http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2008/07/22/they-hate-us-for-our-big-words-dark-knight-reviews-breed-nyc-backlash Comments On: They Hate Us for Our Big Words: Dark Knight Reviews Breed NYC Backlash by Mark en-us Copyright 2009 The L Magazine. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The L Magazine readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The L Magazine. wil@desert.net (The L Magazine Webmaster) Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0500 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
It is INDEED a great movie by itself. 'AI' was never intended by Spielberg/Kubrick to be understood by ordinary movie goers although it WAS concerned with the day-to-day life of ordinary humans in the very-near developed future. It was far too technical for anyone to understand except those from the field of AI, Electronics and Robotics.

But I do not swear and spit at critics who rated TDK (or 'Artificial Intelligence') down just because they never read the genuine material and hence did not understand treatment of the movie itself. Does that make me a fanboy? Personally, I think I am not, because I am not 'obsessive' for just about ANYTHING with the name 'Batman' attached to it except ... (1) Frank Miller story-lines which are like any other good fiction-but-practical material available for converting into a rich feature film (just like Mario Puzo's novel 'The Godfather' was) and (2) Nolan's movies.

So I support neither the fanboys whose extreme steps bring non-credibility to themselves as well as bad reputation to all Batman lovers (who may not be fanboys) nor do I support the so called movie critics who...

1) ...think themselves to be omniscient. Eg: They complain: its a problem "how the pummeling action rarely informs the psychological angst." But they don't know : With the anarchic Joker, it was ALWAYS THAT way. / They complain: that Batman's

voice is raspy But they don't know : the reason behind it. TDK (unlike 'AI' which is a specialist movie) does not require EXTENSIVE (-'QUANTITY'-) background knowledge which if becomes necessary, then is a hindrance for any movie( as Henry correctly pointed out) but it does not apply to TDK here. TDK only demands for a knowledge (a) in the CORRECT (-'QUALITY'-) direction (b) of basic accurate essence/soul of the topic handled. 2]...find one technical fault and apply it to the essence of the whole film.3]...use words that are unhygienic, offensive ('batshit') and inexplicable ('sturm' - not found atleast in the latest Oxford dictionary.)
Posted by Amol_3]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:14:00 -0400 The L Magazine
It is INDEED a great movie by itself. 'AI' was never intended by Spielberg/Kubrick to be understood by ordinary movie goers although it WAS concerned with the day-to-day life of ordinary humans in the very-near developed future. It was far too technical for anyone to understand except those from the field of AI, Electronics and Robotics.

But I do not swear and spit at critics who rated TDK (or 'Artificial Intelligence') down just because they never read the genuine material and hence did not understand treatment of the movie itself. Does that make me a fanboy? Personally, I think I am not, because I am not 'obsessive' for just about ANYTHING with the name 'Batman' attached to it except ... (1) Frank Miller story-lines which are like any other good fiction-but-practical material available for converting into a rich feature film (just like Mario Puzo's novel 'The Godfather' was) and (2) Nolan's movies.

So I support neither the fanboys whose extreme steps bring non-credibility to themselves as well as bad reputation to all Batman lovers (who may not be fanboys) nor do I support the so called movie critics who...

1) ...think themselves to be omniscient. Eg: They complain: its a problem "how the pummeling action rarely informs the psychological angst." But they don't know : With the anarchic Joker, it was ALWAYS THAT way. / They complain: that Batman's

voice is raspy But they don't know : the reason behind it. TDK (unlike 'AI' which is a specialist movie) does not require EXTENSIVE (-'QUANTITY'-) background knowledge which if becomes necessary, then is a hindrance for any movie( as Henry correctly pointed out) but it does not apply to TDK here. TDK only demands for a knowledge (a) in the CORRECT (-'QUALITY'-) direction (b) of basic accurate essence/soul of the topic handled. 2]...find one technical fault and apply it to the essence of the whole film.3]...use words that are unhygienic, offensive ('batshit') and inexplicable ('sturm' - not found atleast in the latest Oxford dictionary.)
Posted by Amol_3]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:13:00 -0400 The L Magazine
It is INDEED a great movie by itself. 'AI' was never intended by Spielberg/Kubrick to be understood by ordinary movie goers although it WAS concerned with the day-to-day life of ordinary humans in the very-near developed future. It was far too technical for anyone to understand except those from the field of AI, Electronics and Robotics.

