Count Dookkake
Member
Yeah, firm stool is preferable to loose stool.
Kids often have things that they don't pay for.
These things may cost many times more than a comic book.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cronenberg on TDKR: Batman running around in a stupid cape, for kids
- Thread starter Trojita
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, firm stool is preferable to loose stool.
Kids often have things that they don't pay for.
These things may cost many times more than a comic book.
I meant comic books, like V for Vendetta, Watchmen, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Invisibles, Preacher and the Dark Knight Returns.
I support this post.
He's stirring the pot.
Count Dookkake
Member
lol, no.
Touche
One of the reasons why I enjoy it more than other superhero films, it doens't treat me like a 11 year old.
All superhero movies treat you like an 11 year old. It's at their core. Massive suspension of beliefs and facts, that go against the act of growing up.
The same could be said of just about every single Cronenberg film ever, but that's not a mark against them. This is the same tired argument against speculative fiction that's been going on for centuries.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
TDKR is not high art then, or great art. There must be some kind of differential because you can`t seriously suggest TDKR, jack and jill, or something like The Godfather are the same level of art.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes
Still far from treating you like an adult.
Count Dookkake
Member
Perhaps, but Cronenberg isn't praised for "teh realism!"
every single Cronenberg film ever? Or just the ones that are sci fi?
I think you are painting a broad stroke against his work.
And yet the fundamental point of my post goes unmentioned...
We can't use broad definitions for the explanation of art. Throwing one dictionary definition in here just doesn't work. Art is a personal thing, and that is the only logical method of perception. Any other method leads to a slippery slope of "what is art?"
How about a film about empty beer cans? How about just a blank reel of black frames?
This is correct, but it still falls with the person viewing the art.
This thread and his quote are completely pointless. Art is subjective.
Johnny Cage In The Shower
Member
Croneneberg is one of my favorite directors alive, I don't want to sound biased but I see where he is coming from, his style of filmmaking is very different than Nolan's Batman movies ( note I specifically said Nola's Batman movies, not some others like Memento).
Again being a fan, I can only guess that he is jealous, since most of his movies attack the psyche of larger than life characters, people with deep obsessions, fetishes and issues. Basically people like Bruce Wayne.
So he probably thinks he can make a wicked Cronenbergesque style film telling the story of Bruce Wayne and Batman. It will be nothing like the comics or anything close to what we expect from an action Batman film, but I am willing to bet he just thinks it would be cool to make a weird Batman movie, (albeit a commercially disaster film) and he knows no studio will ever give him the license to make that movie, so he is just talking out of his ass.
Again being a fan, I can only guess that he is jealous, since most of his movies attack the psyche of larger than life characters, people with deep obsessions, fetishes and issues. Basically people like Bruce Wayne.
So he probably thinks he can make a wicked Cronenbergesque style film telling the story of Bruce Wayne and Batman. It will be nothing like the comics or anything close to what we expect from an action Batman film, but I am willing to bet he just thinks it would be cool to make a weird Batman movie, (albeit a commercially disaster film) and he knows no studio will ever give him the license to make that movie, so he is just talking out of his ass.
Still art.
Go to a art gallery. My dog has done better paintings. But its still art.
Art cant always be defined by visual merits. It also has to take into the meaning that the artist is trying to convey.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Exactly, which it`s why this argument is silly. Art is a personal perception thing. You can`t just call everything that is on film art simply because it is on flm.
I'm willing to put it this way: everything has the potential to become art (Since it is personal perception).
I won't say that everything already is art.
All film is art. Now i think where the debate lies is "is it good art". Which is what i think Cronenberg is trying to say. He's not discrediting the films based on artistic merit. He just doesnt think its good.
"Extraordinary big in scale! This aint movie anymore, this is the reality of the world we live in. Not a fiction in Gotham City, it is the city we live tomorrow. Not merely a movie based on American Comics, it is the story of our shadow and hope."
Geez, he's specifically talking about studio-driven superhero movies. I think he's being a bit harsh with Nolan's Batman, but c'mon, he's mostly right. At the end of the day, the superhero movies adapted from comics made by Hollywood studios have to be acceptable for adolescents (physically or mentally). It's the nature of huge budgets and extremely valuable intellectual property. There's only so much freedom given to work with that.
