I've heard that before, but don't think he sounds anything like Sean Connery. He doesn't have a Scottish accent for one thing.
Nolan's Batman
- Thread starter Mockney
- Start date
I think that saving the City is heroic but the dead are always remembered more than the living. He kind of had died in the eyes of many of the Gotham citizens eyes but he kept a few of the key people in his life in the know as to what reallly happened. I suppose it showed that he just wanted to give up on the who Batman lifestyle and leave it behind him. The major plothole I suppose is that he could have easily gone back to Gotham as Bruce Wayne and then lived a normal life, even if it meant moving away at a later date.
But its a film meant for entertainment value and it did just that. The part where they buried Wayne was pretty upsetting at the time
It's clearly more powerful though. Giving his life for the people he sought to protect, is the most selfless, brave and heroic act possible. If he could have taken the bomb away from the city and survived, then fair play, he'd have returned to the city a hero and they'd still have built a statue for him. But tricking people into believing he gave his life for them, that he flew the bomb away from the city despite knowing he was going to die in the process, but doing it anyway to save the people of Gotham; while really he's chilling in an Italian cafe, sipping espresso's with Anne Hathaway? Holds less of an impact for me.
I think this would have worked well. First you have the discovery of the autopilot thing. And then you finish with Alfred sitting in his cafe, and you see him smiling - maybe just a faint smile, a very ambiguous smile. That would have been a much better ending. Id still have left feeling he was alive, Id feel that way just from knowing about the auto pilot. But it would at least have left you thinking a little more about it.
Otherwise, just scrap that whole scene. Given the auto pilot had been fixed, it really wasnt necessary.
You're kind of missing the point of it all, it was never about him tricking Gotham or pretending to give his life for them, it was about Bruce ceasing the opportunity to leave his life of Bruce Wayne & Batman behind him and start completely afresh.
So you wanted Inception 2? An ending that would of torn people even more into believing Wayne was dead? Nolan wanted the trilogy to end, his story was told and he wasn't going to leave it open for people to think about. That was it, Wayne survived, Nolan's story of the character is finished.
No offense, but I think you've missed my main point here. I understand exactly why Batman faked his death, I just thought it was a shit ending, that lessened the emotional impact of his actions. I think having him fly off with the bomb, showing the explosion, having a scene with the people of Gotham finally accepting Batman and honouring his memory with the statue, having a scene where Alfred breaks down in tears in front of Bruce Wayne's gravestone, having him hand over his legacy to Blake etc. was an emotional ending to the film. Now, I already knew about the scene in the cafe, as some feckwit on another forum decided it would be funny to ruin it for everybody, but I can imagine all of that would be quite emotional for a lot of people, who love the character and who have followed this trilogy of films. I, personally, believe that the final scene took away a lot of the emotion and importance of his actions. But that's just me.
I also think having Bruce Wayne fake his death, when he never actually needed to, was further proof that they were just trying to trick us into getting all teary-eyed that Batman was dead, when - "waheeeyyy we got you!!" - he's alive.
That would be nowhere near as ambiguous as Inception. Once you find out the auto pilot is fixed, there really is no more debate. Everything else is just underlining it, putting a fluorescent jacket on it and giving it a sign saying "look at me, Im over here, please dont miss me". It is overkill.
Having said that I loved Inception and would have been happy with a similar ending to that. But that would not involve removing or modifying a scene or two. That would have needed to be constructed differently to be very ambiguous, on the fence, 50/50.
In the plane at the beginning with his face bagged I thought it was Sean Connery
Watched this yesterday and loved it.
This is more of a sequel to BB rather than TDK. To me, it felt like TDKR is an ending to the story we saw in BB. TDK is like a tangent in that storyline, and so it doesn't seem right to compare TDK with the other two movies. Though the cast, and timbre of the movies were all similar, TDK was wrapped up in TDK. TDKR, on the other hand tied up any loose ends from BB.
This is more of a sequel to BB rather than TDK. To me, it felt like TDKR is an ending to the story we saw in BB. TDK is like a tangent in that storyline, and so it doesn't seem right to compare TDK with the other two movies. Though the cast, and timbre of the movies were all similar, TDK was wrapped up in TDK. TDKR, on the other hand tied up any loose ends from BB.
Accurate review in my opinion.
