Jack on Heath

Started by Paul (ral), Sat, 12 Jul 2008, 13:56

Previous topic - Next topic
Sat, 23 Aug 2014, 04:42 #70 Last Edit: Sat, 23 Aug 2014, 05:02 by The Laughing Fish
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
The 'realism' in Nolan's films essentially boils down to a greater emphasis on logical process (explaining the rationale behind the outwardly irrational), allusions to contemporary social anxieties (post-9/11 angst, terrorism, compromised security, etc) and a visual language that makes the stories feel more immediate and less removed from our own lives (Gotham being a real city instead of an artificial fantasy construct, a more realistic portrayal of how the police/government might react to a comic book crisis). But ultimately they're still superhero fantasy films.

You mean like the entire police force going underground and stay trapped there for six months? It was already a stretch to the imagination that any cop would agree to work with Batman after he was lucky he didn't kill them during that car chase in the first film, but that part in TDKR was especially laughable. Other superhero films are set in real cities too, but to me, their police and governments aren't any less believable than in Nolan's films.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
I enjoy the finales in Nolan's films more than those in most other contemporary blockbusters, chiefly because he favours practical effects over CGI. I also admire him for shooting on 35mm instead of digital.

Although too many films do tend to make their films longer because they want to display all the CGI they can, I didn't care that Nolan favours practical effects because I found each to be too long than it needed to be, that even the ending feels dragged on.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
If Batman wanted to stop Dent then he could've simply snuck Dent from behind like a ninja and disable him. You know, like he used to in Batman Begins?
He could have done that, but he chose to try reasoning with Harvey instead. This was the first time Batman had encountered him since he'd become Two-Face, and he didn't realise how far gone his mind was.

I actually meant he could've done that after he was shot, and I don't find that completely impossible. After all, this is a Batman who could disappear in a blink of an eye. This is a Batman who could survive deadly incidents such as jumping off a skyscraper building or a multi-storey car park platform and land on top of vehicles (but at the same time we're lead to believe he gets his leg crippled from a much smaller height when Dent died?).  This is a Batman who could repair his broken back by getting his vertebra punched back together, and miraculously recovers from a serious stab wound so quickly.

Slightly off-topic but do now you see what I mean when I find Nolan's films inconsistent in regards to his attempt to make his movies "more realistic"? If he's going to do all of that, then he might as well introduce Solomon Grundy, Clayface, Superman and so on in his movies.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
This was not Batman at his peak like he was in Batman Begins.

What period of time did TDK take place after BB? A year or less? Because he couldn't have deteriorated that quickly, no matter how many scars he had on his body. If we're lead to believe his body was in bad shape, then its because his second suit is less secure and less bulletproof if anything.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Batman's human, he makes mistakes. And that whole scene is supposed to represent one of his greatest failures, the consequences of which leave him permanently injured and outlawed. It would make no sense for Batman to want Harvey dead.

I'm not complaining that Batman shouldn't ever make mistakes, after all he did make many mistakes in BR. But the scene didn't execute the tragedy of the situation well at all. It would've been far better to me that Batman did lunge at Dent but tried to wrestle with him to grab the gun away, and then Dent accidentally tripped and fell to his death despite Batman's valiant attempts to save him. I really wish that was how the scene worked. Batman's actions might still have been a bit reckless, but it would've been a LOT better than suddenly lunging Dent holding Gordon's son right off the ledge. Of course the boy wasn't going to die, but how dumb would it be if did too? Because the first thought I had that once Batman couldn't reason with Dent, he literally threw caution out the window. I thought he was prepared to kill Harvey to save Gordon's son.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Part of what makes Nolan's Batman films interesting is that they place the heroes in situations that are not only physically difficult, but ethically challenging too. Nolan's heroes are constantly confronted with difficult moral decisions, and they don't always choose the right options. The battles are never just purely physical; there's always a moral and psychological layer to them. And that's one of the reasons people enjoy analysing them so much.

I'm afraid people tend to give Nolan's films too much credit than they deserve, especially in this regard. And here's why: after Batman killed Ra's al Ghul in BB, Ra's is never mentioned or acknowledged again until TDKR. We have no idea how Bruce felt after he killed his mentor for the remainder of the first film, and Ra's isn't even mentioned at all in TDK. It's only until in TDKR where Talia confronts Batman for killing her father, which Batman acknowledges he did it to save millions of people. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? You can disagree with me with Dent's death all you want, but surely you got to admit that none of the films show how Ra's's death affected Batman, or Batman having any conflicted thoughts about what he'd done, especially when he was dealing with an even more destructive mass-murderer in the second film. It's only in the third film where Batman finally acknowledged he killed Ra's, and he was righteous about it.  Not once did any of the films show that Batman reflected on Ra's death with any regret or remorse. If you want to argue that he did when Talia revealed herself, I doubt it a lot, he was rather desolate that she had betrayed him and was about to blow up Gotham.

* The obvious reason that Ra's had to die is because he knew Batman's true identity and it wouldn't make any sense if he were to return in the sequels and not reveal Batman's real identity to the world (and I thought that was already a stretch when he didn't do that at Bruce's birthday party). If Nolan and Goyer were smart, they could've killed Ra's off like in Arkham City, where Batman's morals remained intact. Instead, they have Batman kill him off, and the character's point about not killing because "it separates us from them" is completely undone, and he becomes no more virtuous than Tim Burton's Batman. Doesn't this mean that Joker is wrong - this Batman isn't completely "incorruptible" after all?

And let's not forget in TDK , Maroni and Joker taunt Batman about his no-killing rule. Once again, that to me says that no matter what Joker does, Batman won't cross that line...except he will for everyone else when the going gets tough? And if he hates guns so much, then why the hell does he have them mounted on all of his vehicles?

* Then again, the League of Shadows never bothered to reveal to Gotham who Batman actually is in TDKR either .

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Here you're highlighting one contentious issue in Batman Begins and using it as an excuse to condemn The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. I prefer to evaluate each film independently as self-contained works. 

I can't do that I'm afraid, especially in TDKR where things come in full circle and Talia confronts Batman for killing her father. And in case you've forgotten, I've already discussed my other reasons why I don't like TDK. Batman's contradictory behavior throughout the series is just one of many reasons.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
I'm not going to condemn Batman Forever as "stupid" because it shows Bruce telling Dick it's wrong to take revenge by killing, even though he did it himself in Batman 89. That doesn't mean both films are flawed, it just means an intertexual disparity exists between them; and that perhaps Batman 89 is at fault for showing Batman deliberately taking human life (debatable).