But I do not swear and spit at critics who rated TDK (or 'Artificial Intelligence') down just because they never read the genuine material and hence did not understand treatment of the movie itself. Does that make me a fanboy? Personally, I think I am not, because I am not 'obsessive' for just about ANYTHING with the name 'Batman' attached to it except ... (1) Frank Miller story-lines which are like any other good fiction-but-practical material available for converting into a rich feature film (just like Mario Puzo's novel 'The Godfather' was) and (2) Nolan's movies.

So I support neither the fanboys whose extreme steps bring non-credibility to themselves as well as bad reputation to all Batman lovers (who may not be fanboys) nor do I support the so called movie critics who...

1) ...think themselves to be omniscient. Eg: They complain: its a problem "how the pummeling action rarely informs the psychological angst." But they don't know : With the anarchic Joker, it was ALWAYS THAT way. / They complain: that Batman's

voice is raspy But they don't know : the reason behind it. TDK (unlike 'AI' which is a specialist movie) does not require EXTENSIVE (-'QUANTITY'-) background knowledge which if becomes necessary, then is a hindrance for any movie( as Henry correctly pointed out) but it does not apply to TDK here. TDK only demands for a knowledge (a) in the CORRECT (-'QUALITY'-) direction (b) of basic accurate essence/soul of the topic handled. 2]...find one technical fault and apply it to the essence of the whole film.3]...use words that are unhygienic, offensive ('batshit') and inexplicable ('sturm' - not found atleast in the latest Oxford dictionary.)
Posted by Amol]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:12:00 -0400 The L Magazine
It is INDEED a great movie by itself. 'AI' was never intended by Spielberg/Kubrick to be understood by ordinary movie goers although it WAS concerned with the day-to-day life of ordinary humans in the very-near developed future. It was far too technical for anyone to understand except those from the field of AI, Electronics and Robotics.

But I do not swear and spit at critics who rated TDK (or 'Artificial Intelligence') down just because they never read the genuine material and hence did not understand treatment of the movie itself. Does that make me a fanboy? Personally, I think I am not, because I am not 'obsessive' for just about ANYTHING with the name 'Batman' attached to it except ... (1) Frank Miller story-lines which are like any other good fiction-but-practical material available for converting into a rich feature film (just like Mario Puzo's novel 'The Godfather' was) and (2) Nolan's movies.

So I support neither the fanboys whose extreme steps bring non-credibility to themselves as well as bad reputation to all Batman lovers (who may not be fanboys) nor do I support the so called movie critics who...

1) ...think themselves to be omniscient. Eg: They complain: its a problem "how the pummeling action rarely informs the psychological angst." But they don't know : With the anarchic Joker, it was ALWAYS THAT way. / They complain: that Batman's

voice is raspy But they don't know : the reason behind it. TDK (unlike 'AI' which is a specialist movie) does not require EXTENSIVE (-'QUANTITY'-) background knowledge which if becomes necessary, then is a hindrance for any movie( as Henry correctly pointed out) but it does not apply to TDK here. TDK only demands for a knowledge (a) in the CORRECT (-'QUALITY'-) direction (b) of basic accurate essence/soul of the topic handled. 2]...find one technical fault and apply it to the essence of the whole film.3]...use words that are unhygienic, offensive ('batshit') and inexplicable ('sturm' - not found atleast in the latest Oxford dictionary.)
Posted by Amol]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:11:00 -0400 The L Magazine
And yet 'AI' surpassed all our expections and we personally describe it in one line as: "The Most Realistic Non-Exaggerated Practical Scientific Movie ever made". Even though based on a researched material, 'AI' stands on its own

without actually needing a reference to the base-material most of the times. But 'AI' was not present in the AFI list at all. Whom does this incident point towards as 'Incompetent' : Spielberg, Kubrick, the movie 'AI' or the AFI critics? On deeper thinking,... may be the AFI critics did not understand the movie 'AI' to begin with and so did not like it and hence did not consider it for the list which is a more probable justification for their rejection of 'AI'.But then I would not attack and spit on AI's critics but instead simply only laugh at their ignorance and lack of knowledge (just like they did to 'AI') . It would be very difficult for anyone (especially for someone from a non-AI academic ground,) to prove to me that my belief that "'Artificial Intelligence(2001)' is the BEST Sci-fi movie ever made in the world" is misplaced.