I could list countless things from both the others that are just as ridiculous as the things in this. The only difference I can see is that people weren't expecting so little of it from the others. Begins virtually invented the grounded, properly made Superhero origin film, and TDK was a genre buster in terms of it's gravitas and portrayal of a character such as the Joker. They made what came before them look so silly that their own sillyness was ignored or forgiven. So now this one's sort of been ramped up to the point where people aren't expecting a Superhero film anymore, and are then slightly disappointed that they got one.
It's a fecking Batman film! They're all inherently ridiculous. The end of Begins made no sense, and the sonar & ferry bits of TDK were bonkers. Not to mention the whole thing relied on the Joker's incredibly convoluted and contrived plans working out, largely through luck, explained away by the thematic blanket of "oh, it's just chaos!"
It's a fecking Batman film! They're all inherently ridiculous. The end of Begins made no sense, and the sonar & ferry bits of TDK were bonkers. Not to mention the whole thing relied on the Joker's incredibly convoluted and contrived plans working out, largely through luck, explained away by the thematic blanket of "oh, it's just chaos!"
A very sensible post that. Nitpicking the story line too much won't do you any good if you are into superheroes because after all this is a movie about, well, superheroes. And for what it is it's a top notch product. Just like if you're into mindless machine gun violence with buffed up dudes a la Sly then The Expendables is your movie mecca or if you're female anything with Sandra Bullock.
I mean, there are degrees of it. Always. I wouldn't question how a man could morph into a giant green monster thing and still manage to hold onto his trousers in The Avengers, but I would in a Nolan film. But then I don't question why a man with half of his face missing on no pain killers can still speak, let alone function for more than 30 seconds without eyelids.
I don't think any of the leaps of faith you have to make in this, you don't have to also make in TDK, so I'm sure that to at least some degree, he's been a victim of his own success with this one. I'd have to watch them all together, but it probably isn't quite as good as the other 2...but any difference is incredibly marginal. And even that's far more to do with the pacing than it is ridiculous plot contrivances. They're all consistently fantastic silly superhero films.
I don't think any of the leaps of faith you have to make in this, you don't have to also make in TDK, so I'm sure that to at least some degree, he's been a victim of his own success with this one. I'd have to watch them all together, but it probably isn't quite as good as the other 2...but any difference is incredibly marginal. And even that's far more to do with the pacing than it is ridiculous plot contrivances. They're all consistently fantastic silly superhero films.
The first two were consistently fantastic silly superhero films. This one was a consistently average silly superhero film.
I don't think there are anywhere near the level of plot contrivances in the first two as there are in this one and neither are there the set piece moments (barring maybe the plane hijacking at the start) or bravado acting performances to cover it up.
A weak screenplay is a weak screenplay regardless of the genre.
I don't think there are anywhere near the level of plot contrivances in the first two as there are in this one and neither are there the set piece moments (barring maybe the plane hijacking at the start) or bravado acting performances to cover it up.
A weak screenplay is a weak screenplay regardless of the genre.
Which superhero films do you think are better than it? Being "average" there must be a fair few of a higher quality.
In TDK, there certainly are. Everything the Joker does is basically a plot contrivance. As is everything Two Face does tbf.
The Joker's whole "he planned to be captured" thing is beyond ridiculous. Probably more ridiculous than anything in Rises. He attacks Harvey's armoured car with a Bazooka, but knows Harvey will be saved by Batman, and be taken away by Wurtz so they can tie him and Rachel up with explosives to play his little game of Sophies choice, since he also knows Batman will aide the police in catching him, and then interrogate him, whereupon he will then be guarded from inside his cell by someone he can conveniently take hostage in order to get his phone call, kill everyone and escape the prison. This whole elaborate plan is OK, because it's explained by "chaos"...somehow. It's nonsense, but we go with it.
In the VERY FIRST SCENE a school bus crashes through the wall of a bank, on a busy high street, and stays there for ages, until it joins the ranks of loads of other school buses, which just let it do this, despite it just coming out of a fecking wall in broad daylight, and the police, just drive straight past. It's silly as shit, and in the very first scene, but we all go with it.
At one point Batman falls off the roof of a building to save Rachel, destroying a car in the process, but conveniently saving Rachel and himself from a single scratch. Maybe this explains his ridiculous super healing in TDKR, but the worst part of that sequence is that he never goes back up to the penthouse where the Joker is holding everyone (including Alfred!) hostage, we just cut to a new scene, and never learn what happens. NOTHING is explained, but we all go with it.