To be fair, that's actually one of the many reasons I don't like Batman Forever that much, and it feels even less like a sequel to B89 than BR did.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
And once again, you could apply this exact same criticism to Burton's Batman. He won't kill Shreck – a powerful racketeer who controls the media, has tremendous political power, is complicit in all of the Penguin's evil machinations, who tried to kill Selina, who murdered Fred Atkins and who knows how many other people, yet is apparently immune to the law (remember Catwoman's line: "Aren't you tired of this sanctimonious robber baron always coming out on top when he should be six feet under?"). Batman won't kill that guy. But he will happily murder a mindless goon who, as far we know, never did anything more severe than hit a Salvation Army Santa with a toy sleigh.

That moment with Catwoman is one of the most intriguing and puzzling scenes I've seen in any movie. The only logical explanation that I can think of for Batman's out-of-character behavior in that scene is he felt a strong spiritual connection with Selina (arguably even more so than Vicki since Bruce and Selina were both damaged psyches) and wanted to salvage a possible chance of happiness with her. He was even willing to throw his Batman identity away by expose himself to Selina in front of Shreck. I guess for the first time, we actually see Batman at his most vulnerable moment emotionally, where his judgment is very clouded. Selina though, had obviously came to her senses later in the film and had to reject Bruce because she can't forgive herself for the atrocities she had done. The opportunity was gone, and Bruce remained being Batman, and once again, alone.

That being said, if I was Burton I would've removed that "Wrong at both counts" line out of the film. But hey, at least Shreck didn't escape and do more harm to anyone else in Gotham or anything.

***EDIT:*** I do hope you understand by now that I've already acknowledged more than several times there is a contradiction in Burton's Batman in the last few moments of BR. I just happen to think it's less egregious than Nolan's. You can disagree if you want, but at least I thought I made myself clear by now.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Likewise the flaw you're outlining relates to Batman Begins. And the very thing you're accusing Nolan of getting wrong in Batman Begins (and I agree with you on that score) is something he got right in the next two films. But you're calling him out for that too. He can't win. It seems that by making one mistake in Batman Begins, he's ruined all the sequels in your eyes.

I beginning to think you believe I hate Nolan's films only because Batman is a hypocrite. I've already explained my other reasons why I don't like these movies i.e. they're boring, pretentious, intellectually shallow, full of mediocre action, Batman taking the blame doesn't many any sense and so on, and Batman the main character is one reason out of many. It's bad enough that Bale plays him so poorly, when we know he is a much better actor than this, but he is also a poorly written character too. As far as claiming that Nolan ruined the sequels in a way for me, to a certain extent - it's a little bit true because Nolan conveniently doesn't have Batman even recognize his own mistakes, even moreso than Burton's Batman. If Nolan actually bothered to have Batman acknowledge the error of his ways and made his actions make more consistent, then I wouldn't be complaining right now. As it is, it's Nolan's fault as a writer for this, as well as how boring and poorly written the rest of his movies are in my opinion.

In general, despite all the hype and praise they receive, I don't find Nolan's films entertaining (with the possible exception of the third film, albeit for the wrong reasons), nor do I certainly find them smarter, than Burton's Batman or other superhero movies. If you disagree with me, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. 

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
I hope you don't mind me asking, but if you hate the film so intensely, why have you watched it four times in the last two years? I like the film and I've only watched it twice during that equivalent time span.

The reason is because this movie receives so much ridiculous praise that it had eventually lead me to go back and watch it again to see if I was watching it incorrectly, and try to make sense of things. I didn't like it at all the second time I watched it, and the third and fourth times lead me to skipping parts of the film and by the fourth time I tried watching a few portion of scenes here and there until I turned it off saying "Never again". The only positive things I could find in this film were the bank heist and car chase action sequences, and the extremely brief car park and nightclub fight scenes. I didn't like any of the characters, and I thought so-called "complex" themes to be shallow and unrealistic. And you know how critical I was about the ending.

If you think I gave it too much of a chance despite hating it, think again - I've read that some people went to see it more than three times when it first came out, but still didn't like the film that much. Now that's insane.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Since the showrunners have often cited Nolan's trilogy as a major influence, the whole series comes off as a teen-oriented Dark Knight-lite. I know the actors aren't really teens, but they radiate an air of immaturity about them. In fairness, that's probably more to do with the way the scripts are written. By contrast, Nolan's films had Oscar-calibre actors playing fully rounded characters struggling with complex moral dilemmas, and each following their own personal arc within the wider overarching narrative.

You know much I don't rate the supposed moral themes in Nolan's films so I'm not going there again. The thing with the A-List actors is that they're playing secondary characters, and have even less things to do with each movie. I mean Morgan Freeman as Lucius doesn't do much, he's there for exposition and deliver equipment like he's Q but otherwise his character never develops throughout the trilogy, Michael Caine's Alfred has less and less to do in each movie. Oldman's Gordon, who I thought was the best character by far in the first movie, becomes progressively dumber in each film that has nothing to with moral dilemmas, and I don't think his acting in his sequels are as good as the first.

For all the praise Nolan gets for "deep character development", none of his characters are as well written than Oliver Queen in Arrow. The actor who plays him kinda sucks but hear me out. In that show, which ironically takes influence from Nolan's films in terms of tone, we see Queen's journey from spoiled-rotten rich douchebag into a traumatised castaway who learns to kill as a means of survival. Five years later, he returns home to right the wrongs of his father and his fellow elite, only to slowly reinvent himself as an altruistic hero as he tries to avoid being the ruthless vigilante he once was. He does make mistakes here and there, and can be taking his friends for granted at times. He even has a few double standards here and there, but what makes the character rewarding is he is changing over time and actually learns from the error of his ways. I honestly don't see any of this character development in Nolan's Batman. And to be fair, the same thing goes for Burton's Batman too (in terms of the main character at least).

Of course, what are the odds that by the time I write this the showrunners will probably come up something lame and contrived that ruins the character?  ::)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
I'm probably being too harsh on Arrow. I haven't seen much of the second season, which I gather is an improvement over the first.

The first half of the second season was very good I thought, even better than the debut season at times. But the second half...not so much. I wasn't a fan of Deathstroke's plotline, and there were a few contrivances that I didn't care for.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42You mean like the entire police force going underground and stay trapped there for six months?

The entire police force overreacting to a crisis is still more realistic than no police force reacting to a crisis. For example, the parade at the end of Batman 89, or the riot scene in the middle of Batman Returns, or the penguin commandoes in Batman Returns. In fact the only time the GCPD earn their pay in Burton's films is when they're chasing Batman. But I agree it was a dumb move sending that many men underground.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Other superhero films are set in real cities too, but to me, their police and governments aren't any less believable than in Nolan's films.

It's not a matter of being more realistic than every other superhero film; just being more realistic than the previous Batman films. And the previous Batman films had never shown the police and civil authorities reacting to the supervillains in a believable way. Only Batman 89 made any effort to do this, but even then Dent, Gordon and the mayor were sidelined during the film's crucial final act.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42After all, this is a Batman who could disappear in a blink of an eye.

