Messages

So in that case, Bale is just as bad as Keaton since he effectively killed off a defenseless Ra's and justified doing so to his daughter.

And don't give me that rubbish that 'he didn't kill Ra's" or "it's not murder". You acknowledged before that Batman did break his moral code, and his code was not killing. Therefore, Bale's Batman is a murderer too. Saying otherwise only defies common sense.

In my opinion, I find it's more disturbing that Batman doesn't react or feel guilty over the deaths of the people he ended up killing in the temple, Two-Face or Talia, if he really didn't intend to harm them. Where's his conscience?

Doing the right thing isn't about feeling bad if you do the wrong thing. It's about the right thing. But Keaton's shows just as much remorse. He actually smiles. That's disturbing. But I disagree that the characters didn't feel guilt.

I didn't acknowledge that. I said that he kinda broke his rule in that instance. I didn't say that he did break is rule in that instance.

He didn't murder.

I googled murder. This was one of the things that came up:
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
That is not what Batman did. By this definition, he never did that.

I don't know what you mean by stick. But I like these movies. I just don't like seeing one get trashed because people just happen to like another. I like the Schumacher films quite a bit. I don't bash Burton for them. And I like TDKT. But I don't want to belittle the Burton films, because they weren't this. I criticize Batman's negative decisions in those movies, but I don't attack the films.

Maybe I got the wrong idea, in which case, I'm glad you're not being made to feel unwelcome for your opinions. 

I've just seen it on some other sites where people get bashed for praising the Burton films and not the Nolan ones so I don't want to see the same thing but in reverse happen here.  But if that's not the case, great!

Hopefully we're all accepting of one another's preferences here. 

Thank you. God bless you.

The ending to both TDK and TDKR is very upbeat. Good triumphs in TDK. And the city is saved and the hero lives happily ever after in TDKR.

I feel like you've got a bit of stick here lately so I'm going to stick up for your opinion and say I totally agree.

What I love about the endings of TDK and TDKR is that they're bittersweet.  Bruce Wayne does the honourable thing in the second film by upholding the city's integrity by taking the rap for crimes committed by Gotham's 'white knight'.  That to me is an upbeat ending, in the same way Elsa and Rick Blane's parting at the end of Casablanca is an upbeat ending.  They might not necessarily be 'happy' endings but they're endings in which the protagonist makes a personal sacrifice for the greater good and you can't get much more inspiring and life-affirming than that IMHO.

Likewise, TDKR is a bittersweet ending in which Bruce finally gets to live a 'normal' life, even if it means leaving behind his family legacy and his best friend and surrogate father, Alfred, in Gotham.  Maybe I'm the only one here who feels this way, but the brief scene in Florence where Alfred shares an unspoken moment with Bruce almost brought a tear to my eye; it's even more poignant and powerful if one perceives the moment simply as a figment of Alfred's imagination, and that Bruce is possibly dead or MIA, although I guess that wouldn't be such an 'upbeat' ending.

I don't know what you mean by stick. But I like these movies. I just don't like seeing one get trashed because people just happen to like another. I like the Schumacher films quite a bit. I don't bash Burton for them. And I like TDKT. But I don't want to belittle the Burton films, because they weren't this. I criticize Batman's negative decisions in those movies, but I don't attack the films.

I really can't say enough bad things about the dark knight rises. Had Nolan stopped at two films I'd perceive them much better. Burton and Schumacher made their second films different enough from their first to give each individual film a sense of identity. Nolan made a unique enough film with the Dark Knight but TDKR felt half Batman Begins, half the dark knight rises. His entire trilogy feels redundant and overdone.

My rankings would be as follows
TDK > 89 > BF>BB>  BR> TDKR > B+R

If I were to rank on re-watchability I'd put 89 over the dark knight and batman and Robin over the dark knight rises. 

For all the slack batman and robin gets, it keeps the pace rolling, keeps it fun, entertains the audiences and lets the hero triumph. Nolan bored audiences to tears especially with his 3rd film, had to be dull and boring and the only one with an upbeat ending where 'the good guy wins' was Batman Begins.

The ending to both TDK and TDKR is very upbeat. Good triumphs in TDK. And the city is saved and the hero lives happily ever after in TDKR.

I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.

Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.

You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.

I would add that Keaton remarks how 'Batman' saved the city from property damage in Returns, something Bale clearly had no interest in. Baleman destroyed quite a bit of police property, Keaton clearly made an attempt to minimize collateral damage

Property damage doesn't matter.

Keaton's Batman let a lovely young woman fall to her death and just stood there like a dummy!    All the preservation of property in the world doesn't make up for that failure.

Um, that was a plot point of the movie. Batman couldn't save her. That's the premise of the scene. Literally nothing comes from the collateral damage in the Nolan movies.

He couldn't save her? He barely tried to. He also shows no amount of caring about it.

I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.

Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.

You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.

Being a murderer will always be more incompetent than not being one.

He apparently wasn't trying to kill any people during the BB League of Shadows temple scene. He wanted to spare one life, but his actions resulted in the deaths of many. He didn't want to kill Harvey Dent in TDK, yet he did. He wanted to stop Talia's truck, yet his actions resulted in the death of her and the driver.

Yes, there is such a thing as collateral damage. However, again, it all just proves there are times when killing is simply unavoidable. The fact Bale's Batman is so big on 'no guns, no killing' just makes it all seem ridiculous and hypercritical.

Keaton's Batman has intent to kill and does.
Bale's Batman has intent to save and ends up killing anyway.

I wonder which one appears more incompetent?

Whichever person isn't trying to be a murderer.

The sequence preceding the moment in question is problematic for the Nolan crowd, (sending a missile barrage at Talia's truck) because it once again proves there are situations in which Batman must take lethal action to protect his city, ala B89. And Talia's death scene is just awful. But yes, that little section where Batman speaks to Gordon and flies off? Gold.

Why is it problematic? The guy didn't get killed on purpose. Batman wasn't trying to kill him.

The expository and repetitive dialogue in these films was one of the many things that really annoyed the crap out of me.

For example, the word "fear" was repeated nearly thirty times in Batman Begins. How many times did the audience have to be told that Bruce had to overcome his own fear of bats and use it as a weapon in order to become Batman? It's unnecessary! We already get the idea once we watched the scene where Bruce gets attacked by bats when he was a kid. There's no need for this heavy handed dialogue. It's not clever, and it's only slowing down the film to a snail's crawl.

Look, exposition has its place and it's unrealistic to completely avoid it. But it shouldn't take up screen-time away from the action either. B89 for example used exposition when it had to, i.e. Det. Eckhardt accusing Jack Napier for being a lunatic. But once Jack becomes the Joker, the exposition stops and then you see how insane he really is. 

For all the talk about Batman and Harvey Dent being symbols, we don't really get to see what sort of impression they're having on the wider public. And this is one of the many reasons I say Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy is way better. When Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man, you get to see what sort of impact he's having on the public. He becomes so symbolic to Manhattan that you saw people promising to keep his identity a secret as a sign of gratitude for saving their lives from Doctor Octopus, as well as showing their appreciation for his return after a lengthy absence. Even the first Amazing Spider-Man movie had the hero inspired gratitude when those construction builders helped him up to reach the Oscorp building, because of their sons was saved by Spidey earlier on. If it was up to Christopher Nolan to direct the 2002 film, we would never have gotten that cool montage sequence of Spider-Man rescuing people while others on camera give their opinions about whether he is a hero or a menace. I bet the "great power, great responsibility" line would be repeated over and over again instead, and I can imagine that the second act would take up explaining every tedious little detail of how the Spider-Man costume is created.

Tedious? I liked that part.

And we actually saw in TDK where the people on the boat didn't blow eachother up. I'd say we saw just as much reaction to Batman in Batman Begins that we did to Spider-Man in Spider-Man.