“I have to imagine from Mr. Spielberg’s point of view, the paradigm shift in the 1970s was just the new “normal,” a “halcyon era” from which we are straying in the 21st century–because theatrical exhibition is tenuous (as it has been since the 1940s), the home video market has dried up and people are watching pirated movies on their phone. Spielberg’s coming-of-age era was for him the halcyon period that the 21st century “implosion” will cause to go “crashing into the ground.” But he is wrong. The market for movies is actually diverse and highly segmented–although from the top-down movie industry vantage point and media punditry you would not think this to be true. Would we really mourn for Mr. Spielberg or ourselves if Lincoln would have been made for cable or had played on public television? Is it bad for humanity that cable television is creating wonderful, resonant stories in long-form series that people want to watch at home on TV (or streamed onto their computer)? I don’t think so, but it is a paradigm shift and it might affect people’s theatrical moviegoing habits. Televisions in people’s homes have had that effect for seven decades–it is not a new phenomenon. As Art House cinema impresarios we need to focus on what WE can do at our theaters and in our communities. It is not productive for us to fret over what pundits say or about what well-meaning filmmakers like the Stevens–Spielberg and Soderbergh–say. We should fret about what we can do in our communities. What we can do to support filmmakers.”
~ From A Response By Russ Collins, CEO, Michigan Theater – Ann Arbor And Director, Art House Convergence, To Mr. Spielberg
“Do not kick me under the table. I hate that. I don’t need you as my conscience, my Jewish Jiminy Cricket. Especially do not kick my boots. You know they protect my ankles. Richard Burton had great talent. He’s ruined his great gifts. He’s become a joke with a celebrity wife. Now he just works for money, does the worst shit. And I wasn’t rude. To quote Carl Laemmle, “I gave him an evasive answer. I told him, ‘Go fuck yourself.’ ” In his time, Sam Goldwyn was considered a classy producer because he never deliberately did anything that wasn’t his idea of the best quality goods. I respected him for that. He was an honest merchant. He may have made a bad picture, but he didn’t know it was a bad picture. And he was funny. He actually once said to me, in that high voice of his, “Orson, for you I’d write a blanket check.” He said, “With Warner Brothers, a verbal commitment isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” Gregg Toland, who shot so many Goldwyn pictures, told me that in Russia, if you didn’t see every actor’s face brilliantly, they had to go back and reshoot it. Sam was the same way. Whenever there wasn’t a bright light on a star’s face for 30 seconds, he went nuts: “I’m paying for that face! I want to see the actor!” Long shots, all right, but no shadows.”
~ Maverick Hollywood Reniassance Man Henry Jaglom Garners Alleged Table Talk From Orson Welles With His Trusty Recorder
I thought the MTV trailer is the best of ‘em so far…
I hadn’t looked at it that way though. Batman should stick to stopping the bad guys and leave the politik out of it.
As for Christian Bale, what’s wrong with his voice in the trailer? He’s not Kevin Conroy…maybe it’s just bad mixing.
Its Batman. I really hope it doesn’t try for a “message”.
Sorry Mark, Batman has always had a message. About
perserverance in the face of unbelievable mental
torment and adversity. Why exactly would it be
wrong for Bats to have a message in it anyway? People
get so elitist about films sometimes. Or fill a
brother in because I might be making a rash judgement.
I think Batman has always been about more than perseverance. Even before Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns, Bats was always more anti-establishment than some of the other superheroes (despite being in cahoots with Commissioner Gordon). Let’s not forget that his whole raison d’etre is revenge, against a faceless enemy. He can’t find his parents’ killer, but he puts the guy’s face on every criminal he takes down.
This is, I think where Nolan becomes a perfect choice. Memento and Insomnia both has protagonists in very deep shades of grey. If this film has more of a “message” than the other two, more power to him. It would be a nice change after the cheesy “New Yorkers United” bit in Spider-Man 2. I cringe every time I think of that “You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us” garbage.
Now I’m thinking that part I was talking about was from the first Spider-Man film, not that it makes much of a difference.
One final thing I thought of is that both X-Men films were parables of a sort. The first one, taking a cue from its source material was a thinly veiled comment on racism. X-Men 2 had parallels to the public’s perception of AIDS victims. Both films were a hell of a lot of fun, AND dealt with some serious issues, political ones to an extent. Even if neither said much that was original, it didn’t hinder the films but rather enhanced them.
Dave, Having not seen the film, I think you’re reaching. Goyer wrote the script, and from my understanding he adores the character so much he pretty much told Marvel that he was taking the project no matter what. I think he really had his fanboy cap on and wanted to add the touches the real fans missed from the Burton films.
I think Golan is a pretty hard core fan too. I don’t think either of them would risk F**king this up with fans for some 911 subtext.
Now if you want to talk about F**k ups, how about how WB decided against what sounded like a completely badass fanboy’s wet dream of a Batman VS. Superman movie, only to make way for a new Superman movie (Why do I get the feeling this is going to be Singer’s requisite failure that every major filmmaker eventually endures when establishing a body of work). In that story there was this amazing fight scene written where Batman kicks the shit out of Superman in the first half of the flick.
It read amazing.
Did anyone else read that script?
x men 2 was a gay story. how they don’t fit in, have trouble with family, etc etc. figures because brian singer is huge into gay issues, rights and the like. makes me wonder how superman is gonna deal with the gay issues he’ll bring up and base the movie around
I suppose you could make that argument bi-bob, but everything that I have ever read about X-Men (including, if I’m not mistaken, comments from the filmmakers themselves) states that it is addressing racism.
1. Gdb, you haven’t seen the film either so…
2. Dave was was merely pointing out that in THAT SPECIFIC TRAILER if looked as if certain issues were being touched upon
3. Batman Vs Superman? That would’ve blown, seriously. Especially considering they’re both, ya know, good guys battling evil.
Thats kinda like “Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever” and you think Ecks and Sever are gonna battle it out for an entire movie but as soon as they meet they team up to battle the bad guys.
…
Batman’s raison d’etre is not revenge, it’s guilt… Because he was there when it happened, but didn’t do anything to stop it.
Batman’s guilt and thirst for revenge go hand in hand.
stella ur blind if u don’t see the gay themes in x men 2. the whole thing with iceman and his parents? the comics were about being different. race, religion, etc. the movies are about homosexuals.
Singer is a gay man. Thats why all his movies are going to have gay themes and actors in them. Nothing wrong with it if he keeps making entertaining and profitable films.
Gay or racial they’re pretty much the same issue discrimination. And besides who cares?
Of course, back in the 1950s, a few psychologists insisted that the whole Batman and Robin relationship was a homosexual wish dream. (And let’s not forget Lenny Bruce’s routine about The Lone Ranger and Tonto, Mandrake and Lothar, etc.)
Maverick and Iceman.
Gay movies are always the worst. Thats why indie movies never cross over. No average American cares about their plight, what they think is funny, or anything. Sounds harsh but its just the truth.
And that would explain the resounding success of Will & Grace? Or Ellen DeGeneres’s shows?
X-Men wasn’t ABOUT homosexuality. The first one had parallels to the civil rights movement, with Professor X representing King’s non-violence creedo, and Magneto sharing Malcolm’s “by any means necessary” stance. The second film had a very obvious subtext about the AIDS virus and how people affected by it are treated. Bicycle Bob is right that the “coming out” scene between Iceman and his parents was meant to comment on the way gays relate to their families.
But again, if the movies are still well-written and directed, and provide great entertainment, the guy can do whatever the fuck he wants.
X-Men 2 had nothing to do with AIDS. The premise had to do with a father (Brian Cox) rejecting his son after finding out he was a mutant and going on a genocidal anti-mutant rampage. If you think that means it was about AIDS then you are assuming that homosexuality=AIDS victim which is homophobic in itself.
Gay movies typically don’t do well because of one fact: bad filmmaking. Degeneres and Will & Grace have succeeded because of the talent of their writers and their lack of overt, in-your-face agendas…just like Bryan Singer.
And I would love it if we had a substantive Batman movie for once, instead of watching entertaining cartoonish freakshows (like Burton’s) or dismal cartoonish freakshows (like Schumacher’s).
There are two separate parallels going on with X-Men, jeff. The idea that the mutants have contracted some kind of disease and should be shunned relates directly to the misconceptions about HIV-positive people or those with the full-blown AIDS virus. The desire to keep people away from them for fear of contamination is something that should be oddly familiar. The scene with Iceman relates more to homosexuality and coming out, and this isn’t something explored in the rest of the film. It was played for laughs, and is more of an amusing reference.
The Brian Cox subplot with Wolverine was only one part of the film. You’re forgetting about the continued storylines dealing with the public’s fear and attempts to ostracize, register, quarantine, etc. If you can’t see the subtext here you’re pretty blind.
I don’t remember anything in the film regarding contracting diseases or contamination. Give me an example.
Right now in this country gay rights are much more controversial than AIDS victims’ rights. Why would Singer limit his film to a smaller issue?
You of all people… you’re always the first to (correctly) dump on people who try to find 9/11 illusions that just aren’t there.
Minor spoilers for those who know NOTHING about the main villain:
Ra’s Al Ghul wanting to destroy the world is fact long established since 1971. He’s a hardcore eco-terrorist who wants to wipe earth of humanity so that the green lushness of earth can be restored and prosper.
If anything, the trailer bothers me as it seems to overly pander to the female audience, framing the entire Batman mythos as a chance for Bruce Wayne to make things well and good for his former lady love. And, I gotta say, of all the clips I’ve seen… I’ve seen exactly one shot of Commissioner Gordon. Why is the marketing department so afraid of this critical character? And if you’ve seen that TV clip, am I the only one who thinks that Chicago cop Jim Gordon is speaking in Gary Oldman’s natural British accent?
As a hardcore Batman fan and a big fan of the first two Burton films, I’m not terribly impressed with any of the footage I’ve seen. Yes, I’m sure the action will be spectacular, but I don’t like the Bat suit, I don’t like the natural, downright boring look of the villains (why does Ra’s Al Ghul look like a zen master? Surely Ken Wantabee could adaquetely play a mixed-race arabic character as well as Sean Connery or Peter O’Toole or Christopher Lee), and Bale’s portrayal of Bruce Wayne makes him seem like an out and out prick. Obviously, no version of Batman is going to be how I want it to be, nor should it be. But, I’m starting to wonder if I’ll even enjoy the film as a simple movie, let alone a tonally and spiritually accurate adaptation. How ironic would it be if it turned out that Burton got it right the first time, 16 years ago?
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson
You of all people… you’re always the first to (correctly) dump on people who try to find 9/11 illusions that just aren’t there.
Minor spoilers for those who know NOTHING about the main villain:
Ra’s Al Ghul wanting to destroy the world is fact long established since 1971. He’s a hardcore eco-terrorist who wants to wipe earth of humanity so that the green lushness of earth can be restored and prosper.
If anything, the trailer bothers me as it seems to overly pander to the female audience, framing the entire Batman mythos as a chance for Bruce Wayne to make things well and good for his former lady love. And, I gotta say, of all the clips I’ve seen… I’ve seen exactly one shot of Commissioner Gordon. Why is the marketing department so afraid of this critical character? And if you’ve seen that TV clip, am I the only one who thinks that Chicago cop Jim Gordon is speaking in Gary Oldman’s natural British accent?
As a hardcore Batman fan and a big fan of the first two Burton films, I’m not terribly impressed with any of the footage I’ve seen. Yes, I’m sure the action will be spectacular, but I don’t like the Bat suit, I don’t like the natural, downright boring look of the villains (why does Ra’s Al Ghul look like a zen master? Surely Ken Wantabee could adaquetely play a mixed-race arabic character as well as Sean Connery or Peter O’Toole or Christopher Lee), and Bale’s portrayal of Bruce Wayne makes him seem like an out and out prick. Obviously, no version of Batman is going to be how I want it to be, nor should it be. But, I’m starting to wonder if I’ll even enjoy the film as a simple movie, let alone a tonally and spiritually accurate adaptation. How ironic would it be if it turned out that Burton got it right the first time, 16 years ago?
Scott Mendelson
i haven’t seen a gay person in the flesh are they really like those folks in Friedkin’s Cruising?
sorry about the double post. It’s been a long day.
Trust me, the only people who hate “gay movies” more than straight middle-aged men is, well, gay men.
I hate them because I’m not a fan of making things into agenda items purely for the same of it (see Nathan Lane’s tv series where he was a politician or something. Why did the character need to be gay? no reason, and if they weren’t bogged down in that stuff it may have been half decent).
However, if a movie that involves gay characters is also well-made and acted and so forth and is actually a good movie and not a no budget and try and actually be about something (like I’m hoping Brokeback Mountain will adhere to) then I’ll gladly watch it.
And, X-Men 2 clearly has a gay undercurrant. Nobody of race has to sit down with their parents and tell them they are a certain race. “Mum, dad… I’m hispanic.”
…?
Now that I’ve seen that Batman trailer, I can imagine the subtext Dave sees as being in there… but I don’t think it’s an overriding allegory. But it does look like a richer, deeper Batman movie than we’ve ever seen before.
And there’s a fire-breathing horse! I wish he rode that around town instead of the mega-Hummer.
I too have finally gotten to see the new trailer, and it’s the first promo that has left me genuinely enthusiastic about the film. While the movie may not necessarily turn out to be the most original piece of work, it looks extremely coherent, consistent and adult-friendly. Even that junk-pile Batmobile is starting to grow on me. My favorite thing in the trailer? The ninja-star Bat-erang.
Friedkins Cruising is one of the scariest and horrifying movies of all time.