And that's without even going into the Ferry scene, or how the Joker manages to orchestrate the hospital detonation in about 20 minutes, from burning the money, to suddenly being dressed as a nurse equipped with enough explosives to control demolish a huge building on the fly because Reece threatened to reveal who Batman was.
So, a weak screenplay is a weak screenplay...unless it has set pieces or bravado acting performances to cover it up?
I can get people not liking Rises for the myriad of silly bits, but I don't get why they either ignore them happily, or at worst simply pretend they didn't also exist in TDK. If we're being logical about these films and their contrivances, you shouldn't think TDK is fantastic either. They're on practically the exact same level, only Rises does it bigger because it includes nuclear bombs and flying bat wings.
It wasn't a sequel to Batman Begins. It was Batman Begins Requiem
I don't understand this whole "it's a superhero film, it doesn't need to make sense" riposte. It's a bit like saying "it's a superhero film, it's supposed to be crap so if you don't like it you're just pretentious". Which is a bit silly really. Sure, we can suspend disbelief but even a film like Batman has to be internally consistent and at least vaguely plausible; especially considering the more realistic style the director deliberately went for in the previous two films.
My criticisms of this film aren't from that angle but I don't think this is a serious response to that argument.
My criticisms of this film aren't from that angle but I don't think this is a serious response to that argument.
No ones said it doesn't need to be good, or make any sense. That's certainly not my argument at any rate. Merely that it's plot conveniences are no less blatant or abundant than in it's predecessor.
I completely understand why people wouldn't like this. I just don't get the "TDK was amazing, but he's dropped the ball on this one" angle.
The main thing TDK has over this is Ledger and it's eschewing of the usual "Hero wins in the end" trend. And being the first superhero film to take this kind of blockbuster this seriously. The plot is no less daft.
And it sort of does have to be viewed as a superhero film first and a film film second. Because that's what it is. I watched Donner's original Superman the other day, and it was awful by modern standards. Being made in the 70s is the excuse, but the Godfather was made in the 70s, so it shouldn't really be a very good one. However back then, and right up until very recently, superhero films weren't taken even remotely seriously. They all had awful hokey plotting and all the villans had terrible, illogical plans and sketchy motivations. TDK had a huge impact on them being viewed differently, but not because it was actually a brilliant and tightly plotted film noir, but because it was closer to a brilliant, tightly plotted film noir than anyone had dared make a superhero film before.
Consequently post it, some people (IMO) seem to have expected Nolan to make a sequel to the film they imagine TDK to be, rather than the one it actually is, which is what he's done. I don't think anyone's claiming this is one of the greatest films of all time, but it's certainly one of the best superhero ones. Because I can't think of any that don't have the same amount of dodgy contrivances or suspensions of disbelief. And certainly not any that sell you on them as much, or contain the same level of performances or general film making. So fair play to it IMO.
I completely understand why people wouldn't like this. I just don't get the "TDK was amazing, but he's dropped the ball on this one" angle.
The main thing TDK has over this is Ledger and it's eschewing of the usual "Hero wins in the end" trend. And being the first superhero film to take this kind of blockbuster this seriously. The plot is no less daft.
And it sort of does have to be viewed as a superhero film first and a film film second. Because that's what it is. I watched Donner's original Superman the other day, and it was awful by modern standards. Being made in the 70s is the excuse, but the Godfather was made in the 70s, so it shouldn't really be a very good one. However back then, and right up until very recently, superhero films weren't taken even remotely seriously. They all had awful hokey plotting and all the villans had terrible, illogical plans and sketchy motivations. TDK had a huge impact on them being viewed differently, but not because it was actually a brilliant and tightly plotted film noir, but because it was closer to a brilliant, tightly plotted film noir than anyone had dared make a superhero film before.
Consequently post it, some people (IMO) seem to have expected Nolan to make a sequel to the film they imagine TDK to be, rather than the one it actually is, which is what he's done. I don't think anyone's claiming this is one of the greatest films of all time, but it's certainly one of the best superhero ones. Because I can't think of any that don't have the same amount of dodgy contrivances or suspensions of disbelief. And certainly not any that sell you on them as much, or contain the same level of performances or general film making. So fair play to it IMO.
Naysayers gon Naysay.