When he was on top form and had the element of surprise. In this scene he was injured and lying on the ground right in front of Dent. He was never in control of the situation.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42This is a Batman who could survive deadly incidents such as jumping off a skyscraper building or a multi-storey car park platform and land on top of vehicles (but at the same time we're lead to believe he gets his leg crippled from a much smaller height when Dent died?).

The difference is that he deployed his cape to slow his rate of descent on those other occasions. He didn't when he fell after saving Gordon's son. The other two occasions were controlled descents. The fall at the end of TDK wasn't.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42This is a Batman who could repair his broken back by getting his vertebra punched back together

That was unrealistic. Although it's worth remembering that the comic it was based on was very unrealistic too. In the movie he had a herniated disc, while in the comic his injuries were closer to those suffered by Christopher Reeve. Yet he recovered from them in less than two years. Of course that doesn't excuse the same improbability existing in the movie.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42and miraculously recovers from a serious stab wound so quickly.

We're never told how serious the stab wound was. And we're not told how quickly Bruce recovered from it. Once he gets stabbed, he doesn't do any more fighting for the remainder of the film. He just sits in the Bat. It's hard to judge the extent of this particular injury based on what's shown on screen.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Slightly off-topic but do now you see what I mean when I find Nolan's films inconsistent in regards to his attempt to make his movies "more realistic"?

Not really, because all those things you listed support my assertion that these are in fact fantasy films. If Nolan had established in Batman Begins that Batman couldn't survive physical injuries of that sort, or falling off high places with his cape glider, then that would be inconsistent. But he demonstrated that these things were acceptable in his universe right back in Batman Begins. In the very first film he showed Batman and one of the League of Shadows ninjas tumbling off a monorail platform and falling to street level, and then Batman getting right back up again without any injury. He showed Batman enduring a full body burn and leaping out of high window under the influence of Scarecrow's fear gas, falling to street level and bouncing off a car, only to suffer minimal injuries in the process. These sort of things happen in the comics all the time, and they've always happened in Nolan's film too. He never said they couldn't. So there's no inconsistency.

The very premise of Batman is inherently unrealistic to begin with: a man who dresses as a bat and leaps across rooftops, singlehandedly taking down heavily armed SWAT teams while barely getting a scratch on him. That fantastical premise is preserved in Nolan's films, just as it was in Burton's. The difference is that Nolan tried to offer a rational explanation to make the more outlandish aspects of the mythos seem more plausible (something the comic writers have been doing since the seventies), and adopted a less fanciful visual vocabulary to make the setting and characters seem more immediate and relatable. But besides trying to get inside Batman's head and explain the logic behind his actions, his take on the character was really not that different from Burton's.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42What period of time did TDK take place after BB? A year or less? Because he couldn't have deteriorated that quickly, no matter how many scars he had on his body.

I think TDK takes place around 9 months after BB, but I'm open to correction on that. Remember the scene in TDKR where Bruce goes to the doctors and gets a rundown of all his injuries? That's the condition Bruce was in during the final scene in TDK. The only difference was he hadn't injured his leg yet when he confronted Two-Face. You see him clutching his stomach in pain when he leaves the Joker at the construction site, indicating the injuries he sustained during that battle were more severe than they might have initially appeared. He then gets shot in the stomach at point-blank range and we see him collapse on the floor. The original script describes him clutching his gut in agony. Bruce was exhausted, physically and emotionally, and in pain. Insisting he could have easily taken down Two-Face after being shot is like those people who insist Keaton's Batman should have kayoed the final Joker goon in the cathedral with one punch. Both scenes take place when the hero is injured and at a low ebb. And for many fans its moments like that, when Batman's human vulnerability overshadows his costumed bravado, that his heroism becomes most apparent.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42But the scene didn't execute the tragedy of the situation well at all. It would've been far better to me that Batman did lunge at Dent but tried to wrestle with him to grab the gun away, and then Dent accidentally tripped and fell to his death despite Batman's valiant attempts to save him.

But that's basically what did happen. It just happened very quickly. The dramatic emphasis on that specific instant in the scene – the moment where all three of them go over the edge and Gordon rushes over to see what's happened – was to make the audience uncertain who fell and who survived. Two-Face was standing right on the edge, so the tiniest movement from Batman would have been enough to knock him over. And since he had a firm grip on Gordon's son, he would have taken the kid with him.

It could have worked the way you suggest it, but I think it worked very well just the way Nolan did it. The whole scene was basically adapted from the ending of Batman: Year One, except in the comic it was Gordon who lunged at Johnny Vitti and the two of them, along with James Gordon Jr., tumbled over the edge together. As a long-time comic fan, I appreciated the nod to the source material.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42We have no idea how Bruce felt after he killed his mentor for the remainder of the first film, and Ra's isn't even mentioned at all in TDK

It would have been better to have had a scene addressing that. I agree with you there. Maybe just a short conversation between Bruce and Alfred. Or even just a shot of Batman observing the train crash from a rooftop, and then his triumphant smile faltering and changing to a look of remorse. Something along those lines would have been better than nothing.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Are you seeing where I'm going with this? You can disagree with me with Dent's death all you want, but surely you got to admit that none of the films show how Ra's's death affected Batman, or Batman having any conflicted thoughts about what he'd done, especially when he was dealing with an even more destructive mass-murderer in the second film.

I see what you're saying about Bruce's lack of reaction to Ra's' death. And I think you're right. That should have been addressed. But I still maintain that that's an issue stemming from the original fault in Batman Begins.

Elsewhere in this thread I've said I think they should address Superman's guilt over killing Zod in BvS. The reason I want them to do that is because I'm a big Superman fan and I really want to like Man of Steel. I think having Superman express long-lasting remorse over what happened would retroactively make his actions during the MoS finale more tolerable. But if they don't do it, it won't make BvS a worse film. It just won't make Man of Steel a better film. By the same logic, I can't penalise The Dark Knight for a mistake in Batman Begins. Having Bruce mention Ra's in TDK might have retroactively benefitted BB, but it wouldn't have made TDK a better film in my eyes. And by the same logic, not having Bruce mention Ra's didn't make TDK a worse film.

TDKR is slightly different, because the matter of Ra's' death was brought up as an important plot point. But I like the way they handled it there. It's almost as though Nolan was admitting that Batman messed up in BB, and now his mistake is coming back to haunt him. We actually get to hear him try and rationalise what he did in front of Talia, and even she thinks it's a feeble excuse. I thought that whole scene was beautifully played out.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42It's only in the third film where Batman finally acknowledged he killed Ra's, and he was righteous about it.  Not once did any of the films show that Batman reflected on Ra's death with any regret or remorse. If you want to argue that he did when Talia revealed herself, I doubt it a lot, he was rather desolate that she had betrayed him and was about to blow up Gotham.