Now back to TDK. I have read THE genuine Batman comics which are NOT that abundant in number but only a FEW exist as contrary to what 'Henry' believes : - ( "digesting ALL that background material will make me a fanboy." )-. Personally, I felt treatment given to TDK by the director was just as the original birth-givers of Batman (Bob Cane, Jeph Loeb, Bill finger,...) of Batman may have intended it to be. And so as far as Seriousness Continuum is concerned, personally for me, both Batman and Don Corleone stand at the same Seriousness level. Both are fictional and at the same time if decided, both can be implemented in real life by anyone who has the guts, will-power, physical / mental strength, intelligence and resources to play those two characters in real life. MY POINT: If a movie stands faithful to its source-material then the degree of its greatness is NOT NECESSARILY directly proportional to its degree of acceptance by the society / critics
Posted by Amol]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:10:00 -0400 The L Magazine
But there are some rare times in life when a simple movie-lover like me understands a lot more than the critic himself about certain movies. I am a software engineer by profession and done post-graduation in the subject of Artificial Intelligence at the academic level. Recently AFI released its list of Top-10-movies-in-Top-10-Genres. I have watched and digested a lot of sci-fi movies and have watched 8 out of the 10 movies declared by AFI as top 10 sci-fi movies of all time. And personally for we (me and software colleagues of mine), if there was any sci-fi movie ever made as realistically as possible, it was Steven Spielberg's 'Artificial Intelligence(2001)'. It was entertaining as well, except that it did not contain any black leather, Ray-Bans, bullets, guns, explosions, ruthless man-killing robots and other fireworks which contribute to the makings of a block-bluster sci-fi movie. But a practical Scientific near-future for an ordinary homo sapiens does not demand for so much fireworks.

The out-of-this-world 'Star-Wars', any one can make - a whole series of it. Because no true reference exists for it to be compared to. But it requires gumption to create one single Masterpiece like 'Artificial Intelligence(2001)'. Especially when you have vast study material to draw comparision levels against. And one little aspect in a movie like 'AI' gone wrong means the whole movie gone wrong. And yet 'AI' surpassed all our expections and we personally describe it in one line as: "The Most Realistic Non-Exaggerated Practical Scientific Mov
Posted by Amol]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:09:00 -0400 The L Magazine
Batman/Bergman is a bit too much of a high art/low art dichotomy for my tastes, but given the amount of pressure on critics to take this movie Seriously, I think it's probably justifiable to remind people where exactly Batman really stands on the Seriousness Continuum (for those of you who don't have the widget).
Posted by Mark]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:08:00 -0400 The L Magazine Posted by Henry]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:07:00 -0400 The L Magazine

Posted by g]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:06:00 -0400 The L Magazine
I have to ask though, you don't find Fear's review even a little pretentious? The "this IS Batman, not Bergman" line is what got me. I can see where he's coming from, but I'm just not sure he needed to flex quite that much critical muscle to make a relatively simple point...the movie isn't that deep, we get it.

Then again, I actually AM from bumblefuck Iowa, so maybe I'm just flexing my inner yokel on this one.
Posted by Adam]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:05:00 -0400 The L Magazine
Anyway, the dictionary defines fanboy as: "an obsessive male fan (usually of movies, comic books, or science fiction)." Debating the loyalty of a film to its original "graphic novel" source material sounds mildly obsessive (i.e., fanboyish) to me, as does questioning the sincerity ("exploiting...," "just to stand out") of a reviewer who dislikes a movie. Denby, Edelstein et al. write for large magazines with a large readership base. They're writing for them, not for the Rotten Tomatoes crowd and its knuckleheaded thumbs up-or-down ethos.

Also, Fear's point that the "pummeling action rarely informs the psychological angst," for example, has nothing to do with understanding source material, not to mention that films ought to be able to stand on their own and not depend on being a part of a synergism.

If a film requires extensive background knowledge, then it doesn't work for a general audience and some measure of derision from the mainstream would not be entirely undeserved. And if you have digested all that background material, that makes you a fanboy. :)
Posted by Henry]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:04:00 -0400 The L Magazine Posted by ck]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:03:00 -0400 The L Magazine

Posted by deacon]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:02:00 -0400 The L Magazine Posted by JB]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:01:00 -0400 The L Magazine