39

March 31, 2017

In regards to that Batman question, Nolan be like:
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Aheaney15

March 31, 2017

I'm excited as hell for Dunkirk. I've finally managed to watch Nolan's pre-Begins movies for the first time, and let me tell you: all of Nolan's films, with the possible exception of Interstellar (which is still very solid), I think are at the very least GREAT. Please let Dunkirk be great too.

Bats2012
March 31, 2017
I saw the IMAX prologue which is apparently still under wraps.
Best 7 minutes of cinema I've ever seen.
1. Aheaney15
  March 31, 2017
  That is great to hear.

Mike P.

March 31, 2017

Thank you, Chris, for reminding me of the good old days when this site was filled with everything Nolan. I've said it a bunch of times here and I'll say it again: we never needed another Batman movies because Nolan gave us the three best ones.

BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
March 31, 2017
He did 2 that were good...
1. Bats2012
  March 31, 2017
  Are you the Brown Knight because your comments stink like a turd?
  1. Bats2012
    April 1, 2017
    Yep, the name fits. Little brown turd comments.
    1. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
      April 1, 2017
      What are you 10? You dumb prick..
residentgrigo
March 31, 2017
There were good Batman films before Nolan...

BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump

March 31, 2017

Good for him for being direct....annoying fanboys looking for tmz bullshit...hes done with Batman...on to original stories again...

OGmacrazy
April 1, 2017
Well, to be fair... Dunkirk isn't really going to be an original story...
He's done them, though, and will obviously keep making them hopefully.

Bats2012

March 31, 2017

Yeah, he avoided it because he had good things to say about it. Sure.

Bats2012

March 31, 2017

For anyone who didn't see it, there was a seven minute prologue to Dunkirk before Rogue One.

I was speechless afterwards. Best visuals and sounds I've experienced in a movie theater. I'm beyond excited for the film.

OGmacrazy
April 1, 2017
That's the thing with Nolan. Not just the visuals, but the sound and feel of his movies. He always goes the extra mile to perfect them, even if the movie itself can be sloppy, in the story sometimes. But everything else is so fucking great, you don't even give it much importance (especially since most of the time, the story itself is grade-A). But I guess he doesn't make everything look blue, add unnecessary cgi, make alegories and metaphors out the ass comparing the protagonist to christ, and he doesn't let his actors do a poor work, so Snyder is obviously much better.
1. Jack Thorne
  April 1, 2017
  This is a really interesting conversation when you compare Nolan with Snyder. Snyder incessantly and obsessively makes the same mistakes in his films. I recently read the reviews to THE WATCHMEN and SUCKERPUNCH and it's like it was for BvS. He's stuck in a rut since the 300 style of CBMs died in 2008 (thanks to TDK and IRON MAN).
  Nolan on the other hand continues to push the boundaries and address any problems. When some said TDK was too tonally cold, he rectified this with his two most emotional films, RISES and INTERSTELLAR. Ditto, look how he responded in these two films when he was criticized about his treatment of women in TDK and INCEPTION. And look at his oeuvre, it's so broad and diverse. Now look at Snyder's...
  1. OGmacrazy
    April 1, 2017
    You nailed it in the head right there, buddy. Great observation. And what's even more brilliant in all of this is the so called "Snyder fans". They do the same exact thing he does. Ignore the criticism, and just hope he builds on those things he does the worst on.
    I don't know if you follow Red Letter Media on youtube, but in their latest podcast satire series, Rich Evans, on the Justice League trailer (you should watch it though, they completely rip it to shreds), said: "They're wise enough to see the criticisms of their films, and then keep the things that are criticized and change OTHER things."
    It's Snyder-101, really. And I fucking wish any and all of Snyder's "fans" and DCEU fanboys watched this video, without their rose-tainted goggles and their conspiracy tin foil hats off and just listened for a bit. It might do them some good.
    This is the video in question btw:
    https://www.youtube.com/wat...
    1. Jack Thorne
      April 1, 2017
      Ha, wish they could watch this, but they probably wouldn't listen to it either way.
      Post BvS, when critics decried the lack of "fun" or the prevailing "murkiness", acolytes of the film retorted that DC shouldn't go down the 'Marvel route" ie. be funny.
      I said at the time what critics meant was ENTERTAINMENT - the film's wit. They meant elegant camera techniques or deft directorial ploys; they meant dramatic irony or foreshadowing; they meant tragic flaws or poetic justice; they meant ingenuity or creativity. They meant all the things that make you have the time of your life even when bad things are happening on screen (eg. see TDK's Joker). The truth is Snyder doesn't know how to do any of these well.
      They're focusing on humor because it's low hanging fruit. Adding humor to serious characters will add to the problems of having well-defined characters that make sense - something Snyder's characters already suffer from.
    2. OGmacrazy
      April 3, 2017
      Absolutely. I still can't wait to see fucking Batman be the comedic relief of the Justice League.
      Not only that, but apparently, every character (besides maybe Cyborg as of yet) will be the comedic relief. Oh Zack, never change!
  2. StarTheory
    April 1, 2017
    "Snyder incessantly and obsessively makes the same mistakes in his films."
    Well of course, if he changed his ways then that requires admitting that he fucked up and he is way too arrogant to do that.
2. Bats2012
  April 1, 2017
  It's not even just making everything look blue, the color pallet changes dramatically from scene to scene in Snyder's films. It's like everything has a vignette and a different instagram filter on it in each scene.
  1. OGmacrazy
    April 3, 2017
    "That's totally reasonable! It's because we all have different types of ways of dealing with stuff when faced with different challenges, so that's why the color changes. It's because Zack is a genius and he reflects that through the predominant color on screen!" - every DCEU fanboy ever

residentgrigo

March 31, 2017

"No, no, I don’t want to go into that." Smart man. A few of the DCEU employees should go with that approach too. He also got payed for BvS, so he should have seen some cut or other.

Carl

March 31, 2017

For anybody who wants a pretty good Nolan movie, check out Following. A young Chris Nolan getting ready for Memento.

Supermansteve

March 31, 2017

This is a director who knows exactly what he is doing. State of the art film making with everything that he touches.

Captain DC

March 31, 2017

Yes! Finally someone stood up to the inevitable and unrelated comic book movie question! LOL Interviewers often try to take advantage of actors and directors, by assuming that they'll be nice enough to answer any random or tangent question. Especially since they're there, to try to sell a movie. Surprisingly, Affleck allowed himself to get sucked into that, in literally every Live by Night (which would make a great Batman movie sub-heading, by the way) interview that he did. I'm interested to see how Matt Reeves will handle the Batman questions, in a few months. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Old Man Batman

April 1, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Light PK

April 1, 2017

Not even a comment about DCEU

TØM
April 1, 2017
Why should he?

TØM

April 1, 2017

This was announced months ago

hia

April 1, 2017

so glad his talent is wasted on purile superhero movies now.

thefallen83
April 1, 2017
si glid his tilint is wistid in pirile sipirhiri mivies niw
http://www.eugeneweekly.com...
1. hia
  April 1, 2017
  haha! (twat)

Karjenga

April 1, 2017

That trailer is especially amazing because he kept CGI to a minimal (if any at all). Compare to Znyder who films entire movies in front of a green screen...

Batman News Archive

Christopher Nolan on how the 'Dark Knight Trilogy' prepared him for 'Dunkirk'

148 comments

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author