LogFAQs > #921124155

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	PotdMon: Nerd/Geek
ParanoidObsessive 04/27/19 2:01:55 AM #191:	Entity13 posted... This may or may not prove both of our arguments here for differed reasons. My point was that the DK trilogy only needed to be a grand origin for the man and the myth, and his neverending quest for vengeance and eccentric-brooding-rich-dick flavor of justice. It didn't NEED to stuff half a dozen different story arcs into one thing. It over-burdened itself and its audience before any of us could get to the final act of the saga. That made the failures and shortcomings taste all the more foul by comparison. Yes, but the point is, if Nolan felt "I have all these themes and plot elements I need to finish the story, but only one movie left to cram them all into", then it's the "I only have one movie left" mentality that ultimately causes the problem. He visualized the entire overarching story as a three-part narrative, and thus worked to fit it in three parts, with the ultimate conclusion being "Okay, Batman retires, the end" - in spite of the fact that "Batman retires" is like "Jumbo Shrimp" or "Living Dead". Spreading narrative elements out more, and leaving an open-ended conclusion that could lead into future films (if Nolan wanted to do them and Bale was willing to come back, and so on), could easily have alleviated at least some of those issues. It might also have kept him from feeling the need to jump ahead 8 years to have a "broken" Batman so he could justify retiring, which itself seeds a lot of the eventual flaws into the work. Entity13 posted... Ye... no. That's Disney. Disney made the decision, and gave their love and affection to the adopted-yet-older child, leaving their actual child cold, hungry, and dying. Don't blame Star Wars for Disney's decisions, even if Star Wars came along around that time. Yeah, but it IS still Star Wars' fault - because it's literally the Star Wars purchase that killed Tron. In a world where Disney doesn't buy Star Wars, we likely get Tron 3. Execs and analysts literally said this was the reason. The Disney mindset was that they have the young girl demographic on lockdown with the princesses and such, but they needed something to appeal to young boys. Tron was supposed to fill that niche, until they acquired Star Wars and decided they no longer needed anything else. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:921124155] in PotdMon: N... [t:77558720]...</cite> <quote><cite>Entity13 posted...</cite> <quote>This may or may not prove both of our arguments here for differed reasons. My point was that the DK trilogy only needed to be a grand origin for the man and the myth, and his neverending quest for vengeance and eccentric-brooding-rich-dick flavor of justice. It didn't NEED to stuff half a dozen different story arcs into one thing. It over-burdened itself and its audience before any of us could get to the final act of the saga. That made the failures and shortcomings taste all the more foul by comparison.</quote> Yes, but the point is, if Nolan felt "I have all these themes and plot elements I need to finish the story, but only one movie left to cram them all into", then it's the "I only have one movie left" mentality that ultimately causes the problem. He visualized the entire overarching story as a three-part narrative, and thus worked to fit it in three parts, with the ultimate conclusion being "Okay, Batman retires, the end" - in spite of the fact that "Batman retires" is like "Jumbo Shrimp" or "Living Dead". Spreading narrative elements out more, and leaving an open-ended conclusion that could lead into future films (if Nolan wanted to do them and Bale was willing to come back, and so on), could easily have alleviated at least some of those issues. It might also have kept him from feeling the need to jump ahead 8 years to have a "broken" Batman so he could justify retiring, which itself seeds a lot of the eventual flaws into the work. <cite>Entity13 posted...</cite> <quote>Ye... no. That's Disney. Disney made the decision, and gave their love and affection to the adopted-yet-older child, leaving their actual child cold, hungry, and dying. Don't blame Star Wars for Disney's decisions, even if Star Wars came along around that time.</quote> Yeah, but it IS still Star Wars' fault - because it's literally the Star Wars purchase that killed Tron. In a world where Disney doesn't buy Star Wars, we likely get Tron 3. Execs and analysts literally said this was the reason. The Disney mindset was that they have the young girl demographic on lockdown with the princesses and such, but they needed something to appeal to young boys. Tron was supposed to fill that niche, until they acquired Star Wars and decided they no longer needed anything else. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1