And all of this stemmed from some silly journalist asking Cronenberg if he would direct a superhero movie. Who would even want that? I dream of him being given tons of freedom and money for various projects, but in reality, his charms would be neutered by the studio. The things people love about Cronenberg would be pushed to irrelevance if he was working with a well known superhero in the studio system.
And all of this stemmed from some silly journalist asking Cronenberg if he would direct a superhero movie. Who would even want that? I dream of him being given tons of freedom and money for various projects, but in reality, his charms would be neutered by the studio. The things people love about Cronenberg would be pushed to irrelevance if he was working with a well known superhero in the studio system.
It's a shame to me that he has such a narrow view of superhero stories because one of his own films, A History of Violence, has a lot in common with your standar superhero film. A man with an alter ego who clashes with bad guys from his past. A protagonist who struggles with duality and keeping secrets from his loved ones. Having to stop the ultimate bad guy, who is just a more extreme version of what the protagonist was, and would have become.
All that's missing the cape and tights.is that really the sole detail that limits superhero films/comics?
All that's missing the cape and tights.is that really the sole detail that limits superhero films/comics?
Worse have been seen in art house theaters.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
He is right.
All art is art. It's up to the viewer to judge the merits of the work in levels of "good" or "bad". You cant say its not art because you don't like it. You just don't like what the artist is saying.
evilromero
Member
He is criticizing those that say TDKR is cinema art. I believe he is absolutely correct in his opinion. It's a movie based on a kids comic book trying to shoehorn a guy in a rubber into a dramatic film. That's why many of us believe Burton's films were better adjusted for a comic book story.
I literally watched a movie of a close up of an eyeball for 48 min. With some woman rambling on for the duration.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
This is what some people have failed to see.
Buhhhhhhhhhh and this is why it was stupid thing for him to say. Because people repeat it.
Angry Fork
Member
I was with him when he praised Memento until he brought himself back down by saying Batman is stupid and comic books are for kids. Someone force him to read sandman.
Ahhh, but what is "cinema" art. is it a black frame for 2 hours or is it the Godfather.
This thread could go on for a life time. We are arguing one of the most subjective things that you can argue.
It is really refreshing to see this kind of debate on a message board though. I usually have to go to a coffee house to get this level of art discussion.
Guy adapted A History of Violence. I'm sure he knows well that comics aren't necessarily for kids.
I want to say that it was probably a slip of the tongue/comment taken out of context or something.
It's a comment on his view of superhero comics as a whole and how limited he percieves them to be (just for kids).
TDKR may have failed to elevate superhero comics into 'high art', as Cronengerg says, but superhero comics hardly needed the help to do that anyway. There are so many mature and realistic superhero comics out there that are widely accepted by adults who believe them to be more than juvenile fluff. Your V For Vendettas, your Batman: Year Ones and Dark Knight Returns, your Kingdom Comes, your Watchmens. etc etc.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
lol. I meant that that was what he was criticizing. But yes, I get you. jajajaj
This is an argument with no end. Basically what Dany M said.
You become Canadian.
I think hes completely aware of what he is saying. And i do have to agree with him, for a very long time comics and therefore superheroes by proxy, are for kids.
We also have to take into account that this guy isn't 25-35. Different times lead to different opinions.
I know what you meant. I was just being cheeky.
What is 'art'?
The word becomes meaningless due to the slippery slope if we just say 'all art is art'. I just threw a empty bottle lid on the ground. It's art because it speaks about my unwillingness to conform to societies standards of cleanliness. My house is art. The earth is art. The universe is art. Everything in existence is art. When do we stop?
I argue that art can take any form as long as there is an individual willing to accept it. Meaning, you don't have to be an artist and be purposely making art to make art. Hence, nothing is art until there are individuals willing to claim it as.
To be fair though, this is just a semantics argument at this point.
Johnny Cage In The Shower
Member
You don't succumb to the pressure of money and big studios and only make movies you want to make? And be Canadian a.k.a be cool.
krameriffic
Member
I think the more interesting question for him is not whether Nolan's Batman films are high art, but what he thinks could elevate them to that level. The TDK series is head and shoulders above most of the big budget comic book movies out there, but it still has the fairytale trappings of most comic book movies. That element is subdued under some darkness and despair, but it's certainly still present.
- Status