No, I think he believed he'd done the right thing. He never apologised for Ra's, he only tried to justify it in such a way that would exonerate himself. Partly for Talia's benefit, but I think mostly for the benefit of his own conscience. But I don't think the film presents Batman's perspective as completely right on this particular issue. It's another one of those gray areas where I sense Nolan letting the audience make their own judgements.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42* The obvious reason that Ra's had to die is because he knew Batman's true identity and it wouldn't make any sense if he were to return in the sequels and not reveal Batman's real identity to the world (and I thought that was already a stretch when he didn't do that at Bruce's birthday party).

True. I've often wondered what happened to the other League members who were present when Ra's set fire to Wayne Manor. Presumably they were killed during the fear gas riot towards the end of the film. Otherwise they're still out there with Bruce's secret.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Doesn't this mean that Joker is wrong - this Batman isn't completely "incorruptible" after all?

He corrupted himself on that one occasion when he was new to the game and inexperienced. But from that point on, he never consciously repeated the mistake. And as I say, I don't think Bruce saw what he did as a moral lapse (even though it clearly was). I think he convinced himself that since he didn't actually pull the trigger, and since he technically just let Ra's die, that that was somehow acceptable. I would suggest that killing through inaction might be an acceptable alternative for the Nolan Batman, were it not for the fact he saved the Joker. But again, that's an intertextual disparity. The flaw lies in Batman Begins. Not The Dark Knight.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42And let's not forget in TDK , Maroni and Joker taunt Batman about his no-killing rule. Once again, that to me says that no matter what Joker does, Batman won't cross that line...except he will for everyone else when the going gets tough?

Not for everyone. He did it once, for Ra's.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42And if he hates guns so much, then why the hell does he have them mounted on all of his vehicles?

For shooting out tires, destroying obstacles, firing warning shots. Batman's had guns on his vehicles in the comics for decades, yet he hates guns and has sworn never to use them. At least Nolan's Batman never made a specific vow against using firearms like his comic book counterpart.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42To be fair, that's actually one of the many reasons I don't like Batman Forever that much, and it feels even less like a sequel to B89 than BR did.

Really? I think Batman Forever feels a lot more like a sequel to B89 than BR. Mainly because it continues to explore Bruce's personal journey and his feelings of guilt over his parents' deaths. It touches on a lot of the same plot points and themes as the first film – a hero's origin, Dent/Two-Face's tragic fall, revenge, duality, Bruce being tempted by a normal life with someone he loves, the autumnal October setting, etc. Some of this stuff is touched upon in Batman Returns, but that really feels more like a side story about the villains than a Batman story. Remove the reference to Catwoman and BF could almost be Batman II. I should probably clarify that the last few times I've watched BF I've watched fan edits with the extra scenes restored. I almost prefer those cuts of BF over the theatrical cut of Batman Returns, but I think ultimately I like BR and BF about equally these days. I don't think either of them is as good as B89.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42That moment with Catwoman is one of the most intriguing and puzzling scenes I've seen in any movie.

I wish Burton had put as much thought into the scene as you have, but I seriously doubt he did. He said everything he wanted to say about Batman in the first film. In BR he was more interested in the villains. Daniel Waters even said once that he wished they could have left Batman out of the film all together. And I expect Burton had similar feelings on the matter.

It's worth noting that several of the problematic elements in both B89 and BR arose as a result of Burton's penchant for rewrites. He has a habit of bringing in other writers to rework the original scripts in such a way that contradict the previous writer's ideas. For example, the scene where Batman immolates the fire breather was not in Waters' original script. To my knowledge, it's just something Burton made up at a later date. Even Michael Keaton didn't find out about it until he saw the finished film. I can't remember where I saw this, but I once read an interview with Keaton where he expressed his disapproval at that particular scene and said he wouldn't allow his son to watch it, even though he'd let him watch the previous film. I don't like citing articles I can't directly quote, but I'm afraid I can't recall where I saw this interview now, so I'll have to ask you to take my word for it. Point is, you know you've got a problem when even the actor playing Batman disapproves of the character's moral conduct. But then the problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place had Burton not been so clumsy with the rewrites. The same is true of many of the other inconsistencies and plot holes in both B89 and BR. At least the questionable elements in Nolan's films were calculated. The problems in Burton's film were mostly the result of clumsiness.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42I guess for the first time, we actually see Batman at his most vulnerable moment emotionally, where his judgment is very clouded.

And it's when he's vulnerable that he makes clumsy/illogical mistakes: like revealing his secret identity to a villain, allowing Selina to slash him across the face, allowing Shreck to shoot him, and failing to stop Selina from killing both herself and Shreck. All those mistakes within a single scene. But does his incompetence make his anguish any less heartrending?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Selina though, had obviously came to her senses later in the film and had to reject Bruce because she can't forgive herself for the atrocities she had done.

But she hadn't actually committed any atrocities yet. She beat up a rapist in an alleyway, blew up a building (but made sure the security guards got away first), and attacked Batman a few times. She was complicit in the kidnapping of the Ice Prince, but didn't know Penguin was going to kill her. Admittedly she did briefly become fixated on killing Batman. I'm still not quite sure why, considering her main goal was revenge against Shreck. Or why she was willing to team up with Cobblepot, Shreck's best friend and business partner, to kill Batman. But she never crossed the killing line until she murdered Shreck. That was the point of no return.

Of course in earlier drafts of the script she had already killed Chip by that point. Which would have added more weight to her feelings of self-loathing and guilt. But thanks to Burton's capricious rewrites, reordering of scenes, and general lack of attention when it comes to consistency, that scene ended up vanishing into the ether. Along with scenes explaining most of the other plot holes in the story.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42***EDIT:*** I do hope you understand by now that I've already acknowledged more than several times there is a contradiction in Burton's Batman in the last few moments of BR. I just happen to think it's less egregious than Nolan's. You can disagree if you want, but at least I thought I made myself clear by now.

I understand you've acknowledged it. But I still don't understand how it's not a double standard. For me, it's not just the line about Batman not being above the law that's the problem in BR. It's also the fact that the Gotham police department is willing to work with Batman, but don't seem to have a problem with him slaughtering people left, right and centre. An earlier draft of the Batman Returns script even had a line where Gordon defends Batman, saying that he's never killed anyone before. Which is patently untrue. And unlike in Nolan's films, the killings in Burton's movies often aren't conducted with the aim of saving someone else's life. They're just killings for the sake of killing. And Batman actually smiles while doing it. In fact Keaton's Batman has the second highest kill count in the Burton-Schumacher series, second only to Nicholson's Joker. Not even Penguin, Two-Face or Mr. Freeze kill as many people as Batman did in the Burton films. And yet Batman takes offence when Vicki tells him people think he's as dangerous as the Joker (they're not far off), and has the nerve to ask Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?" when she announces her intent to kill Shreck at the masquerade ball. He clearly states that he's not above the law during the showdown at the zoo, and yet everything he's done in the preceding two films contradicts that assertion. For me, this is much worse than Nolan's Batman making the conscious decision to kill – once – in Batman Begins.

