To me, it shouldn't be a matter of Nolan being better than Snyder or vice versa. They're both Batman. Just different Batmen. But if someone else wants to play this stupid game over which one is more sophisticated, Nolan isn't the clear champ that some of his cheerleaders might want to believe.
Itís true. Christopher Nolanís masterwork isnít dark; itís cool and itís escapism. In Nolanís Batman, you can indulge in the fantasy that is Batman without any of the repercussions. You can watch Bruce Wayne blow up a monastery full of ninjas, but because you never see their bodies burning, them screaming in agony, and them maimed and dying itís okay. Batman can ram through a trailer in a chase scene, and because Nolan never showed their bodies, itís okay. Catwoman can shoot Bane with a high powered rifle and kill him, but because the movie doesnít dwell on it and she says a one-liner, itís okay. All of these examples remove the consequences from the heroesí actions. It allows you to indulge in the fantasy and think these heroes are great, but that feeling of elation you get is disingenuous as the films just pretend that people arenít dying.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 4 Nov 2016, 23:25"Third-grade philosophy Snyder throws into his DC films"...right, as if Nolan is any better here.Can't believe I missed this in the OP.But it is true. One thing that drives me up the wall about The Dark Knight is how the Joker uses "chaos" interchangeably with "anarchy". It's like he doesn't know the difference between the two. By extension, I think this applies to the Nolan brothers as well.In brief, anarchy is extremely limited law and extremely limited government. It's hard to point to a functional model of anarchy because anarchy is one of those rare forms of government which has arguably never been attempted (although I would argue Occupy Oakland came damned close). But that's the theory of it, at least. Your "government" may be the guy who is the "mayor" of your city block. The idea is to put power as close (by proximity) to the people as possible.Chaos is completely different. Anarchy is microscopic government. Chaos is no government, no law, no nothing.Now, one could reasonably hypothesize that chaos is the end product of anarchy... but, as above, there's no case study anybody can point to where anarchy has ever been attempted so that point is impossible to prove via evidence.This may seem like a trivial complaint. But I don't think it is. The Joker as presented in TDK would understand the difference between anarchy and chaos. He would (or should) know better than to use them interchangeably with each others. It drags me out of the movie every time.Nolan wanted to create sophisticated, literary films with his trilogy. Minor slip-ups like that are egregious for a film series which claims to dot all the i's and cross all the t's in it's themes, morality and philosophy.People are welcome to say anything they want about Snyder but I see no real attempt at such pretentious thinking. And the philosophy it attempts to illustrate is done so consistently -- and without the pop-political science goofs, I might add.To me, it shouldn't be a matter of Nolan being better than Snyder or vice versa. They're both Batman. Just different Batmen. But if someone else wants to play this stupid game over which one is more sophisticated, Nolan isn't the clear champ that some of his cheerleaders might want to believe.
"Third-grade philosophy Snyder throws into his DC films"...right, as if Nolan is any better here.
Indeed. Viewing Nolan's films as popcorn entertainment is the way to enjoy them. But as you say, they weren't made with that thinking in mind. Honestly, I think the way people speak in the TDK Trilogy sours my enthusiasm. Especially in BB and TDK. Repetitious, unnatural and annoying. I don't really find that same problem in MoS or BvS.
Jonathan 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
Source: http://www.themovienetwork.com/article/dc-failures-brighten-dark-knight-trilogy-brilliance Forgive me, but I need to rant. What a load of crap, but typical from hordes of hypocrites who defend TDK. There's a lot of drivel from this article that makes me laugh. "Then when Superman did die, Bruce still talked about having hope even after the first 99 percent of the movie laughed off that notion altogether, in the absolute height of hypocrisy." This is absolutely rich, considering that this author conveniently forgot that Batman framing himself for Dent's crimes so the poor masses don't lose hope over the truth, totally contradicted his belief that "people are ready to believe in good" at the end of the boat scene.
Besides, what he said about BvS in that regard isn't even true. If he had paid any attention, he'd realise that despite all the prejudice and misguided hatred people had for Superman, he still sacrificed himself to save the planet; further inspiring Batman to regain hope and carry on his legacy. But somehow, this "brilliant" author missed that.
"Third-grade philosophy Snyder throws into his DC films"...right, as if Nolan is any better here.I also think it's very rich to complain Eisenberg's Lex and his plans was nonsensical, while trying to justify TDK's Joker as "brilliant or logical". You mean like that whole Gordon faked death subplot that nobody could've anticipated? Or Joker says he hates plans despite the fact every he does is based on some planning and calculation? Or Dent would actually buy into Joker's idiotic monologue and suddenly become a cold-blooded killer...while at the same time, sparing Joker even though he ruined his life?! Yet people think they can complain about the Martha moment? Give me a break.
Hell, I don't even agree that Nolan knew exactly what he was doing with the Joker, since the Joker doesn't even get a proper conclusion, and there's no way he'd sit by and let the Dent cover-up take place. I didn't care for Suicide Squad that much and one of the reasons is because it had too many characters than it needed to have. But most of the characters in Nolan's films come across as plot devices, and poorly constructed ones at that.
Yeah, I know I'm repeating myself here, but I got to say it again: the most disturbing thing, and this writer isn't the only has said this, is TDK is described as "hopeful" and "uplifting". How?! It's a film that contradicts itself in every step of the way. There's nothing at all hopeful that Batman does, after all the fuss over his "one rule", he kills Two-Face to save a kid, which not only makes the whole moral dilemma with the Joker meaningless, but he could've spared Gotham so much trouble. The boat scene is nothing more but lip service, which Batman himself doesn't even believe in because he makes a cowardly decision that gives the entire town a false sense of security, which only allows Bane to take advantage of years later and uses it to subject the entire town into more misery. That's hopeful?! If TDK wanted out that message, it would've had Batman defeat Joker by revealing the truth about Harvey and people moving on, reinforcing that they ARE ready to believe in good. Otherwise, no they're not, and the message is hollow, and Batman taking the fall undermines every heroic thing he has ever done.
I'll just sum up this post, BvS is hardly perfect, and despite watching the UE, I still have my own personal gripes with it. I think it's too long, and I'll honestly say it can be a drag at times. But at least I can appreciate that movie for having heroes come to terms with their failures and redeem themselves in the end, and show bravery despite being treated with scorn and distrust. That's a lot more of positive and hopeful than anything I got from TDKT. You tell me which is more heroic: Superman charging at Doomsday with the Kryptonite spear despite knowing he could get killed and declaring his determination to protect a divisive world that mostly doubted or despised him...or Batman faking his death for no real reason, and decides to leave Gotham because it's a place that gives him misery; while at the same time, he gives the keys to the Batcave to someone else?
There's a whole lot of rubbish in this article, but I've said enough. TDK's greatest legacy is you can never under-estimate how a cult-minded following can brainwash anyone. The fact it's considered to be some kind of masterpiece is a travesty.