Well, They Decided to Kill the Spider Man Franchise...

[AdminAssistant]

By real, it means the illusion of possibility.

You're referring to the difference between realism and naturalism, I assume. The thing is, naturalism doesn't really apply to cinema. It can't, because film is shot through a camera not controlled by the audience and then edited. Therefore it is not "a slice of life" or "a fragment of existence" which are the notions that naturalism strives toward. I suppose it could be said that the "gritty" films of Martin Scorsese come close to this ideal, but as I said, it is impossible for film to be naturalistic.

Realism is a different issue, as realism does not attempt to portray reality on stage. Realism, in a theatrical and historic sense, is a reaction to the excesses of Romanticism and its bastard offspring, melodrama. It is the exploration of the middle class; bourgeois families sitting in a parlor talking talking talking about their problems. So, these are situations that could happen to your average middle class European family, with heavy doses of morality. In modern, theatrical terms...well, realism is fairly uncommon nowadays. The work of Sam Shepard is a good example of modern realism, as is David Mamet. (Mamet is too over the top for me to consider his work naturalism, as some do.)

However, all this is really moot to the discussion since Batman is a flippin' melodrama, except the hero wears a black hat instead of a white one. The illusion of possibility? I'm sorry, no way can you convince me that it is possible for there to be an epic battle involving extreme amounts of technology, an above-ground train, and Liam Neeson. In fact, it's the escapist elements that have long been hallmarks of melodrama, as well as the use of modern or futuristic technology. Batman isn't any more 'real' than Under the Gaslight or Rocky and Bullwinkle. And it isn't supposed to be.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm sorry, no way can you convince me that it is possible for there to be an epic battle involving extreme amounts of technology, an above-ground train, and Liam Neeson.

Clearly, you underestimate the power of Liam Neeson.

[Broomjockey]

However, all this is really moot to the discussion since Batman is a flippin' melodrama, except the hero wears a black hat instead of a white one.

You know, I'm fairly convinced you're not meant for this kind of conversation any way. Of course it's not *actually* possible, power of Liam Neeson notwithstanding, it IS a comic book, so suspension of disbelief is necessary, however, when compared to the earlier Batman forays, the Nolan films adhere much more closely to a reality like our own. But this is immaterial. If you feel compelled to point out "Batman's a comic," you're not the target audience of the thread. Just leave us to our fun if you're not going to be constructive.

[AdminAssistant]

Clearly, you underestimate the power of Liam Neeson.

Suffering through Star Wars: Episode I has still left him a bit weak, methinks. Fret not, he'll make a full recovery.

You know, I'm fairly convinced you're not meant for this kind of conversation any way. Of course it's not *actually* possible, power of Liam Neeson notwithstanding, it IS a comic book, so suspension of disbelief is necessary, however, when compared to the earlier Batman forays, the Nolan films adhere much more closely to a reality like our own. But this is immaterial. If you feel compelled to point out "Batman's a comic," you're not the target audience of the thread. Just leave us to our fun if you're not going to be constructive.

Suspension of disbelief is always necessary. The Nolan films are closer to an actual urban dystopia, but still futuristic. I actually thought I was being constructive. Using terms of genre, Batman, like all superhero stories, is a melodrama, a distant descendant of Romanticism. A fantastical story, a struggle between good and evil. The Dark Knight even features a 'damsel in distress' tied up by the villain for the hero to rescue. That isn't bad or good, but that's what it is. It's entertaining either way, and with a film like this, that's kinda the point.

[Jester]

One of the many reasons I admire George Clooney (beyond the fact that he is sex in a suit RAWR) is his sense of humor regarding that little error in judgment. He's been quoted several times as saying that if someone admits to seeing Batman and Robin in the theatres, he will personally reimburse them for the ticket.

Both Joel Schumacher and George Clooney "have apologized for their poorly-received Batman & Robin (1997). Schumacher’s apologies appear in the DVD commentary on the movie’s 2-disc set, but Clooney does his penance more directly: when approached by fans who tells him they saw the movie in the theatre, he will reportedly reach into his pocket and reimburse them the cost of the ticket in cash." (Source: http://lists-cinematic.livejournal.com/)

My question to George would be, "Great....now, can you reimburse me for those two hours of my life that were wasted?"

[Broomjockey]

I feel this is relevant to this discussion... http://www.cracked.com/blog/my-spider-man-4-script

[ThanosIsKing]

Just had to pop in with a more (IMO) on-topic reply and a related link. We officially have a new candidate for "worst Superhero movie", knocking the title away from X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Either Pattinson or Zac Efron would be HORRIBLE choices for Parker/Spider-Man. The only thing that I hoped would come out of a reboot would be to put back Spidey's tendency to sling quick one-liners while fighting. Hell, he was the second-biggest loudmouth in all of comics, next to Deadpool. Why take that away from him? Unfortunately, with these casting decisions it seems like Spidey is dead in the movies just like he's dead in the comics (figuratively).

Recasting Parker as more of a 'hottie' and a bigger emphasis on the romance will also likely pull in more of a female audience base and get the character more spoken about in the cultural ether in the way its biggest rival Batman is in the wake of Christopher Nolan's two films.

This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard. There is NO WAY that a Twilight clone will EVER be spoken about "in the cultural ether" with the likes of The Dark Knight. If Sony thinks that, they obviously have been hitting some very illegal drugs way too hard. The Dark Knight wasn't popular because the hero was brooding or emo. It was popular because it combined two things that have never been successfully combined before (in movies): a stirring, gripping tale about morality, and comic book characters. Batman/Wayne was troubled because his actions had actual consequences, like random people in his hometown getting killed. Not because "nobody understands me! whine whine!" If this version of Spider is talked about "in the cultural ether" at all, it'll be about how it's the biggest pile of people shit ever smeared onto a film reel.

[Rapscallion]

Right folks. I'm a few clicks away from closing this thread down. Has anyone realised just how het up people are getting over a fictional character?

Rapscallion

[Jester]

We officially have a new candidate for "worst Superhero movie", knocking the title away from X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

I didn't find Wolverine all that horrible, actually. Besides, I thought that the title for "worst Superhero movie" clearly belonged to the first Hulk movie (the one with Eric Bana). Not even Catwoman was that bad!

[Broomjockey]

I didn't find Wolverine all that horrible, actually. Besides, I thought that the title for "worst Superhero movie" clearly belonged to the first Hulk movie (the one with Eric Bana). Not even Catwoman was that bad!

Were you watching the same Catwoman that I was watching? Basketball-as-substitute-for-sex-in-front-of-children? Magical wall climbing abilities? Worst CGI this side of Mortal Kombat: Annihilation? Villain is some lady who's skin is hard as rock from using too many cosmetics? Sorry, but while Hulk may not have been a good film, it was still better than Catwoman. To date, that's the only movie I got to see for free, and I still wanted my money back. Also those two hours of my life, and all the brain cells that were killed. The only superhero movie that might be as bad as Catwoman is Captain America.

[Gravekeeper]

The only thing I will give Robert Pattinson is that he despises the character of Edward. Which shows he has at least some taste and class.

I can point you at a far more terrifying prospect, however. If you have not heard of Maximum Ride, I encourage you try and read just one of the character bios without intellectually flinching.

Then come to grips with the fact its being turned into a movie series by the director of Twilight and the writer of X-Men Origins.