I just don't understand how it's fair to highlight Batman's refusal to kill in The Dark Knight as a flaw because he deliberately killed once in Batman Begins. If Nolan's films must all be judged together then so should Burton's. In which case every instance where Batman kills the 1989 film is a flaw, because it's inconsistent with two scenes in Batman Returns where he clearly states it's wrong for vigilantes to kill. Or do we isolate that flaw in Batman Returns to let Batman 89 off the hook? And if we do that, why don't we do the same for Nolan? Treat each of his films as self-contained works instead of lumping them together into a single omnibus so we use the flaws in one chapter as an excuse to trash the entire book. Otherwise we're applying harsher criticism to Nolan than we are to Burton.

For the record, I really do love Batman Returns. I know I'm being harsh on it in this post, but I'm doing so in an attempt to make a point. You can nitpick at anything. I could list literally dozens of plot holes and inconsistencies in that movie, and use them to accuse Burton and Waters of being stupid, lazy, inconsistent, or any other number of pejorative terms I'd care to throw at them. But I accept their interpretation of Batman for what it is. Just like when I read The Dark Knight Returns I'll accept that Miller's Batman will preach to the Sons of Batman about the cowardice of guns, but then use guns built into the Batmobile, throw gang members into electrified neon signs, and snap the Joker's neck. Denny O'Neil's Batman frequently rallied against killing and the use of guns during the Bronze Age, and yet I can name at least four of five stories written by O'Neil in which Batman kills; sometimes accidentally while trying to save lives, like Nolan's Batman, and other times deliberately. That doesn't mean O'Neil is a terrible, stupid, inconsistent hack. Not unless you want him to be, or you want Miller to be, or Burton, in which case you can cite any of these things I've mentioned as justification for that viewpoint. But if you apply such harsh criticism to them, you've got to apply it to everyone. Otherwise it's a double standard.

For every fault I could identify in Batman Returns, or The Dark Knight Returns, or Denny O'Neil's run in the seventies, I could list ten good things. And I could do the same for Nolan's films. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them, since you're locked into a mindset that says his films are worthless and have no redeeming qualities at all. But if you evaluated every version of Batman with that same mindset, you could easily condemn the entire franchise, regardless of who the director or writer was.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42I beginning to think you believe I hate Nolan's films only because Batman is a hypocrite. I've already explained my other reasons why I don't like these movies i.e. they're boring, pretentious, intellectually shallow, full of mediocre action, Batman taking the blame doesn't many any sense and so on, and Batman the main character is one reason out of many

You've given reasons for why you think Nolan's Batman is a hypocrite, which is why I've focussed on addressing that point. We can both cite examples from the film to support conflicting viewpoints on that score. When it comes to accusations of the films being boring, pretentious and intellectually shallow, those are all subjective responses that are harder to substantiate/refute.

When someone labels a movie 'boring', that's as likely to reveal something about the attitude of the viewer as it is the film itself. You could call anything boring. The only way to gauge the degree of boredom something elicits is to look at how people respond to it. And the vast majority of people thought Nolan's films weren't boring. If 96% of people were excited by it, and 4% of people weren't, then he clearly got it right. What that 4% find exciting might be what the other 96% would find boring. I'm fairly sure the placement of action scenes in Nolan's films, relative to runtime, is more or less the same as in the Burton-Schumacher films. And the scenes connecting the action sequences contain conflict, mystery, romance, and all the other dramatic devices that conventionally arouse viewer interest. All the pieces are there for an interesting film. It's just bad luck if you happen to be one of the few people who finds it dull.

The charge of pretentiousness I can agree with to an extent, in so far as Nolan has a tendency to turn his Batman characters into symbols in an attempt to add thematic weight to everything they do. But ultimately it's not that big a deal. It only amounts to a few extra seconds of dialogue. Again though, I think this is one of those criticisms that could relate more to the fans than the film itself. The fans who claim Nolan's films are intellectual masterworks, and that anyone who dislikes them only does so because they're intellectually incapable of understanding them, are the ones attaching disproportionate value to the films. The films themselves aren't really pretending to be about big ideas, because the ideas are there: Joker symbolises chaos, Batman symbolises order, Two-Face symbolises the random interplay between the two, and so forth. Maybe those ideas shouldn't be there, and maybe the plots should function on a more basic level. But the fact remains Nolan did map out a thematic framework on top of the main narrative. I'd argue Burton did too with his films. But while Burton conveyed his ideas through heavy-handed visuals, Nolan did it through heavy-handed dialogue (I'm a fan of showing rather than telling, so I generally prefer Burton's approach). You could argue that the extra thematic layer is unnecessary, and that the characters should be able to function on their own without being turned into symbols, and in that regard I'd say you have a point. But you can still enjoy the film on the more straightforward level. The extra thematic layer is just there for people who like to look for those sort of things.

As for the films being intellectually shallow, is that really a problem? Do any of the old films have intellectual depth to them? This is another one of those criticisms which seems to relate to the fan base more than the films. The fans claim it's intellectually deep, but it isn't. Ok, then the fans are at fault.  That doesn't make the film itself bad.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42nor do I certainly find them smarter, than Burton's Batman or other superhero movies.

Do they need to be?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42I mean Morgan Freeman as Lucius doesn't do much, he's there for exposition and deliver equipment like he's Q but otherwise his character never develops throughout the trilogy,

I agree with this. I didn't particularly like the way Lucius was portrayed in this trilogy.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Michael Caine's Alfred has less and less to do in each movie.

Yet he still had a bigger role than Alfred did in the old films, with the possible exception of Batman and Robin.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Oldman's Gordon, who I thought was the best character by far in the first movie, becomes progressively dumber in each film that has nothing to with moral dilemmas, and I don't think his acting in his sequels are as good as the first.