As awful by today's standards as Donner's Superman: The Movie is, it is still the template to which all modern superhero movies follow. Chris Nolan credited Donner for this recently.
Before STM superhero's were reserved only for kids tv shows and not taken seriously in the public's mind. That's why Donner cast highly respected actors for the supporting roles to give more credibility to the public.
It also paved the way for a more serious character driven superhero film.
If you look at all Superhero franchises since STM they take elements of STM in nearly all of them.
Reading and posting in this thread is ruining the movie for me. I really enjoyed it and now I can't stop thinking of reasons why it was stupid 
Interesting, can you name some. I want to see if they're general comicbook tropes or can actually be attributed to STM.
tbf you are forgetting to give Singers X-Men credit too. It did after all kind of re-kick start the comic book boom, and certainly in a bigger way than ever before(never previously had two series going at the same time, Batman started up after the awful Superman IV ended that franchises.)
And X2 is still a fantastic comic book film for sure, up there with the best easily.
And X2 is still a fantastic comic book film for sure, up there with the best easily.
This is how i see it. End of the day, both very good movies.
Agree with Mockney.
Also, I'll add that while a film being a superhero film doesn't mean that anything goes, you do have to consider it as a factor when dwelling into the intricacies and believability of the story. Now, obviously, Nolan has taken superhero films and turned them on their head. People have taken this Batman series seriously as proper films. And while for me it's up there with the best movie trilogies I've seen, one does have to remember the context of the films. At the end of the day, Nolan is making a film about a guy who dresses up as a bat and fights crime using high tech gear against enemies that are just as far from ordinary as him. The whole basis of these movies are to be more over the top than life as it is. And it's pretty much impossible to lift parts of the movie off of realities ground but keep other parts on it. When you're making a high-octane film about a nuclear bonb threatening to explode Gotham and you have all these characters and little plots happening at the same time, and when it's a superhero film and hence inherently slightly over the top, there are always going to be certain elements that won't satisfy everyone.
It's like the guy who claimed that
I mean, if you find that hard to believe, then you really shouldn't be watching such films.
Also, I'll add that while a film being a superhero film doesn't mean that anything goes, you do have to consider it as a factor when dwelling into the intricacies and believability of the story. Now, obviously, Nolan has taken superhero films and turned them on their head. People have taken this Batman series seriously as proper films. And while for me it's up there with the best movie trilogies I've seen, one does have to remember the context of the films. At the end of the day, Nolan is making a film about a guy who dresses up as a bat and fights crime using high tech gear against enemies that are just as far from ordinary as him. The whole basis of these movies are to be more over the top than life as it is. And it's pretty much impossible to lift parts of the movie off of realities ground but keep other parts on it. When you're making a high-octane film about a nuclear bonb threatening to explode Gotham and you have all these characters and little plots happening at the same time, and when it's a superhero film and hence inherently slightly over the top, there are always going to be certain elements that won't satisfy everyone.
It's like the guy who claimed that
Batman escaping the explosion seemed unrealistic
I mean, if you find that hard to believe, then you really shouldn't be watching such films.
I think you're kind of missing the point Mockney.
Yes there are stupid moments in all these films that require suspension of disbelief. You point out the intro to the Dark Knight which taken on face value is of course a ludicrous scenario but it's perfectly acceptable as a way to introduce the character of the Joker and the way he ticks. Likewise in this film the plane hijack scene is equally ludicrous but again an acceptable way to introduce the character of Bane and his motivations.
What isn't acceptable is having your main villain first relegated to nothing more than a (vaguely paedophilic) lovesick henchman, then having him killed off camera by a secondary character. It's deeply unsatisfying and kind of takes away from the previous hours spent building him up as this cold blooded uber terrorist.
Maybe I'm being overly harsh but I don't remember sitting through Batman Begins or TDK and just rolling my eyes at scene after scene like I did in this one. And yes, TDK doesn't hold up to repeated viewings so well either (Begins certainly does) largely because the anarchic unpredictability of that perfromance by Ledger loses it's impact with every viewing.
Anyway, I shall watch it again on dvd no doubt and re-assess but as I'm more guilty of overrating films when I first watch them I doubt it will improve for me with a second viewing.
I genuinely don't think there is any mass agenda against Nolan here either. I certainly don't go into a cinema with anything other than an intention to enjoy what I'm watching but to me this just felt like a film coming from a Director who was getting bored with the the whole thing and just couldn't wait to wrap it all up.
