ssejllenrad

This user has not updated recently.

13112 145 307 282
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

How I Realized Nolan and His Trilogy is THAT GOOD...

Ok. First-off, I want to say I would not compare TDKR to the Avengers to pick which one is better. Better is subjective and though I prefer TDKR, I would not go into debating people as to why I think it's better. Frankly, I don't even know if it's better. I just prefer it. But I would be comparing Nolan's Bat movies to other films just to present my case. And if you haven't watched TDKR, please don't read anymore? I may be spoiling you guys.

Now let's get right to the point. How do I know that Nolan's Dark Knight mythos is really good? Simply put, unfaithfulness to the source material. Some people have already talked about this but this is my first time realizing it. Nolan's movies are waaaaay off the source materials. But despite that fact, it still is critically-acclaimed and is still considered by some as one of the greatest (if not the greatest) superhero franchise in history, rivalled only by Marvel's cinematic universe.

Let's put Nolan's Trilogy beside a comparable movie series that happen to be a total trainwreck. Schumacher's Batman films. His villains are way more faithful to their original incarnations. Mr. Freeze, Two-Face, Poison-Ivy, even Bane! Yes. Bane! Aside from not being a genius, he was closer to the comic version than Tom Hardy's character, venom and all. Ok Riddler might be different from his comic self. Now let's take a look at Nolan's villains. Ra's... Not accurate. Scarecrow... Not accurate. Joker... Topnotch performance but still not that comic version. Taliah... Not accurate. The closest to the comic counterpart might be Selina. So you can see that, although both directors have their fair share of comic-accuracy, Schumacher stayed "more true" to it. But which one sucks? I won't even need to answer that.

Now let's compare him to other "unfaithful" titles. Craptastic Four (Especially the second one), Green Lantern (I kinda liked this though), Ghost Rider, Catwoman, Wolverine, Constantine, etc... They are all "geekally" loathed. All because of their "inaccuracy" to the source. But if you look at Nolan, he deviated waaaaay more than these guys. But why isn't his trilogy getting the opposite reaction? The answer is plain and simple. His works are good. They are very good.

My point being that if something is really really good, it doesn't matter if you are faithful to the source material. You will never be deemed as wrecking the character. Deviating is not bad. But it can go either way. The bad way is to crap all over the franchise and do with it as you wish in a forceful manner (I'm looking at you Bay). The good path is to go beyond the source material and build on it, all the while retaining its feel and base themes. As a result you create a new mythos. By it, you contribute to the legacy of the character/s you deviated from, in a way evolving it. This is what Nolan has done and for that I salute him.

17 Comments