I loved Oldman's performance in these films. For me, he was pretty much the definitive live action Gordon. But I thought his best acting was definitively in the second film. Particularly the final scene with Two-Face. I liked the way his character faced just as many moral dilemmas as Batman did: struggling to stay clean in a corrupt police department and refusing to accept dirty money, despite pressure from Flass and the other cops; choosing to work outside the law with Batman and Dent, and suffering the consequences this had on his marriage and family life; battling his inner conscience when covering for Dent, and helping maintain the conspiracy of lies to uphold the Dent Act. All intriguing little subplots that Nolan managed to weave into the main narrative to make sure Gordon always had a personal stake in what was happening. It was a massive improvement over the way Gordon was depicted in the old series of films. I'm curious to know why you think his character got dumber with each film?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42For all the praise Nolan gets for "deep character development", none of his characters are as well written than Oliver Queen in Arrow. The actor who plays him kinda sucks but hear me out. In that show, which ironically takes influence from Nolan's films in terms of tone, we see Queen's journey from spoiled-rotten rich douchebag into a traumatised castaway who learns to kill as a means of survival. Five years later, he returns home to right the wrongs of his father and his fellow elite, only to slowly reinvent himself as an altruistic hero as he tries to avoid being the ruthless vigilante he once was. He does make mistakes here and there, and can be taking his friends for granted at times. He even has a few double standards here and there, but what makes the character rewarding is he is changing over time and actually learns from the error of his ways.

I haven't seen enough of Arrow to comment on this, but I'm sure you're right. I really should try and catch up on it sometime. But with so many new superhero shows starting soon, it's going to be difficult to keep up.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42I honestly don't see any of this character development in Nolan's Batman. And to be fair, the same thing goes for Burton's Batman too (in terms of the main character at least).

Well I've always maintained that, budget issues aside, television is theoretically a better medium for comic book adaptations than film. The 90s in particular was a great decade for superheroes and comic book TV shows. We had live action shows based on Superman, The Flash, Tales from the Crypt and RoboCop, plus animated shows based on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Spider-Man, X-Men and The Fantastic Four. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Arrow, The Flash, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Daredevil will mark the beginning of a new golden age for superheroes on TV.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42The first half of the second season was very good I thought, even better than the debut season at times. But the second half...not so much. I wasn't a fan of Deathstroke's plotline, and there were a few contrivances that I didn't care for.

I saw the first five or six episodes of season 1, then fell behind. If I was to catch up, would you recommend watching the whole series from scratch, or would it be better to start straight from season 2? Or even season 3?

Tue, 26 Aug 2014, 07:06 #73 Last Edit: Thu, 28 Aug 2014, 02:16 by The Laughing Fish
RE: Nolan's attempts to make it more "realistic". It's quite simple really: either there are people who were immersed by it and thought it was well done, or there are people who didn't buy any of it and thought it was poorly executed. I didn't ask Nolan to give me a Joker that has facial scars and wears make up, but I don't think its fair to ask people not to be bothered by any of the inconsistent unrealistic things because it's a "comic book fantasy". It's just a convenient excuse and a double standard as far as I'm concerned. After all, trying to put Batman in a more realistic context is troublesome because, let's face it, he'd get no support from the police at all and the Batsignal wouldn't exist. He would've remained a fugitive forever. The only Batman story that does better at being more realistic is probably Miller's Year One.

Come to think of it, you can argue that there are other superhero films that have tried to make things "more" realistic, but they do a better job at it, and don't go far by breaking suspension of disbelief like Nolan's films do. The Iron Man films are set in a real-looking world, but Tony Stark is still the genius inventor who build his incredible armored suits. The essence of that character exists, unlike Nolan's Bruce Wayne whose expertise is scaled down completely and, if anything, Lucius Fox is the World's Greatest Detective. Even Arrow, no matter how much Oliver Queen tries to rescue his city, the police have a zero tolerance for him because he's a vigilante, especially one who kills. The only time they sanction his actions is when Starling City is under attack by Deathstroke's army by the end of the second season.

QuoteFor every fault I could identify in Batman Returns, or The Dark Knight Returns, or Denny O'Neil's run in the seventies, I could list ten good things. And I could do the same for Nolan's films. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them, since you're locked into a mindset that says his films are worthless and have no redeeming qualities at all. But if you evaluated every version of Batman with that same mindset, you could easily condemn the entire franchise, regardless of who the director or writer was.

As a matter of fact, I never liked the bit where Miller's Batman bans guns in the second half of TDKR. I remember reading that for the first time six years ago, and I honestly thought the story was getting worse by that stage. When it was adapted into an animated movie, I knew what to expect so I just went along with it, but I always argued that the first half of TDKR, both in comic and in animated form, to be much better in my opinion. And I haven't even read those O'Neill stories where Batman does kill despite he's supposed to have a moral code. That's actually really disappointing to hear, I'm curious to go find and read them.  :(

QuoteI just don't understand how it's fair to highlight Batman's refusal to kill in The Dark Knight as a flaw because he deliberately killed once in Batman Begins.

Because Batman NEVER acknowledges that killing Ra's was a mistake in the first place. And here is why I'm very harsh with Nolan's films: for a trilogy that's supposed to tell Bruce Wayne's journey as Batman from beginning to end, we have no real idea what Bruce's morals actually are. Nolan had a perfect opportunity to improve all the flaws from Burton's take by showing us a Batman who grows throughout the series, where he learns from his mistakes and becomes a better character for it. But he didn't.

It's just like Burton's Batman never the saw the double standards of his ways, but the difference is Burton's flaws are only on display in the last few minutes of Batman Returns. Throughout Nolan's trilogy though, he argues that killing is wrong, but doesn't seem too bothered about the deaths he caused in the next scene, regardless if it was indirect or not. Then Ra's's death is swept under the carpet completely until TDKR. Otherwise this was never addressed as a mistake at all, and doesn't even affect Batman's (lack of) character development at all. For all the praise that Nolan gets, his Batman is hardly any more coherent than Burton's. This is the thing that really annoys me about the exaggerated praise for Nolan's films for being "complex" and "cerebral"; the characters keep doing things that don't match their beliefs. There's no reason why this Batman would prevent Joker from dying at all. In case you missed it, that becomes especially troublesome when Maroni and Joker taunt him for having "rules" - when we know that's not necessarily true, the first film shows he will kill the most wicked, even when lives are at stake. In fact, I'd say he had every excuse to kill the Joker because he was about to blow up the two boats, and was capable of anything after escaping from jail. If the film actually bothered to have Batman realise Ra's's death was a mistake, then it at least would actually make sense why he spared Joker. Otherwise, why did Ra's al Ghul deserved to die more than the Joker? For a trilogy that's supposed to show Batman's beginning, middle and end, that's not good enough. That's why I'm very harsh on these films. If the films take themselves so seriously and pretend to sound clever than they actually are, its only setting up big expectations that I expect it to live up to. Otherwise once again, what makes Nolan's films so good if they're just as flawed as every other Batman story ever told, even more so? And why do people think Nolan is such an amazing director then, if his movies are even more flawed than other superhero films?