Maybe you were right earlier and the hype from the previous fims had built up a degree of expectation that this film couldn't possibly reach and in that respect perhaps we were given the movie we deserved but not the one we needed right now.
Yes there are stupid moments in all these films that require suspension of disbelief. You point out the intro to the Dark Knight which taken on face value is of course a ludicrous scenario but it's perfectly acceptable as a way to introduce the character of the Joker and the way he ticks. Likewise in this film the plane hijack scene is equally ludicrous but again an acceptable way to introduce the character of Bane and his motivations.
What isn't acceptable is having your main villain first relegated to nothing more than a (vaguely paedophilic) lovesick henchman, then having him killed off camera by a secondary character. It's deeply unsatisfying and kind of takes away from the previous hours spent building him up as this cold blooded uber terrorist.
Maybe I'm being overly harsh but I don't remember sitting through Batman Begins or TDK and just rolling my eyes at scene after scene like I did in this one. And yes, TDK doesn't hold up to repeated viewings so well either (Begins certainly does) largely because the anarchic unpredictability of that perfromance by Ledger loses it's impact with every viewing.
Anyway, I shall watch it again on dvd no doubt and re-assess but as I'm more guilty of overrating films when I first watch them I doubt it will improve for me with a second viewing.
I genuinely don't think there is any mass agenda against Nolan here either. I certainly don't go into a cinema with anything other than an intention to enjoy what I'm watching but to me this just felt like a film coming from a Director who was getting bored with the the whole thing and just couldn't wait to wrap it all up.
Maybe you were right earlier and the hype from the previous fims had built up a degree of expectation that this film couldn't possibly reach and in that respect perhaps we were given the movie we deserved but not the one we needed right now.
Wait.....wait.......wait......so if I protect a kid from some other grown ups and bond because of that, that would make me vaguely paedophilic? I mean theres absolutely nothing that shows them being more than that, nothing that even shows Bane being any other than the typically meathead villain asexual really.
I'll definitely be getting this shit on Blu-ray, it's a great watch, fun as hell on my rewatch, but I knew what the flaws would be going in mostly, there are slightly more flaws than Inception and TDK maybe, but it's pretty much the Nolan blockbuster blueprint. So in that sense, Mockney is right, I just get since TDK, RedCafe has become more critical and more understanding of film in general, because outside of here, I still see unbelievable amounts of people claiming it as some kind of GOAT and "shoe in for Best Picture after his previous snubs" etc and I'm called hugely cynical when trying to lower their expectations for disappointment(again) -_-
I'll definitely be getting this shit on Blu-ray, it's a great watch, fun as hell on my rewatch, but I knew what the flaws would be going in mostly, there are slightly more flaws than Inception and TDK maybe, but it's pretty much the Nolan blockbuster blueprint. So in that sense, Mockney is right, I just get since TDK, RedCafe has become more critical and more understanding of film in general, because outside of here, I still see unbelievable amounts of people claiming it as some kind of GOAT and "shoe in for Best Picture after his previous snubs" etc and I'm called hugely cynical when trying to lower their expectations for disappointment(again) -_-
Calm down Zen. Twas merely a joke.I'm glad that you enjoyed it and that so many others did too. Like I've maintained all along I don't think it's shit by any means.
It's quite similar to the LOTR triology for me. A solid set of films that get progressively weaker. Perhaps the reason for that is you inherently expect the bar to be raised each time and when it isn't you come away slightly disappointed. I don't know.
I will say this though, the criticism isn't merely confined to posters on Redcafe. I've never read a Batman comic before personally but I went with a mate who's a massive Batman nerd and he was even more disappointed than me.
Yeah I've read that a few times now, I don't get it, it didn't even come across that he was lovesick with Talia to me, more like a brother & sister type relationship... or even a father & daughter. There was nothing wrong about it at all, Bane was there to protect Talia, in the past and in the present of the film. Nothing more, I mean Talia couldn't of called him 'friend' anymore times towards the end to get it across there was no other relationship other than that. If there is something, it was Bane's remorse for allowing Talia's mother to get killed in the prison, if he loved anyone it must of been her and he seen protecting Talia as redemption.
Comic book fans are the most inconsistent people ever for movie feedback tbf. SHH forums is probably the funniest board around for reading film feedback, they blow their tops at such little tweaks. But I'd probably agree, TDKR takes on far too many comics and thus why it's a bit of a clusterfeck, BB and TDK only take on about 4/5 between them.
But yeah, the general feedback is almost identical to TDK for the most part, Ledger maybe giving TDK a slight edge. But theres not much in it really.
But yeah, the general feedback is almost identical to TDK for the most part, Ledger maybe giving TDK a slight edge. But theres not much in it really.
Superman The Movie is not awful by any standards. You could certainly get rid of a bit of the sillyness of Ned Beatty's character and excise that "Can you read my mind" scene, but it is still a great film.
Donner didn't cast Brando and Hackman for added credibility, either. It was the producers who needed box-office draws to ensure the success of the film.
I know what you meanReading and posting in this thread is ruining the movie for me. I really enjoyed it and now I can't stop thinking of reasons why it was stupid
. I left the cinema saying "They can't end it here!"I left the film thinking, shit, there is going to be a Robin film soon.I know what you mean
The origin story is probably the most used aspect but the main one which he gets most credit for was that he treated the superhero as a serious film with a romantic storyline as the basis for the whole movie, along with the casting of highly respected (Oscar Nominated) actors in supporting roles. That was why Tim Burton cast Jack Nicholson as the Joker, Devito as the penguin etc..
Even the new Man of Steel is using the same casting ethos with Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe & Laurence Fishburne all in supporting roles.
Even small things like making the hero having to become a lonely figure in order to protect the one he loves.
Spiderman had so many nods to Superman 1 & 2 the fact that Spiderman does a shirt rip is pretty blatantly stolen from Superman.
http://www.ksitetv.com/forums/showt...imilar-the-Spiderman-trilogy-is-to-Superman-s
http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Donner
In the case of Superman, it was Donner who insisted the subject of the comic book superhero should be treated "straight" rather than "camp", an approach that strongly influenced later genre directors such as Bryan Singer and Tim Burton who have made successful superhero films of their own. The influence of Superman: The Movie can, to this day, be seen in superhero films outside the Superman storyline, and even outside the DC Comics universe. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man film is debatably one of the strongest examples of that influence.
Superman is such a shitty superhero. He's basically a guy who can do anything and everything. Where's the fun in that? Spiderman was okay until Toby Mcguire played him and made him a complete pansy.
I love the Superman character, not into comics but its just that when I was very young he was the only character that stuck in my imagination.
Superman's image suffered a lot because of shitty movies, I just hope this next one is does him some justice.
Superman's image suffered a lot because of shitty movies, I just hope this next one is does him some justice.
I loved those movies as a kid. OK they are shit looking back, but at the time they were cool.
I agree that STM is still a great movie but the effects are what makes it very dated looking now.
Also that's not true about the producers, it was Donner who made the call to cast Brando and Hackman.
You are right about the producers being concerned about the box office draw but the producers wanted someone bigger for the lead role & had talks with Robert Redford and actually were looking to have Clint Eastwood sign up for the main role.
http://screenrant.com/clint-eastwood-superman-james-bond-sandy-77496/
Don't know if that can be attributed to the film particularly or the fact that they are big budget films and Hollywood studios like their big name actors. I don't think Bale, Ledger or Hardy are typical hollywood fare.
You win that one.
Comics established that with hero characters long before.
Again from the comic books more than the film it's one of themost iconic images of Superman. Spiderman has also done it in the comic books as well as pretty much every other costumed hero.
Tim Burtons was very camp and not straight. Bryan Singers was more inline with the comicbooks. In fact Batman was originally a very straight character. He was a gangster buster who went around kicking and the satuday serials played them and superman very seriously (although with with the usual weekly cliffhanger) It was only when the 60's batman tv series that brought camp into the occasion. Spiderman himself was never a camp story and the was mostly about teenage angst, lonelyness and dealing with growing up more than anythng.
Don't get me wrong Donners Superman has influenced modern superhero films immensely but I don't think it can be looked at as the be all and end all of inspiration. The symbology visually was there all along. The story ideas hadand still are being looked into in great detailfrom the source material.
The main thing I think that it can be looked at is as the summer blockbuster when Hollywood started to take them (superhero films) seriously and spent the time and effort into it.
Supermans a brilliant character, and hopefully what we'll get from the new film is a man apart. A man who is a god amongst mortals. The ma of tomorrow and not some attempt to catch lightning in a bottle of a film 30 years prior.