Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

BATMAN: DEAD END...(spoilers)

Page: 1(2)

grant

15:39 / 30.07.03

Why does story matter if it *looks* good? I mean, it's not trying to tell a story, really, just showing that the guy can film and edit something that moves from point A to point B. That's what a director's job is.

videodrome

16:18 / 30.07.03

Well, Collera also 'wrote' this, for one.

Second, it's also a director's job to minimize the impact of shit writing, and in fact, to recognize it as such when necessary.

Third, a lot of the beginning does look really nice - until Bats and the Joker begin talking to one another, at which point it comes to a jarring, dead stop. For all his ability with steam and moody lighting (where I rephrase - nearly anyone can do that) Collera has no idea what to do with two characters talking to one another. Nor does he have any grasp on the Joker - one of his two primary chracters.

Matthew Fluxington

16:57 / 30.07.03

In addition to what Videodrome says, I think he thought that this flimsy bit of wank was worth spending all of that money on says a lot about what kind of films he might make if given half the chance. If this guy can't handle getting decent dialogue into a film that he has an extremely high degree of control over, then what kind of shit could this guy immortalize on film if pressured to make changes? I just don't trust a person who would either a) write/film a dialogue scene so genuinely awful and think that it was good or b) write/film that scene believing that it wasn't very important and that the stunts/effects were of greater importance.

Tamayyurt

01:40 / 02.08.03

I thought it was cool. Not brilliant or worth all that money, but cool.

Jack The Bodiless

14:52 / 02.08.03

Just an aside, but...

If this guy can't handle getting decent dialogue into a film that he has an extremely high degree of control over, then what kind of shit could this guy immortalize on film if pressured to make changes?

... doesn't make any sense. This guy wrote the thing, is clearly a shit writer (and presumably, like most shit writers, has no idea), and had a great degree of control over the finished product, so of course he keeps all his own dialogue in. So... presumably with others having more input into the finished product, someone would tell him his writing stinks. And force him to remove it. That's why producers and script doctors exist. Just because most of the time they only get noticed when they fuck up doesn't take anything away from the importance of their role.

Matthew Fluxington

20:47 / 02.08.03

Or, just the same, it could a lot worse, and the guy wouldn't a) acknowledge that and/or care.

This guy is a Phantom Menace George Lucas waiting to happen.

Old brown-eye is back

22:32 / 03.08.03

I'm thinking that calling this on bad dialogue is a little bit like dissing The Hours because the midgets from Time Bandits don't turn up at the end. That is, completely fucking pointless.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:05 / 03.08.03

I'm interested to know what it *is* for - is it a calling card to demonstrate that the guy can direct as well as make costumes (since presumably his SFX expertise could be demonstrated by all the films he has already worked on)? If so, then it fails, I think, because the direction is hackneyed and poor. If it's a bit of fun designed to make fanboys happy, on the other hand, then it is clearly a success in terms of its objectives - I mean, the "Stormtrooper COPS" film was not meant to lead on to greater things, AFAIK, but has amply succeeded in its desire to entertain a specific group of people.

Matthew Fluxington

01:05 / 04.08.03

Shapeshifters, don't you think that perhaps there is a difference between a film in which dialogue and character isn't very important, but is at least competant in those areas enough so that the viewer does not notice those aspects of the film; or the opposite, which would be a film like this or The Phantom Menace in which the ineptitude of the writing can negate the visual spectacle by calling too much attention to the craft of its creation?

Think about the Spider-Man film from last year, or X-Men 2 - part of the reason why those films work is because even if the dialogue/story is not perfect, it's decent enough so that most viewers will just run with it and focus their attention on the exciting bits and the pyrotechnics. This short film is most certainly nothing like those films, and I am extremely skeptical about this filmmaker's ability to deliver a balanced, entertaining film.

Old brown-eye is back

12:02 / 04.08.03

Flux, I hear what your saying, and I'm with you - I just don't think you can judge Batman Dead End in those terms. Sure, it doesn't try and build it's characters to any degree, but why should it given that we already know all about both Batman and the Joker, and one of them's going to die soon anyway? (Thinking about it, I'm not even sure that it even really cares all that much about spectacle - certainly not in the same way as the blockbusters you mentioned, which all have the benefit of big fuck off cinema screens and surround sound.) What it does do is provide a build up, and eventually a punch-line that shares the love by making all the fanboys clap their little hands and squeal cooool. That's a good thing. (As for whether the dialogue sucked, isn't Bwa-ha-ha! The Joker's default position anyway?)

I'm thinking more Paul Anderson than dull old no neck George, by the way.

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

04:53 / 06.08.03

I thought it was fun, and the look of it was amazing.

For a low budget fan-film, it had mood, effect and was very well filmed...better than most movies LOOK nowdays.

But it was a case of "What the hell will they throw in next?" and they should have just gone totally over-the-top with it.

rakehell

05:05 / 07.08.03

Scott Kurtz is running a series of strips about "Dead End" in his online comic PVP.

Page: 1(2)

Add Your Reply