And do you know why I can't see TDK as a self-contained movie? Because the final nail of the coffin for me is when Batman ends up taking the blame for Dent's crimes, which never mind how utterly ridiculous it is, the film ends on an unfinished note like The Empire Strikes Back; paving the way for events about to unfold in the third film. And Batman taking the blame was always going to result in a disastrous outcome since the truth was always going to come out. And then of course the third film has Batman acknowledging killing off Ra's, which makes his sparing of the Joker even more confusing. So we are forced to look at the sequels as part of a trilogy whether we like it or not. From beginning, middle, to end, Bruce Wayne's journey has left me even more confused than the final moments of Batman Returns. And that frustration only grows when people become so over-exaggerated, and even rabid, in their praise for these movies where unlike you at least, they can't even see the obvious faults. But even if that crazy fanbase didn't exist, my personal feelings about these films would remain the same, in terms how overlong, unnecessarily convoluted and dull I find them to be, and full of pretentious themes that really have no business being in a Batman film (e.g. Patriot Act/sonar technology, come on, Batman was shown to be doing far worse things than that beforehand).

RE: the faults in Burton's films, I'd say that Returns is easily the most flawed between the two by far, and the examples you're stating only reinforces how inferior it is to B89 in my opinion. In B89, we have no idea if Batman killed anyone before he blew up Axis Chemicals. There's that rumour with Johnny Gobbs, but for all we know that might have been an accident. Otherwise, we don't even know where his morals lie in that film yet. To me, B89 and even Batman & Robin, were the only Batman films I found to be the most consistent in terms of what the character does. In my opinion anyway.

RE: Catwoman feeling guilty - she felt that being an accessory to the Ice Princess's death was atrocious enough as it is, and she couldn't cope with herself after that, no matter is she didn't know that was Penguin's plan. RE: Bruce's line the ballroom scene, that didn't really bother me as much as it did for you because he was keeping up a facade at that point. When he was pleading to Catwoman to not kill Shreck though...I can't argue with that. And I never did in the first place.

QuoteFor shooting out tires, destroying obstacles, firing warning shots. Batman's had guns on his vehicles in the comics for decades, yet he hates guns and has sworn never to use them. At least Nolan's Batman never made a specific vow against using firearms like his comic book counterpart.

Some of those comics are at fault too then, i.e. Dark Knight Returns. But Nolan's Batman telling off Catwoman does imply he doesn't approve using them. Okay then, take them off of your vehicles. Just because it happened in the comics doesn't mean I want to see it the film, and it doesn't let Nolan off the hook either. Catwoman kills Bane and quips "About that no-gun policy? I'm not sure it's a good idea". That tells me that guns are the solution after all.  ::) And hey, at least Burton's Batman never claimed to not ever use guns in the first place.

QuoteWe're never told how serious the stab wound was. And we're not told how quickly Bruce recovered from it. Once he gets stabbed, he doesn't do any more fighting for the remainder of the film. He just sits in the Bat. It's hard to judge the extent of this particular injury based on what's shown on screen.

The stab wound looked very serious from what I saw, deeply right in the gut. And Batman's reaction looked gravely ill. But later on, he was able to move and walk around without showing any signs of discomfort when he connected to the bomb to the Bat.

QuoteWhen someone labels a movie 'boring', that's as likely to reveal something about the attitude of the viewer as it is the film itself. You could call anything boring. The only way to gauge the degree of boredom something elicits is to look at how people respond to it. And the vast majority of people thought Nolan's films weren't boring. If 96% of people were excited by it, and 4% of people weren't, then he clearly got it right. What that 4% find exciting might be what the other 96% would find boring. I'm fairly sure the placement of action scenes in Nolan's films, relative to runtime, is more or less the same as in the Burton-Schumacher films. And the scenes connecting the action sequences contain conflict, mystery, romance, and all the other dramatic devices that conventionally arouse viewer interest. All the pieces are there for an interesting film. It's just bad luck if you happen to be one of the few people who finds it dull.

But you should know that popularity doesn't necessarily guarantee it's actually any good, or better than other things, regardless if most people like it. I'm sure there are many films out there that you disliked a lot, despite how popular or critically acclaimed they are. When I like or dislike a film, I never justify on the basis that majority of people enjoyed it, or hated it, as evidence that it's good or bad. I mean, my favourite Marvel film is Captain America: The First Avenger, but people tend to say The Avengers or Iron Man is the best. I've met a few people who thought Avengers was nothing special, but I'd never dare argue that their opinion is wrong because how popular it is, even if I like it.

Popularity might mean most people enjoyed something, but it doesn't necessarily prove its quality.

QuoteAs for the films being intellectually shallow, is that really a problem? Do any of the old films have intellectual depth to them? This is another one of those criticisms which seems to relate to the fan base more than the films. The fans claim it's intellectually deep, but it isn't. Ok, then the fans are at fault.  That doesn't make the film itself bad.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 22:42
nor do I certainly find them smarter, than Burton's Batman or other superhero movies.

Do they need to be?

I didn't mean to say it like a snob, I only called Nolan's films intellectually shallow only because they tend to be plodding and full of unnecessary expository, pretentious dialogue than they need to have. Even if the rabid fanbase didn't exist, I'd still the find the films pretentious.

QuoteThe films themselves aren't really pretending to be about big ideas, because the ideas are there: Joker symbolises chaos, Batman symbolises order, Two-Face symbolises the random interplay between the two, and so forth.

Unfortunately that's not even true (at least not in the first two films), he drives around in deadly vehicles that destroy public property and endangers innocent bystanders.

QuoteYet he still had a bigger role than Alfred did in the old films, with the possible exception of Batman and Robin.

And unfortunately I found him to be out of character too, mostly in the third one. His decision to keep Rachel's letter a secret did more damage to Bruce if anything, because he was lead to believe that Rachel would return to him if she hadn't died. This only made Bruce become more reclusive as time went by, and Alfred conveniently tells the truth when Gotham is on the verge of another disaster. I didn't buy it.

QuoteI agree with this. I didn't particularly like the way Lucius was portrayed in this trilogy.

Not a fan of the Q role he played either I presume? I wouldn't have mind it so much if he played more of a mentor role and taught Bruce all the skills he needed to become a detective, becoming his own man in a way. But it didn't happen. As it is, it's a role that could've been played by any actor. There was nothing he did in these movies that lead me to believe that only Morgan Freeman could play this role.

QuoteI loved Oldman's performance in these films. For me, he was pretty much the definitive live action Gordon. But I thought his best acting was definitively in the second film. Particularly the final scene with Two-Face. I liked the way his character faced just as many moral dilemmas as Batman did: struggling to stay clean in a corrupt police department and refusing to accept dirty money, despite pressure from Flass and the other cops; choosing to work outside the law with Batman and Dent, and suffering the consequences this had on his marriage and family life; battling his inner conscience when covering for Dent, and helping maintain the conspiracy of lies to uphold the Dent Act. All intriguing little subplots that Nolan managed to weave into the main narrative to make sure Gordon always had a personal stake in what was happening. It was a massive improvement over the way Gordon was depicted in the old series of films. I'm curious to know why you think his character got dumber with each film?

