Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Dagenspear

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49
The thing that perplexes me about your insistence over this supposed character growth is you're not really addressing the conflicting logic here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As we've discussed before, it was established in TDK that Bruce was seriously reconsidering his whole crusade because he realised Batman was creating negative side effects, and wanted the city to look up to a legal figure like Dent instead. If anything, TDK was telling us that having a vigilante running around was a toxic influence on Gotham City when he's attracting copycats and freaks, and many fans argued that the cover-up in the end was necessary to put an end to that disorder. People assumed that Batman was a temporary phase until Gotham could be reformed for good.
The movie showcases Bruce's feelings, but that doesn't mean his feelings reflect what the movie is trying to tell us. I'd say Bruce's character arc is about Bruce giving up his desire for a normal life, while still holding on to Batman. If anything I'd say the movie trying to say that Batman is necessary. Hence the whole dark knight speech by Gordon and Alfred making a point of saying that Bruce has inspired good, but there would be casualties from it and that things were always going to get worse before it got better. I don't think the movie provides a cut and dry structure of perception necessarily on whether Batman is all good or all bad for Gotham. I think that, like I think about a lot of things in the movie, it shows both sides of it.
But instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again, and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.
Like I said, I'd see his character development in TDK more as him making Batman all he has, so I think that when he has the opportunity to jump right back into it in TDKR, he goes for it. In TDK Rachel says that she doesn't think a time will come when Bruce will no longer needs Batman, I think essentially saying that Bruce's obsession with Batman will always dominate him she thinks, whether in a relationship with her or not. TDKR is saying that Bruce now has nothing to live for but being Batman, I think, with Alfred saying that Bruce sees only one end to his journey. I'd say that Rachel was his fantasy, a false hope that he could have a life beyond Batman as he was and TDKR was him getting past the idea of that false hope.

The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

The lack of Venom alone is a departure from Bane's comic counterpart. The fact that he may have done things similar to the comics is irrelevant, Nolan departed from the source material just like the other directors. The fact that you can make the case that Schumacher's vision of Bane is closer to the comics than Nolan's vision should say something.
I don't think he's displayed as invincible (he just has the resources), but even if he was, I think that's a different issue than what I was addressing in mu post. Every version is going to be different certainly and while as far as bell and whistles go, Bane is more accurate, but the bells and whistles aren't the character, much like Dinah Drake, Black Siren and Sara Lance on Arrow not being BC just because of fighting skills and a canary cry. As far as Bane, the movie did a version of what the comics do. Instead of super-steroid, it was a drug for pain. It's not a huge change as far as alterations go. Not that I'm hugely offended by B&R's version or anything.

Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.
Absolutely. This is why I'm happier restricting my posts to this forum where people are more reasonable. You could honestly make a case for just about any bat-villain being altered. As mentioned, none are completely accurate but all contain elements from the comics.
I don't think that's true. Bane and Talia generally seem to have all of their bases covered. Talia has fostered a partnership with Wayne in the clean energy project for years. It's all about a general knowledge of the situation. Bane tampers with Bruce's records to make the board think Bruce has cost them money, to make it seem like Dagget will be able to takeover the company, to get Bruce to turn to Talia for help, so she can use that trust to find out where the fusion reactor is. And Bane threatens Catwoman to lead Batman to him. That's the plan. I think Lex's plan is more convoluted than that. As for Joker, his character flies by the seat of his pants. The only thing he seems to have any plan for is getting caught (which doesn't require much thought) and after Harvey Dent gets burned and that's pretty simple. The only really ridiculous thing about it is the criminals and civilians on separate boats thing.

And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.
Now that's an interesting idea.

Batman Begins (2005) / Re: BATMAN LET RAS DIE
« on: Fri, 29 Dec 2017, 00:36 »
Yeah, there's massive inconsistencies within this trilogy, that doesn't make sense to me. And I know I've said this before, but I don't care if Batman kills within the movies. I've been used to it since Burton made B89. My problem, is how he keeps telling us he has these morals(or characters tell us he has a code), but he constantly goes against it. It's just constant contradictions. Or is it not a contradiction, because of "character arcs"?  :P

I still find it funny in BB when he's in the monastery, tells them he's no executioner, and then kills most of the people in the temple, lol.
Executing and killing in defense isn't the same thing. He's not trying to kill. It's just what happens in that scene. Bruce has to escape, they just said Gotham must be destroyed and they want to attack it and there's no going back for Bruce. Superman killed Zod to save a family too. Bruce has a rule, but that doesn't mean he'll always keep it. He's capable of failing to keep to it. That's what makes him a flawed character. I wouldn't hold incidentally killing in battle of defense against Batfleck either, if that was the worse thing he'd done. Same with Burton and Schumacher Batman.

You're essentially faulting the character for being unable to predict the future. It took quite a while for Batman to really get the Joker's number in TDK. The interrogation room scene is probably the moment Batman finally understand what he was up against... after which time, he doesn't really mention retirement again.

We see at the beginning of TDKRises that Batman was basically forced into retirement. Thus, with the Joker safely locked up, he'd gotten what he wanted... but not the way he wanted it.

If anybody is looking for someone who will defend the Nolan trilogy about everything no matter what no exceptions, I'm not that guy. But there are some things that were really done well with his trilogy and I don't see the harm in pointing those things out.
You're correct. Batman thinks the Joker is just a hired mob thug and thinks he can be halted by just turning himself in. He doesn't understand until after Rachel's death that Joker is what Alfred described.

There are certainly problems with the TDKT, but the issues being said here aren't them. This makes sense for his character in the 1st movie and within TDK.

I would probably have more sympathy for Dent, if he was an integral part of BB, but he just appeared out of nowhere in TDK, and then died. Which is why I don't buy the notion that he was this beacon of hope that was more powerful than Batman himself. If he was a more powerful symbol than Batman, why wasn't Gotham in better shape before Batman came about? One of the main points in BB, was that Bruce needed a symbol that wasn't "flesh and blood", but was a symbol, a symbol to shake people out of apathy. Of course, he chose a bat, and became Batman. Why did he have to do that? Why not prop up Gordon, get cops that weren't corrupt, then fund Dent and the GCPD. The entire notion of becoming Batman seems irrelevant with the way TDK played into Dent and Batman's character.

lol, sorry, I kinda went down a rabbit hole there. It's just one thing that bugs me about this trilogy, it's just so inconsistent for me. In BB, Gotham needs a symbol/masked vigilante to help fight against corruption. Then, in TDK, Bruce says Gotham needs a "hero with a face". Then, in TDKR, he flips again, and says, "nah, nah, nah, Gotham needs a protector who wears a mask. Make sure you wear a mask if you fight crime in Gotham, Robin John Blake".
A symbol doesn't need to be without a face. Bruce in BB states that people need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and uses Batman to do that. Out of that comes Harvey Dent and Bruce thinks that that's all that's needed. The whole arc Bruce goes through in TDK is about him thinking Batman is a negative influence. And he thinks Dent is a better influence than him, a hero with a face. The whole point is that that's not true. The hero with a face gets half of it blown off. There's no contradiction. It's Bruce doubting his impact on the city, doubting whether or not he's even a positive influence.

Well most versions of Two-Face feel bitterness toward their past, including to some extent specifically Batman, even though they also believe that good and evil are meaningless, only chance really decides actions and outcomes.
I think TDK also holds that Two-Face's background was tragic but his current actions make him not sympathetic.
I agree. TDKRises even has Jim call him a madman.

I find it hard that you truly believe that, but moving on...

And what did happen was utter garbage. I can't imagine the alternative to be worse.
You stating things that aren't facts like they are here is something I don't understand.
Again, I wasn't asking for a perfect Two-Face story, but I was expecting one that actually made sense, and made me feel a bit of sympathy for him. This certainly doesn't come anywhere near in reaching that criteria. It's bad enough that the film tells you he's the best thing to happen to the city in a long time despite he doesn't do anything to justify this reputation. But to have him then become a foil for the hero to make a terrible decision in the end? No. I can't accept that garbage excuse for storytelling.
The whole point is that he hasn't done anything to justify it, just like the only real effect of Dent's death is political, I think. Dent's a false martyr from back to front. Of course also, Dent's viewed by the city the way he is because of his idealism, which is said in the movie. The thing is that his idealism is only half of the story. He's not only that. He's a human being capable of choosing to do the wrong thing. Also, in Gordon's own words, he doesn't have blind faith, as he says, "I don't get points for idealism. I have to do the best I can with what I've got." He may not believe his cops are dirty, but that doesn't mean he has blind faith. You haven't given reasons why the story didn't make sense.
I actually said the same thing about Gordon elsewhere, if he hadn't shown such blind faith to those corrupt cops, maybe Dent and Rachel might've survived. But that still doesn't justify Two-Face's rationale for sparing the Joker. He knows very well that Joker was a conniving psychopath who made numerous attempts at his life and Rachel before eventually succeeding in destroying their lives. His justification that "Joker was a mad dog, I'm going after the ones who let him off his leash" still doesn't wash given the fact he knew Joker was manipulating him, and he just lets him do it. And by the time Two-Face threatened to murder Gordon's innocent family, I couldn't believe nobody would feel contempt for him. How could anybody feel sorry for him after that, is just beyond my comprehension.

In any case, it goes to show none of the supposed good guys in this film, particularly the ones who had fallen, are particularly likable, competent or deserve any sympathy.
Harvey gives Joker the same chance he gives anyone else. He flips the coin. The good guys in the movie are viewed by you as not particularly likable, competent or deserve any sympathy, but batfleck, who tried to murder Superman because he existed, is those things to you?

Yes, please do lecture me, the lifelong Superman fan, on what's wrong with his depiction in the DCEU.
My post wasn't about what's wrong or right with the Superman depiction. It was about people wanting a light character not meaning they want a cheesy character and about good writing.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49
Not a member? Click here to register now!
Latest Forum Post
Re: Krypton (SyFy TV Series)
by The Dark Knight
Total Members: 712 | Total Posts: 50,359 | Total Topics: 3,206

SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
| Design based on the Reference theme by Crip XHTML RSS WAP2 iPhone Theme Scrolling News Ticker by Mioplanet
"BATMAN" all related characters indicia are copyrighted by D.C. COMICS, a TIME-WARNER company. Batman created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger.
All features, articles and blogs are © of Batman-Online.com's staff & members (unless otherwise indicated) and may NOT be copied without the author's permission. All artwork is © of respective owners.
This is NOT an official Batman website. Conceived, designed and edited by Paul Rodgers since 1st June 2002. Facebook and twitter feeds maintained by Rick Francis and Azrael.