I say his acting in the second film especially paled in comparison to the first one, because I couldn't get over how he couldn't hide his British accent in certain scenes; particularly the one where he's arguing with Dent on the rooftop when they meet Batman. I couldn't even understand what he was saying in some scenes, but then again that might have to do with the awful sound mixing the film had.

I thought faking his death was really unnecessary and I didn't buy his reasoning he did it to protect his family when I didn't remember they were in any danger to begin with. If anything, wouldn't a stunt like that, especially since it rewarded him a promotion in a high ranking position like the Police Commissioner, bring his family unwanted attention to dangerous criminals? The Commissioner job would only increase his public profile after all. And of course let's not forget in the third one, he backs away at the last second from revealing the truth about Harvey in the gala scene because he's scared it could tear the city apart. Well, it only goes to show that he and Batman should've put the blame on people who could never be caught and who Gotham knew to be dangerous in the first place - it wasn't really that complicated. Finally, he ordered the entire police force to go underground, did he not?

Anyway, I think it's time we let this discussion die. I hope I didn't come across as antagonistic and I respect that you're a fan of the Nolan films, but for me, they just weren't good enough. If you find them entertaining, more power to you. But for me, I found them to be poorly written and boring films that have so many problems that surprisingly too many fans fail to acknowledge. It's refreshing to hear a fan of these films that does recognize that this Batman kills, unlike the shocking number of people I've witnessed on the 'net. But I still wouldn't have liked these films (TDK especially) even if this rabid fanbase never existed. I don't say this to sound cool or to speak on behalf of anyone else here who don't like these movies, and I'm especially not a Burton Batman fanboy either. I say how I feel, and I didn't enjoy watching these movies (except maybe the unintentionally funny third one). It simply wasn't a good experience. For me, watching a Batman film where the hero's morals are completely unclear and then suddenly takes the the blame for crimes he didn't commit (never mind that it could never have worked since everyone recognizes his efforts as a crime fighter for the past year, and the presumably still alive Joker would never go along with it either) is not my idea of a good movie. It's simply one of those things that we'll never see eye to eye here.

QuoteI saw the first five or six episodes of season 1, then fell behind. If I was to catch up, would you recommend watching the whole series from scratch, or would it be better to start straight from season 2? Or even season 3?

To understand what is going on in depth, you're better off watching it from the beginning. You'll get a little lost of what happens in the second season otherwise.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Oh wow, I didn't expect to come back to pages of discussion. I don't even know where to start, or if I even want to now. Heh...

Sun, 7 Sep 2014, 02:46 #75 Last Edit: Tue, 21 Apr 2015, 11:21 by The Laughing Fish
You know, I couldn't help myself but I found this extract in The Dark Knight Trilogy: The Screenplays on Google.

QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

And then of course they try to justify that Ras's death was a "technicality" and so on, and Nolan didn't even know Batman has a moral code until Goyer told him about it.

Is it just me or does it sound like these men really don't know what they're doing?
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Heh, it's a bit off topic from talking about The Joker, but yes, I find it to be a bit silly on their part. It's one of those things about the Nolan movies that irks me. We're constantly told over and over again about how Batman doesn't kill, but he's done it in ever single one of these movies. And in very obvious ways, too.

I dunno, maybe you should move that into the Batman killing thread?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Likewise the flaw you're outlining relates to Batman Begins. And the very thing you're accusing Nolan of getting wrong in Batman Begins (and I agree with you on that score) is something he got right in the next two films. But you're calling him out for that too. He can't win. It seems that by making one mistake in Batman Begins, he's ruined all the sequels in your eyes.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 25 Aug  2014, 21:12
For every fault I could identify in Batman Returns, or The Dark Knight Returns, or Denny O'Neil's run in the seventies, I could list ten good things. And I could do the same for Nolan's films. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them, since you're locked into a mindset that says his films are worthless and have no redeeming qualities at all. But if you evaluated every version of Batman with that same mindset, you could easily condemn the entire franchise, regardless of who the director or writer was.

I just don't understand how it's fair to highlight Batman's refusal to kill in The Dark Knight as a flaw because he deliberately killed once in Batman Begins.

I can't help but quote all of these replies again because something right now just occurred to me, and I can't believe I somehow forgot about this.

A few months prior to this discussion (a year ago, to be exact), I found another thread where I spoke to Silver Nemesis about why I didn't like TDK.

And guess what? He actually AGREED with me that Nolan's Batman breaking his moral code throughout the series to be a valid complaint.

And it wasn't only for Batman Begins...he also agreed about everybody else that Batman killed in the sequels! Read 'em and weep:

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr  2014, 19:22
Quotebut Nolan's take constantly breaks his moral code whenever he finds it convenient (Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, Talia).
I can't argue with that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr  2014, 19:22
Besides the inconsistency in Batman's moral code – and I agree with you, that is a problem – I didn't think the characterisation as a whole was problematic.

Source: http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2658.10

Four months later though, he suddenly changed his mind and starts to make excuses for all the deaths that Batman caused other than Ra's, and even had the audacity to give me a few unflattering remarks along the way. Why the sudden change of heart, I wonder? Very strange.   :P

And looking back at Silver's comment about "evaluating every iteration of Batman with a negative mindset, you might as well condemn everything else regardless who wrote it", I find his reasoning to be very gullible, and even disturbing. What he doesn't seem to understand is that everyone has their favourite characters, but that doesn't mean we must blindly accept every interpretation of them either. It's not a question of being "negative" either - especially if one uses reasoning to explain why they found the writing in certain movies or comics more troublesome than most. It's insulting and even childish when somebody accuses others of having a bias when it's uncalled for.

I don't like Nolan's Batman at all. So what? Not everyone shares the same tastes or opinions. We all have our favourite takes on certain characters, and there are other interpretations that we would rather forget. If someone says Batman Returns sucks for example, I wouldn't give a damn. Let them believe it; they're entitled to their opinion.

You may be a big fan of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man or whoever, but if you honestly didn't think a certain take on the character was any good, then guess what: you don't have to like it. You don't have to conform to what anybody else thinks, just be honest with yourself. And if somebody else disagrees with you, you don't have to get upset. You can disagree with them, but politely explain your reasoning. Don't get so personal. That's what I do. I'm very vocal on my anti-Nolan stance, but I don't personally attack anyone who disagrees with me.

Besides, Silver Nemesis isn't a big fan of Man of Steel, yet I doubt he'd be very impressed or happy if someone told him "if you had the same negative mindset on every Superman iteration, you'd find flaws in everything", now would he? I wouldn't think so.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei