I think the biggest reason why I personally despise The Dark Knight so much is that it makes Batman look so incompetent and unheroic. Despite it was established that Batman kept crime at an all time low in the beginning of the movie, he does a lot of stuff that completely undermines this good work i.e. collateral damage, and his handling over the Joker crisis comes across as not only reckless, but reprehensible too.
Some people may criticize how Batman was ineffective in preventing the Ice Princess's death and saying hypocritical things to Catwoman towards the end of Batman Returns, but the fact of the matter is he still saved Gotham from the Penguin in the end. Batman didn't care about being framed for a murder he didn't commit - he kept going and eventually won in the end. As much as I don't care for Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises very much, I won't deny that Batman eventually saved Gotham in those movies too, no matter how badly contrived I thought the endings of those movies were. But Batman in TDK allowed the Joker terrorize Gotham and kill so many people, and betrayed his own trust in people by taking the fall for Harvey in the end; paving way for disastrous events in the third movie. Basically, he was just there for the sake of plot contrivances i.e. setting him up as a criminal in the end and a bogus moral dilemma with the main villain.
Yeah I hate how Batman and Gordon decide to lie to the people of Gotham about Harvey. It just seemed to me that they thought that the people of Gotham were too immature and stupid to handle the truth.
Quote from: Vampfox on Sat, 16 May 2015, 17:20
Yeah I hate how Batman and Gordon decide to lie to the people of Gotham about Harvey. It just seemed to me that they thought that the people of Gotham were too immature and stupid to handle the truth.
Same. Batman taking the blame is anything but heroic, it's just unnecessary.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 16 May 2015, 17:47
Quote from: Vampfox on Sat, 16 May 2015, 17:20
Yeah I hate how Batman and Gordon decide to lie to the people of Gotham about Harvey. It just seemed to me that they thought that the people of Gotham were too immature and stupid to handle the truth.
Same. Batman taking the blame is anything but heroic, it's just unnecessary.
Harvey was the 'white knight'. The guy who played by the rules (i.e. the law), or so everyone thought, rather than take the law into their own hands as Batman, as his many misguided imitators did. Thus he was seen by Batman as an incorruptible symbol of hope for the city to aspire to. Batman, as a vigilante who operated outside the law (i.e. forcibly taking a Chinese citizen to Gotham without using proper legal rendition measures, and using sonar to illegally tap the phones of every person in Gotham), was not that incorruptible figure. Thus, he took the responsibility for Harvey's crimes so that the people of Gotham could believe that Harvey was a hero. Was it a misguided and/or condescending position to take? Probably. But it still makes some sense, and Batman was acting like a hero in taking the fall for a man who may have been a worse person than him but nevertheless signified something greater. Like Nolan says, the key text that inspired 'TDK' is 'A Tale of Two Cities': "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known" (i.e. Sydney Carton dies to spare his best friend, Charles Darnay).
Sorry johnny, but I completely disagree. For all the talk about Harvey Dent being "the white knight", a "symbol of hope" etc, not only does he come across as quite arrogant for somebody who is constantly in danger, we don't even get to see what the public really thinks of him. And for that matter, we don't really get to see what they think of Batman either, except for a few copycats. For "the white knight" concept to actually work, we needed to see what sort of impact that he's actually having on the city, not just being told about it. You know,
show - don't tell. Instead, what we're really shown is Dent being completely useless without Batman's help. Despite what we're told on screen about how "great" Harvey is and Batman believing he can stop his personal crusade, we see:
- Batman being recognized for saving Gotham from the League of Shadows at the end of BB.
- Batman making an impact by terrifying criminals whenver they see the Batsignal light up, and cleaning up the streets from scum i.e. Scarecrow.
- Batman agreeing to help Harvey to kidnap Lau from Hong Kong and bring him back home to help the case against the Maroni mob.
- Batman is the only one who can potentially stop the Joker. Because if he doesn't then nobody else can.
Never mind the fact that Harvey's case against Maroni wouldn't have gone anywhere without Batman's assistance, he wouldn't have a city to save if Batman had failed to stop the League of Shadows from destroying Gotham. And furthermore, despite what Bruce says to Rachel, Gotham is
NOT ready to move on without Batman. Especially if Bruce has to hide Dent from the Joker before confronting the psycho five minutes later.
Yes, Dent worked within the system, but you know what? So did Jim Gordon. So did Rachel Dawes. So did the original DA who Rachel was working for - the one who was shot to death from behind in BB. Why not make Gordon become the "symbol of hope"? After all, he's been in the system much longer than Harvey, he helped Batman to defeat the League of Shadows in BB. That's way more heroic than anything that Dent ever contributed for Gotham!
Batman may have been an outlaw, but it doesn't change the fact that he has been the most effective in 'protecting' Gotham, regardless how many times I complain how reckless he is in BB and in the first half of TDK. And for him and Gordon to lie about Harvey is incomprehensible. And what's even worse, Batman deciding to take the blame himself not only compromised his own symbol which was supposed to inspire people, he also betrayed his own trust in people as well. He tells the Joker "this city is ready to believe in good" at the end of the boat crisis; and he kept saying nobody would kill each other the whole time. Well if Batman really believed that, then the public should've have been more than capable in understanding that Dent was driven madness by the Joker's ridiculous manipulation. Otherwise, Batman is agreeing with the Joker's bleak point of view on human nature after all. Batman and Gordon lying to the public isn't heroic. It's cowardice. Nolan can refer to any piece of classical literature all he wants, but I'll NEVER buy this pathetic excuse of an ending.
And besides, why the hell would anybody believe that Batman suddenly became a cold-blooded murderer after being a crime-fighter for a year? And even if people believed he was responsible, that would've been a LOT more devastating to Gotham than revealing the truth about Dent.
How did Batman inspire people? To become vigilantes themselves? That's not the inspiration Batman wanted for the city.
And like you said, Batman was lauded because his tactics were based on evoking fear in his enemies; once again, hardly a way to inspire hope in Gotham's citizens.
As for Commissioner Gordon becoming Gotham's symbol of hope, perhaps you're right, but Batman can't choose Gotham's 'white knight' for them, and besides as good a man as he was Gordon was compromised by his association with dirty cops within his own department. Like Gordon said, he was willing to turn a blind eye to some of those dirty cops because he didn't have the resources to do otherwise. Also, like Batman and Gordon said at the end "Dent was the best of [the three of] them", or at least was in terms of how he was perceived.
Look, I'm no blind Nolanite. Far from it. And I agree that TDK arguably fails in this respect by 'telling instead of showing'. A lot of the themes I refer to, although understandable and coherent, are nevertheless articulated through speechifying rather than through more organic storytelling that let the audience come to their own conclusions without major signposting. But I do think the film at least made it clear why Batman took the fall for Dent.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 17 May 2015, 00:55
How did Batman inspire people? To become vigilantes themselves? That's not the inspiration Batman wanted for the city.
And like you said, Batman was lauded because his tactics were based on evoking fear in his enemies; once again, hardly a way to inspire hope in Gotham's citizens.
And that's another problem I have with trying to make Batman as a symbol in this series. Batman says he wants to inspire people...well, what exactly did he mean by that? Did he seriously think he wouldn't inspire any copycats? Like everything else in this series, the characters' motivations are WAY too vague, and that's putting it nicely.
But really, that's beside the point. It's not a matter of "inspiring" anybody: the fact of the matter is that people were aware that Batman was fighting villains like Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, Joker and mobsters. And no matter how many times I poke fun at Batman for causing collateral damage, he was still the only one with any potential to save Gotham from mad men. Whether people are scared of him or not, they surely must be aware by now that the guy seems to have some good intentions. For people to believe that he really did kill Harvey and others, it requires a ton of suspension of disbelief. An impossible one, if you ask me. And it still doesn't change the fact that Batman's contradiction in his belief in people goes against everything he stood for. He supposedly trusts people have the compassion and courage to overcome any crisis? Okay then Bats, back it up! Otherwise, his decision to take the fall felt like the boats blew each other up after all! Like I said, that's not heroic - that's cowardice.
As for Gordon working in a corrupt system...hey, so was Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 17 May 2015, 00:55
As for Commissioner Gordon becoming Gotham's symbol of hope, perhaps you're right, but Batman can't choose Gotham's 'white knight' for them, and besides as good a man as he was Gordon was compromised by his association with dirty cops within his own department. Like Gordon said, he was willing to turn a blind eye to some of those dirty cops because he didn't have the resources to do otherwise. Also, like Batman and Gordon said at the end "Dent was the best of [the three of] them", or at least was in terms of how he was perceived.
That's because the story decided to choose who was supposed to be "the white knight"
without justifying why. I'm not a writer, but I remember reading in a screenwriting guide that made this recommendation: if you want to convey empathy for a character, you need to show an example on screen. For instance, if you want the audience understand a character is brave, you need to have the character perform an act of bravery to convey this message. If you don't, you might unintentionally make your character come across as arrogant. That's the problem with Dent in TDK. For all the talk about being an "inspiration", he doesn't do anything that justifies what we're told on screen at all. He doesn't come across at all as somebody who would inspire anybody. In fact, he's quite arrogant a lot of time. We're just supposed to believe Harvey was "the best out of all of them" because the film said so. That's not good enough.
On top of that, Dent's fall from grace was so incredibly poorly done and made the film even longer. And besides, there's no way that the presumably still alive Joker would allow Batman and Gordon cover everything up. But admittedly, all of that belongs in another topic.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 May 2015, 05:11
But Batman in TDK allowed the Joker terrorize Gotham and kill so many people
To be fair, TDK isn't unique in this regard. A lot of Batman media has this.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 17 May 2015, 02:46
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 May 2015, 05:11
But Batman in TDK allowed the Joker terrorize Gotham and kill so many people
To be fair, TDK isn't unique in this regard. A lot of Batman media has this.
That is true, but the problem with Nolan's series is that he was
never consistent about his moral code. One movie sees him killing off Ra's al Ghul, but in the next one, he suddenly won't kill the Joker despite the fact he's an even more sinister mass-murderer than Ra's was...but then Batman had to kill Two-Face to save Gordon's son? And in TDKR, Batman justifies killing Ra's to Talia because he was trying to kill millions of people, despite the Joker was trying to do the same thing?! WTF? It can't be both ways.
At least most of the comics I've read or the animated films I've watched stayed true to the character's beliefs.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 May 2015, 03:00
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 17 May 2015, 02:46
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 May 2015, 05:11
But Batman in TDK allowed the Joker terrorize Gotham and kill so many people
To be fair, TDK isn't unique in this regard. A lot of Batman media has this.
That is true, but the problem with Nolan's series is that he was never consistent about his moral code. One movie sees him killing off Ra's al Ghul, but in the next one, he suddenly won't kill the Joker despite the fact he's an even more sinister mass-murderer than Ra's was...but then Batman had to kill Two-Face to save Gordon's son? And in TDKR, Batman justifies killing Ra's Talia because he was trying to kill millions of people, despite the Joker was trying to do the same thing?! WTF? It can't be both ways.
At least most of the comics I've read or the animated films I've watched stayed true to the character's beliefs.
Did he actively kill R'as or just leave him to die on the train? Batman didn't need to kill the Joker because he had his enemy hanging upside down on a rope dangling mid-air, and thus the Joker was no longer a threat who had to be killed-off to prevent any further innocents from dying. Plus, the Joker's plan had failed. The citizens of Gotham had shown him that they were nothing like him. :)
And yes, Batman accidentally killed Two-Face because he posed an immediate threat to an innocent's life. He wasn't trying to kill Two-Face out of vengeance.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 17 May 2015, 03:09
Did he actively kill R'as or just leave him to die on the train?
Johnny, Batman actually justified to Talia in TDKR that he had to kill Ra's. And not only that the filmmakers even acknowledged in TDK Screenplays book that Batman did kill Ra's, even though at the same time they tried to cop out by a 'technicality'. ::)
And there's no difference whether or not Batman physically killed Ra's with his bare hands; it was Batman's plan to derail the train in the first place. If Gordon was taking the rails out, then why did Batman even need to confront Ra's at all? To make sure he didn't get out of there alive?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 17 May 2015, 03:09
Batman didn't need to kill the Joker because he had his enemy hanging upside down on a rope dangling mid-air, and thus the Joker was no longer a threat who had to be killed-off to prevent any further innocents from dying.
The problem with that is the Joker was about to detonate the bombs on the boats till Batman threw him over the ledge. So yeah, it would've been okay if Batman had let the Joker fall to his death. After all, if Batman could leave Ra's to die on a doomed train, then why not Joker too? Besides, don't you think keeping the Joker alive could've been a huge threat to the entire Dent cover-up? I doubt he'd want to stay quiet and let Batman ruin his plans in destroying Dent's supposed reputation..
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 17 May 2015, 03:09
Plus, the Joker's plan had failed. The citizens of Gotham had shown him that they were nothing like him. :)
Don't even get me started what a load of pretentious rubbish that scene was. Doesn't help that Batman completely threw his faith in people right in the bin at the end. It was a message that the film itself didn't believe in.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 17 May 2015, 03:09
And yes, Batman accidentally killed Two-Face because he posed an immediate threat to an innocent's life. He wasn't trying to kill Two-Face out of vengeance.
I never said Batman was trying to kill Dent out of vengeance. I was merely trying to point out that if Batman was willing to use lethal force when the circumstances got dire, then he should've killed the Joker as well. I don't buy the argument that offing Joker would've been an execution. The man was ready to pull the trigger and blow up millions of people, and was, to quote Dent, "a mad dog". I don't think it would've been an act of vengeance at all.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 16 May 2015, 19:44
Harvey was the 'white knight'. The guy who played by the rules (i.e. the law), or so everyone thought, rather than take the law into their own hands as Batman, as his many misguided imitators did. Thus he was seen by Batman as an incorruptible symbol of hope for the city to aspire to. Batman, as a vigilante who operated outside the law (i.e. forcibly taking a Chinese citizen to Gotham without using proper legal rendition measures, and using sonar to illegally tap the phones of every person in Gotham), was not that incorruptible figure.
But Harvey wasn't exactly perfect, either. He already had the nickname of Two-Face, which I can only assume to be based off his temper and way of handling his job/position. We did see him take Joker's goon in the alley to try and trick him into confessing with pure intimidation, and Batman was the one to stop
him. And lets not forget, he was working with Batman, so while he didn't actually bring Lau back to Gotham, he signed off on Batman doing it. Lets not try and kid ourselves, Dent worked outside the law a lot in the movie. He wasn't exactly perfect. But most importantly, Dent/Two-Face did become corrupt, and again, both Batman and Gordon knew this. Which was complete opposite of why Bruce chose to be Batman in BB, he even said, "As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol... as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting".
So why did Bruce/Batman set it up to hand over his mantle to a person who could potentially be corrupted, and in the end, most definitely was? He just threw away the very thing he worked 6-7 years for, on a person who was corrupt. He completely contradicted what was set up for us in BB, or what Batman stood for. And for what, so Gordon could sound all pseudo-intellectual at the end? The only thing worse, is that by the time TDKR came around, we learned that Gotham turned into a near Utopia because of his death. Some of the most convenient and nonsensical writing I have ever seen in a trilogy.
I agree. Batman in the trilogy was too eager, and way too trusting to hand the job over to others. The comic Batman never would have that inclination, or at least to that degree. He'd only hand over to someone when he had to. Eg - when his back is broken, or when he's way too old ala Batman Beyond. Batman at his core doesn't trust anyone, save Gordon and Alfred, to do anything important such as protecting his beloved Gotham. That's his curse. He wants there to be an end point, but there's never going to be.
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 17 May 2015, 23:03
But Harvey wasn't exactly perfect, either. He already had the nickname of Two-Face, which I can only assume to be based off his temper and way of handling his job/position. We did see him take Joker's goon in the alley to try and trick him into confessing with pure intimidation, and Batman was the one to stop him. And lets not forget, he was working with Batman, so while he didn't actually bring Lau back to Gotham, he signed off on Batman doing it. Lets not try and kid ourselves, Dent worked outside the law a lot in the movie. He wasn't exactly perfect. But most importantly, Dent/Two-Face did become corrupt, and again, both Batman and Gordon knew this. Which was complete opposite of why Bruce chose to be Batman in BB, he even said, "As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol... as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting".
So why did Bruce/Batman set it up to hand over his mantle to a person who could potentially be corrupted, and in the end, most definitely was? He just threw away the very thing he worked 6-7 years for, on a person who was corrupt. He completely contradicted what was set up for us in BB, or what Batman stood for. And for what, so Gordon could sound all pseudo-intellectual at the end? The only thing worse, is that by the time TDKR came around, we learned that Gotham turned into a near Utopia because of his death. Some of the most convenient and nonsensical writing I have ever seen in a trilogy.
Great post. And let's face it: if the Lau kidnapping happened in the real world, there would be huge political ramifications between the US and China. I'd go far by saying that kidnapping a Chinese citizen in his own country is an act of war! Such an operation would be unsanctioned by the US government, and both Batman and Dent would become international fugitives.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 18 May 2015, 02:21
I agree. Batman in the trilogy was too eager, and way too trusting to hand the job over to others. The comic Batman never would have that inclination, or at least to that degree. He'd only hand over to someone when he had to. Eg - when his back is broken, or when he's way too old ala Batman Beyond. Batman at his core doesn't trust anyone, save Gordon and Alfred, to do anything important such as protecting his beloved Gotham. That's his curse. He wants there to be an end point, but there's never going to be.
Yes. I'd like to argue also that in many cases, Batman is the kind of guy who is depicted as somebody who is always wary of something going wrong and likes to plan ahead to cover the risk. That includes even if the risk is quite unlikely e.g. in Justice League: Doom, Batman created contingency plans to expose the other Leaguers' weaknesses in case one of them were to go rogue one day. In fact, whenever I read Batman appearing together with Superman in the comics, it's Superman who opts for a leap of faith, whereas Batman is the cynical realist. Superman keeps a sense of ideals and principles to earn the trust of the people; to let them know he'll never be overstepping his authority. Batman needs to evoke the symbol of fear among criminals, and in order to maintain that, he has to prepare his body and mind in anticipation for the worst things that could happen.
You see people saying how there's nothing wrong with Batman retiring.
Well, yeah, that's true. Batman has given up the cowl in TDK Returns and Beyond. We all know this. Baleman's reasons for becoming a hermit are flimsy, but nonetheless, it has prior grounding in the comics.
But that's not the issue being debated.
It's the fact TDK Rises' ending is foreign to the character's core.
Batman can retire, and he has done before. But the point of those stories (TDK Returns, Batman Beyond) is that he's forever Batman. It may be 10 or 20 years laters, but that persona is always ebbing under the surface. It's a part of his soul. Nothing from what I saw from TDK Rises leads me to believe that will be the case for Baleman.
Batman wasn't a passion for him like the other incarnations. It was simply a task he performed for a couple of months at most. Yes, he saved the City at the end. But as for being a well known icon? Nah. In this way, I fail to see how he could be that highly regarded or even known by the people of Gotham - and have a statue built after him like mythology, when his careeer was extremely short.
TDK Rises had Bruce retiring because he couldn't wait to hand the job over - in this instance to a young, untried and incompetent police officer. Baleman is shown to be happy at the end, something I think he should never be. TDK Returns has him bitter and angry, and Beyond has him alone and depressed.
There's not a happy ending for Bruce, and that's something Burton nailed with Batman Returns.
Nolan's entire premise for Batman is flimsy. I actually love BB. I think it's a great movie. Sure, it has its flaws, and it's not a perfect Batman movie, but I do like it a lot. But one thing that always bothered me about it, is Bruce deciding to train and do something with his life after Rachel smacks some sense into him. He didn't start dedicating his life at a young age, it was kind of a spur of the moment realization when he was in his early 20s that he should do something about it. And then he goes off for years to train and become Batman. After about a year, he's looking to hand over his mantle to Harvey, so he could retire with Rachel. And then in the end, retires to cover up Harvey's murders. Then, at the beginning of TDKR, he wants to become Batman again, because Selina stole his mothers pearls. After he saves the city, he then retires AGAIN(with Selina, mind you. A woman he barely knows), and hands over everything to Robin John Blake(who he barely knows).
Is it just me, or is this the most "selfish" that Bruce has ever been portrayed?
Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 22 May 2015, 06:05
Nolan's entire premise for Batman is flimsy. I actually love BB. I think it's a great movie. Sure, it has its flaws, and it's not a perfect Batman movie, but I do like it a lot. But one thing that always bothered me about it, is Bruce deciding to train and do something with his life after Rachel smacks some sense into him. He didn't start dedicating his life at a young age, it was kind of a spur of the moment realization when he was in his early 20s that he should do something about it. And then he goes off for years to train and become Batman.
Like I said in the 'Misc. Nolan' sub-forum, one of my biggest complaints about Bale's Bruce Wayne is that he needs everything explained to him. Bruce might never have noticed how corrupt Gotham became if Rachel never said anything about it in the car. Bruce might have never embarked on a misguided journey around the globe to understand the criminal mind had it not been for Falcone taunting him for his inability to understand how crime works. And he certainly wouldn't have the purpose to become a "symbol" if he had never met Ra's gl Ghul and continued to rot in jail.
The point I'm making is that Bale's Batman was reactive in nature. And that's one of the things I've always disliked about this version. In my opinion, this was very alien to the character whose passion to become a crime-fighter, like TDK said, became ingrained into his very existence. For example, Frank Miller's Bruce Wayne in Year One didn't know what identity he wanted to adopt to terrify mobsters yet, but nonetheless, he started his personal war on crime by training himself to peak physical and mental condition for many years. The desire was embedded into his soul. Same thing is said about Batman's backstory when it was formerly by Bob Kane and Bill Finger in 1940; following the deaths of his parents, the kid swore an oath to spend his whole to rid the city of criminals and you see him growing up by learning science, practicing weightlifting and so on. Even Burton's Batman gives you the clue that Bruce being Batman is ingrained into him, because he explains to Vicki in the Batcave that nobody else can deal with crime in Gotham. Him being Batman was the only thing that could fill the void in his life once his parents were murdered. Bale's Batman just doesn't resonate me like those other examples.
As for him being "selfish"...I'd say he's just a badly written character. He doesn't do anything in character, he's just a victim of continuous plot contrivance that tarnish the entire series.
Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 22 May 2015, 06:05
Nolan's entire premise for Batman is flimsy. I actually love BB. I think it's a great movie. Sure, it has its flaws, and it's not a perfect Batman movie, but I do like it a lot. But one thing that always bothered me about it, is Bruce deciding to train and do something with his life after Rachel smacks some sense into him. He didn't start dedicating his life at a young age, it was kind of a spur of the moment realization when he was in his early 20s that he should do something about it. And then he goes off for years to train and become Batman. After about a year, he's looking to hand over his mantle to Harvey, so he could retire with Rachel. And then in the end, retires to cover up Harvey's murders. Then, at the beginning of TDKR, he wants to become Batman again, because Selina stole his mothers pearls. After he saves the city, he then retires AGAIN(with Selina, mind you. A woman he barely knows), and hands over everything to Robin John Blake(who he barely knows).
Is it just me, or is this the most "selfish" that Bruce has ever been portrayed?
It didn't happen that way. Bruce had had skilled training before he'd come across Ra's. Rachel's speech didn't change Bruce's goal, it just changed why he was doing it and how it he wanted to do it. He didn't become Batman because Selina stole his Mother's pearls. He became Batman because he found out about Bane. He doesn't retire with Selina. He retires, but Selina just happens to be who he decides to be with after. He does this for Alfred. Him knowing John Blake isn't really an issue.
I made this point in another thread, but I'll post it here too.
If the message in TDKR is saying that it's wrong to enact a law that's predicated on a lie, which is what the Dent Act was...then how the hell can anyone in their right minds argue that TDK had an 'uplifting' and 'inspiring' ending?
No logic whatsoever.
Not only is The Dent Act predicated on a lie, but Batman himself took the blame for the murders of Two-Face. And for what? A lie to protect Harvey? Batman is supposed to be about stopping crime and corruption, not to cover it up, and take the villains blame. Why not enact The Batman Act that would be pure and true, and not The Harvey Dent Act that is a lie, to cover up the fact that Harvey was a psycho killer. Nahhhhh, apparently, Batman should never be the true hero.
And so in the end of TDKR, sure, he saves the city from a nuclear bomb, but Gotham got into that position, because Batman covered up Two-Face's kills, while also creating the damn bomb himself. Bravo, Bruce Wayne.
Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 6 Jan 2017, 18:53
Not only is The Dent Act predicated on a lie, but Batman himself took the blame for the murders of Two-Face. And for what? A lie to protect Harvey? Batman is supposed to be about stopping crime and corruption, not to cover it up, and take the villains blame. Why not enact The Batman Act that would be pure and true, and not The Harvey Dent Act that is a lie, to cover up the fact that Harvey was a psycho killer. Nahhhhh, apparently, Batman should never be the true hero.
And so in the end of TDKR, sure, he saves the city from a nuclear bomb, but Gotham got into that position, because Batman covered up Two-Face's kills, while also creating the damn bomb himself. Bravo, Bruce Wayne.
The more 'Batmany' thing to do would've been telling the truth. Harvey died as a stone cold killer, and the law will come for you no matter WHO you are. Bruce owning that truth and spreading it wouldn't have been easy either. But it had to be done, and hell, he couldn't do it. He put Harvey above the law. Telling the truth is the trademark of a real alpha male. Not a cuck who falls on his sword and plays the victim. But remember folks, Baleman never wanted to be Batman long term, and was always looking for a chance to quit. Bottom line, telling the truth makes things a lot easier in the long run. Batman may be a shadowy character, but he's not dumb. And there lies the difference.
Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 6 Jan 2017, 18:53
Not only is The Dent Act predicated on a lie, but Batman himself took the blame for the murders of Two-Face. And for what? A lie to protect Harvey? Batman is supposed to be about stopping crime and corruption, not to cover it up, and take the villains blame. Why not enact The Batman Act that would be pure and true, and not The Harvey Dent Act that is a lie, to cover up the fact that Harvey was a psycho killer. Nahhhhh, apparently, Batman should never be the true hero.
And so in the end of TDKR, sure, he saves the city from a nuclear bomb, but Gotham got into that position, because Batman covered up Two-Face's kills, while also creating the damn bomb himself. Bravo, Bruce Wayne.
And to think there are people who call BvS an unmitigated disaster. But as long as one movie gets called that, while the other gets overpraised despite how terrible and muddled its messages are, the critics are always objectively correct. Right? ::)
I think Talia and Bane were always going to take over Gotham anyway because they wanted to get revenge at Batman for killing Ra's. But yes, Batman and Gordon's cover-up made the situation much worse and gave Bane the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. The fact that Gordon wrote the letter because he felt guilty about the cover-up, but was still too afraid to tell the truth, tells me that lying for eight years wasn't worth it.
If Batman actually backed up his belief that "this city has proven that they're ready to believe in good" by telling the truth by the end of TDK, he could've saved Gotham so much trouble. It actually would've saved the movie for me too. Apologists love to counter-argue by claiming Batman's cover-up could be seen as a moral victory for the Joker, but I call bullsh*t on that because the Joker would never allow the city to go without chaos for eight years. If he had a choice, I'm sure he'd want to finish what he had started.
The decision to cover up Two-Face's crimes has got to be the worst thing that Batman has ever done in live action to date.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 6 Jan 2017, 22:22
The more 'Batmany' thing to do would've been telling the truth. Harvey died as a stone cold killer, and the law will come for you no matter WHO you are. Bruce owning that truth and spreading it wouldn't have been easy either. But it had to be done, and hell, he couldn't do it. He put Harvey above the law. Telling the truth is the trademark of a real alpha male. Not a cuck who falls on his sword and plays the victim. But remember folks, Baleman never wanted to be Batman long term, and was always looking for a chance to quit. Bottom line, telling the truth makes things a lot easier in the long run. Batman may be a shadowy character, but he's not dumb. And there lies the difference.
^This.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 4 Jan 2017, 23:12I made this point in another thread, but I'll post it here too.
If the message in TDKR is saying that it's wrong to enact a law that's predicated on a lie, which is what the Dent Act was...then how the hell can anyone in their right minds argue that TDK had an 'uplifting' and 'inspiring' ending?
No logic whatsoever.
That's the point. It was the wrong thing to do. But it's a heroic choice at the time because Bruce is taking responsibility for the crimes that he believes he's the cause for, whether he committed them or not. Not to mention that he's not being a hero in that moment as Alfred says. TDKR shows that making a single heroic choice and doing the wrong thing in the process, a "necessary evil" if you will, doesn't necessarily work. The whole point is that you can't achieve good like that. It's not really heroic, not purely, because it's a dirty choice. TDKR acknowledges this in Jim's line about how Batman plunged his hand into the filth. It's a dirty choice to try and end the problem for good, but that's not how that works and you can't end crime like that. It won't just end because we compromise what we know is right to achieve it. It all plays nicely into Bruce's choice at the end, where even though he can't fight forever, Batman will always be needed, because you can't just clean up crime in one sweep and "bury it", it will always be there in the world as it is. So Bruce lets go of his obsession and allows someone else to have that mission. It's not illogical. It's exploring the consequences of a choice. Bruce made an active choice to be Batman at the end of BB, and we see the consequences in TDK, and in TDK he chooses to throw himself under the bus for the crimes of Harvey, because he thinks that it will help the city achieve something more than vigilante justice, because he believes that him being Batman is the reason the Joker exists, that Rachel died and that Harvey became the way he was, so we explore the consequences of that choice in TDKR. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 7 Jan 2017, 02:05And to think there are people who call BvS an unmitigated disaster. But as long as one movie gets called that, while the other gets overpraised despite how terrible and muddled its messages are, the critics are always objectively correct. Right? ::)
The messages weren't muddled or, as I understand it, terrible.
QuoteI think Talia and Bane were always going to take over Gotham anyway because they wanted to get revenge at Batman for killing Ra's. But yes, Batman and Gordon's cover-up made the situation much worse and gave Bane the opportunity to take advantage of the situation.
Not really. By virtue of Batman not being around I guess, but in no real way other than that.
QuoteThe fact that Gordon wrote the letter because he felt guilty about the cover-up, but was still too afraid to tell the truth, tells me that lying for eight years wasn't worth it.
Exactly.
QuoteIf Batman actually backed up his belief that "this city has proven that they're ready to believe in good" by telling the truth by the end of TDK, he could've saved Gotham so much trouble. It actually would've saved the movie for me too.
Why? Batman can't be flawed and make mistakes and make bad choices? The whole point is that he did something wrong. The movie doesn't need to be saved. You didn't like it. That doesn't make it bad. Batman believed that he wasn't the cause of Gotham being ready to believe in good. He saw himself as a catalyst for the awful things that had happened by the Joker and Harvey.
QuoteApologists love to counter-argue by claiming Batman's cover-up could be seen as a moral victory for the Joker, but I call bullsh*t on that because the Joker would never allow the city to go without chaos for eight years.
This is something a hater would say, considering that I think the only kind of moral victory Joker achieved, if he did, was that Batman compromised himself, not even necessarily on purpose by his, Joker's, doing.
QuoteThe decision to cover up Two-Face's crimes has got to be the worst thing that Batman has ever done in live action to date.
That's trying to murder a for all intents and purposes innocent man.
Bloody hell...the ever opinionated Max Landis, who is a staunch critic of MOS and BvS, apparently tweeted this nonsense about TDK:
Quote from: Max Landis
Rewatching Dark Knight; it's such a fun, silly good-natured movie. Interesting that it's thought of as a grim, serious epic.
Source: https://twitter.com/Uptomyknees/status/887798390712446976
Right, because the idea of Batman putting an entire town in harm's way for no good reason, and betrays everything he stands for to protect a psychopath is a "fun, good-natured movie". ::) Never mind all the other dark sh*t that happens in this movie. He also said that Joker acts like Joker, Two-Face acts like Two-Face and Batman acts like Batman...
All I'll say is this: his Twitter handle says "Uptomyknees". Judging by these opinions and his eccentric behaviour in front of the camera, it should read "Outofmymind" instead. As Rick James once said, cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 20 Jul 2017, 11:24
Bloody hell...the ever opinionated Max Landis, who is a staunch critic of MOS and BvS, apparently tweeted this nonsense about TDK:
Quote from: Max Landis
Rewatching Dark Knight; it's such a fun, silly good-natured movie. Interesting that it's thought of as a grim, serious epic.
Source: https://twitter.com/Uptomyknees/status/887798390712446976
Right, because the idea of Batman putting an entire town in harm's way for no good reason, and betrays everything he stands for to protect a psychopath is a "fun, good-natured movie". ::) Never mind all the other dark sh*t that happens in this movie. He also said that Joker acts like Joker, Two-Face acts like Two-Face and Batman acts like Batman...
All I'll say is this: his Twitter handle says "Uptomyknees". Judging by these opinions and his eccentric behaviour in front of the camera, it should read "Outofmymind" instead. As Rick James once said, cocaine is a hell of a drug.
If you think that anything Batman does in that movie is to protect the Joker or that he betrays everything he stands for to do so, then I question if you've seen the movie. And dark things can and do happen in many movies that are still fun and good natured. Darkness happening doesn't erase good or fun. Let's also not ignore that a character can act like the character their based off of and not be completely accurate. There you go again belittling a human being for not sharing your opinion on a fictional story and characters. You can find a way to be better than that. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Landis is a contrarian dillhole. He disagrees just to disagree, the nitwit. Not worth listening to.
I actually think the dark knight rises is the most unheroic Batfilm.
The Dark Knight is the film in which he beats the mob; kidnapping Lau and bringing him back to Gotham is something only Batman could do. Without that, the RICO case against the mob wouldn't have stuck. The few mob members who don't go down, operate on a much smaller scale. They don't meet at night, Sal Maroni ends up helping Gordon stop the Joker and realizes that things have gone too far. In the end Batman not only captures the Joker twice, he saves Gordon's family and who knows how many other from Dent's wrath.
In the Dark Knight rises, the character is extremely unheroic. Bruce let's his company go bankrupt rendering many orphans homeless. He sits back and watches during the first half while Bane terrorizes Gotham, when he finally comes out of hiding, he ends up helping Bane get away by drawing the police off of him (as though he apparently forgot that Batman is a wanted man), he aids Selina Kyles criminal endeavours. He lets Talia al ghul in on the arc reactor among other things. You could argue he saved the city in the end but he may not have if not for Catwoman saving him by breaking his gun rule. The reason things became so dire in the final act was Batman's failures earlier in the film. Prior to his return to Gotham, Batman doesn't accomplish a single thing. His first outing he ends up helping Bane, his second outing he gets his back broken. I also found faking his own death to be very unheroic. How does he know a super criminal will never emerge again in Gotham? And why can't Bruce Wayne be a hero in his own right by being an uncorrupt businessman in Gotham?
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39Bruce let's his company go bankrupt rendering many orphans homeless.
He had a good idea for free energy but feared it could be used as a weapon. Under the circumstances, you can't say he was wrong.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39He sits back and watches during the first half while Bane terrorizes Gotham,
Oh? Bane's first public act that Bruce could've responded to is the stock exchange operation... which coincided with Batman's return.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39when he finally comes out of hiding, he ends up helping Bane get away by drawing the police off of him (as though he apparently forgot that Batman is a wanted man),
That was the police department's call; not Batman's.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39he aids Selina Kyles criminal endeavours.
Are you seriously arguing this is the first time Batman has ever done that?
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39He lets Talia al ghul in on the arc reactor among other things.
If he'd known Miranda's true identity, I think it's safe to say he might've made a different choice.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39You could argue he saved the city in the end but he may not have if not for Catwoman saving him by breaking his gun rule.
Speaking of things that are arguable...
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39The reason things became so dire in the final act was Batman's failures earlier in the film. Prior to his return to Gotham, Batman doesn't accomplish a single thing. His first outing he ends up helping Bane,
The entire point of the first two acts of the movie is that Bruce didn't have his head screwed on straight after the events of TDK. What you're commenting upon isn't incidental to the film. It speaks to Bruce's entire character arc in the movie.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39I also found faking his own death to be very unheroic.
If we take the ending literally, yeah. Bruce faked his death. He had given Gotham City literally everything he had. He had nothing more to offer the city and the city had nothing more to offer him. Leaving the city was Bruce seizing a new destiny. Considering how broken (figuratively and literally) that city had made him, you can't argue that wasn't for the best.
If we take the ending metaphorically, he didn't fake his death. He sacrificed his life to save Gotham from the nuke and Alfred saw what he wanted to see.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39How does he know a super criminal will never emerge again in Gotham?
He believes that Gotham City and John Blake will be capable of dealing with it. Again, the first half of the movie showed Bruce unwilling to share his technology and methods with anybody. By turning the mantle over to Blake, he's showing that he has grown at least enough to trust one other person to protect the city. That's kind of a big deal for him.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39And why can't Bruce Wayne be a hero in his own right by being an uncorrupt businessman in Gotham?
The city has only hurt him. And it would be fair to say that Bruce hasn't always been successful with the city. Still, he protected it from Ra's al-Ghul and half of the League of Shadows, the Scarecrow, the mob, the Joker, Bane, Talia and the other half of the League of Shadows. The entire point of the conclusion of the movie is that Gotham is only likely to face standard issue street crime from now on.
The point of giving a character a happy ending is because they really will live happily ever after. That's the entire idea.
I can't believe this, I, of all people, am stuck playing Nolan apologist. But I really do think some of you are going a little too hard on these movies. They're not really
MY Batman either. But they're still Batman and they're not all that bad.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39
I actually think the dark knight rises is the most unheroic Batfilm.
The Dark Knight is the film in which he beats the mob; kidnapping Lau and bringing him back to Gotham is something only Batman could do. Without that, the RICO case against the mob wouldn't have stuck. The few mob members who don't go down, operate on a much smaller scale. They don't meet at night, Sal Maroni ends up helping Gordon stop the Joker and realizes that things have gone too far. In the end Batman not only captures the Joker twice, he saves Gordon's family and who knows how many other from Dent's wrath.
The point I'm making is for every good thing Batman does in TDK, he undermines with it every bad decision he makes.
If he were more consistent with breaking his rules as he did with the other villains in the trilogy, he would've ran over the Joker at the end of the chase scene, and the second half of TDK would never have happened. Rachel might still have been alive and Harvey might never have become Two-Face. He definitely wouldn't have started a killing spree. Another thing's for certain is Gordon's family and the rest of Gotham City would've been spared from more terror.
Likewise, if Batman truly believed that people's moral strength was strong, like he did in that ferry scene, and told the public the truth about Two-Face, Gotham would've coped a lot better than being misled for eight years, and the trauma of Bane exposing the truth would never have happened. In fact, I'd argue the public would've been stronger to cope through that Bane ordeal if they were told the truth from the beginning; instead of undermining that ferry scene even further.
The worst thing is not only does the character get compromised because of plot convenience, the films gloss over he was at fault. As in Nolan didn't care to make Batman any sense, he just wanted to tell an overly-convoluted plot at all costs. Similar to how Marvel is overusing its' comedy at the characters' expense.
The reason why TDKR exists as the story it is, is because it carried over what was established in TDK. If TDK ended differently, you wouldn't have such a distaste for Rises right now.
As a sidenote: it appears the RICO law is something that can only be enacted by U.S. federal attorney in real life, not a district attorney at state level this movie implies. Whether this is true or not, I'm not sure, but it's interesting nonetheless.
http://www.thedarkknightsucks.com/2008/07/24/hey-lucy-rico-retardo-is-home/
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 00:43
I can't believe this, I, of all people, am stuck playing Nolan apologist. But I really do think some of you are going a little too hard on these movies. They're not really MY Batman either. But they're still Batman and they're not all that bad.
Look, I'm going to be blunt here and I'm sorry if I sound harsh...but I seriously cannot believe for somebody who is so dismissive of Superman II and Superman Returns, you're still so lenient towards Nolan's take. I seriously don't see how the latter is any better.
Batman framing himself to protect a murderer so his reputation doesn't get tarnished is NOT Batman. FFS, I don't even call that heroic. I can't comprehend how anybody could accept THAT as an ending. Let alone call that travesty "inspirational". It would've sucked ass if Captain America, Superman or anybody else were to do that, and it certainly sucks in TDK, particularly for the reasons why.
Same thing goes for Batman needing to fake his death, and let Blake take over. Way to undermine the idea that Batman was only a short term goal for social reform. Especially if the point that Batman's existence only incites psychopaths to come out, so no, it doesn't seem like street crime will only be prevalent from now on.
In contrast, for all the vitriol Snyder gets, his DCEU movies have characters that ultimately prove to be far more noble than they're given credit for. Now I must admit that I don't like
everything that Snyder has done with his take on Superman, but I can honestly say there's more good than bad. In MOS, Superman surrenders himself to Zod for the sake of the planet, ultimately killing him as the last remaining member of his race to protect his adopted home. In BvS, he faces challenges and doubts in a divisive world, and yet, he pleaded Batman on his last dying breath to save his mother as a means to make him rediscover Batman's own humanity, and he still had the bravery to give his own life to take down Doomsday. In turn, the planet mourns in gratitude, and his legacy inspires Batman to continue seeking redemption by starting the Justice League. That alone was far better than the so-called "sacrifice" in Rises. If all else, the moral of the story is the world, despite its problems, is still worth saving, and doing good deeds will eventually inspire others to be better people.
Hell, even Lester's Superman II is more redemptive than Nolan's crap. As you well know, I agree that Clark giving up his powers was pretty sh*tty, but at least he takes responsibility by bearing his own agony by wiping out Lois' painful memory, and pledging never to let down the world again in the end. It's definitely a flawed and overrated film, but it still has good things going for it.
In contrast, I don't see any genuine moral of the story in Nolan's Batman at all. In all three films, he never learns from his mistakes, and every moral of the story is a mess - glossing over all the inconsistencies throughout his arc. Like Bruce travelling around the world to understand the criminal mind in BB, but comes home none the wiser, and is constantly outsmarted by the villains every single time.
We're encouraged to ignore all the terrible writing and inconsistent character motivations for half-assed "feel-good" moments like that unearned "happy" ending in Rises. But unlike Snyder's take on Clark Kent, I have no sympathy whatsoever for Nolan's Bruce. I have no reason to like him or cheer for him, since he speaks in ideals and yet he continues to do dark things. Not because of necessity, but because of recklessness and incompetence. Glossing over these things is not any different to getting excited over Superman's return in Singer's film, while ignoring how flawed the premise is to begin with.
I'm not advocating that Nolan should face personal vitriol like Snyder does. But I have no tolerance for a film series that has become so highly acclaimed despite sharing the same flaws that people enjoy attributing to the DCEU films, and blindly ignoring much worse problems. How people ignore the rubbish that goes on in these movies is unbelievable.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39
I actually think the dark knight rises is the most unheroic Batfilm.
It is, but I'm kind of liking that right now.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39
The Dark Knight is the film in which he beats the mob; kidnapping Lau and bringing him back to Gotham is something only Batman could do. Without that, the RICO case against the mob wouldn't have stuck. The few mob members who don't go down, operate on a much smaller scale. They don't meet at night, Sal Maroni ends up helping Gordon stop the Joker and realizes that things have gone too far. In the end Batman not only captures the Joker twice, he saves Gordon's family and who knows how many other from Dent's wrath.
TDK is showing Baleman at the height of his career.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jul 2017, 16:39
In the Dark Knight rises, the character is extremely unheroic. Bruce let's his company go bankrupt rendering many orphans homeless. He sits back and watches during the first half while Bane terrorizes Gotham, when he finally comes out of hiding, he ends up helping Bane get away by drawing the police off of him (as though he apparently forgot that Batman is a wanted man), he aids Selina Kyles criminal endeavours. He lets Talia al ghul in on the arc reactor among other things. You could argue he saved the city in the end but he may not have if not for Catwoman saving him by breaking his gun rule. The reason things became so dire in the final act was Batman's failures earlier in the film.
Rises takes place about eight or nine years after TDK. He's basically a worn out Bruce Wayne wearing a Batman costume who secretly has a death wish. He lost interest in life. If he took down Bane in the sewer, fine, he'd take that. But if he died? He'd take that as well. You don't have to like that arc, but that's what the arc is. The eight year gap can't be glossed over because it gives a lot of context. Rises is a sequel, but not an immediate sequel.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 00:43
I can't believe this, I, of all people, am stuck playing Nolan apologist. But I really do think some of you are going a little too hard on these movies. They're not really MY Batman either. But they're still Batman and they're not all that bad.
That's my mindset right now as well. We all know the flaws, and I've stated them enough times. If listing the things I liked about Nolan's films is a crime, consider me guilty. I don't require a post about all the Nolan era flaws because I know them. I'm trying to look at the other side for a change. The past is the past - it's no longer the current business model. I'm getting my fantastical Batman with Affleck and I'm happy.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:32
That's my mindset right now as well. We all know the flaws, and I've stated them enough times. If listing the things I liked about Nolan's films is a crime, consider me guilty.
I wouldn't say that. There are a few things I do like about this trilogy myself: Gordon and Alfred's arcs in BB, Blake in TDKR, and Anne Hathway's performance as Selina Kyle and Tom Hardy's Bane. I even like Bale's performance as Bruce Wayne in the third film.
But as far as the story goes? It's utter garbage. It's not even competent at basic storytelling level. That's where my source of disappointment is coming from.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17Look, I'm going to be blunt here and I'm sorry if I sound harsh...but I seriously cannot believe for somebody who is so dismissive of Superman II and Superman Returns,
It's a fair observation. I believe I've been forthright in admitting that Superman is my #1 character. On his best day, Batman is #2. A very distant #2.
Frankly, I have much higher standards for a Superman film than I do for Batman. That could be bias on my part. I'm willing to consider that. But it's worth remembering that Superman and Batman are different characters with different motivations grounded in different philosophies. It's hardly ideal but I can overlook a lackluster Batman movie.
But a sorry Superman movie? This I cannot forgive.
More bias. I waited over three-quarters of my life for another Superman movie by 2006. And all I had to show for it was a pencil-necked bartender running around in a pleather cape reciting old Christopher Reeve lines. Some wounds just go too deep. I never claimed to be objective.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17you're still so lenient towards Nolan's take.
There's been a lot of progress with my views on Nolan. I was the guy in the room who had a hard time taking these movies seriously, especially at first. Of all things, it was TDKRises that helped me put the whole trilogy into better perspective. I'm more tolerant of Nolan after almost a full decade of dismissive condescension. That's kind of a big deal for me.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17I seriously don't see how the latter is any better.
Hopefully now you do.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17Batman framing himself to protect a murderer so his reputation doesn't get tarnished is NOT Batman. FFS, I don't even call that heroic. I can't comprehend how anybody could accept THAT as an ending.
That wasn't the ending though. Now was it? The real ending was in TDKRises when Batman learned in many ways and on many levels that he should've been honest from the start. That's the arc between TDK and TDKRises. I gather that you don't enjoy that arc. Which is fair.
But that nevertheless is the arc. The ending of TDK wasn't swept under the rug. It was paid off in the story. It accomplished something. It went somewhere.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17Let alone call that travesty "inspirational".
I don't recall referring to Batman's actions as inspirational. I've got a fairly simplistic moral code by which I abide. Lying is not permissible. At least not for the reasons Batman did it. It was an error in judgment... for which he paid the price.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17It would've sucked ass if Captain America, Superman or anybody else were to do that, and it certainly sucks in TDK, particularly for the reasons why.
The values and sentiments that make for a good Captain America story are different from those that make for a good Superman story. Both are different from what makes for a good Batman story. It isn't wise to impose one character's values upon another as though they're interchangeable commodities.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17Same thing goes for Batman needing to fake his death, and let Blake take over. Way to undermine the idea that Batman was only a short term goal for social reform.
This aspect of Nolan's trilogy is murky. In Batman Begins, Bruce viewed Batman as a symbol. In TDK, he viewed Batman as an inspirational force for change. In TDKRises, he viewed Batman as a generic aspirational totem. It's inconsistent and the muddy through-line undermines a lot of Nolan's ultimate ambitions.
Then again, another way of looking at it is that Batman came to mean different things to Bruce over the years.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17In contrast, for all the vitriol Snyder gets,
Easy, now. I'm one of the loudest pro-Snyder cheerleaders on this message board. He is the perfect Batman director... and I say this as a guy who just a year ago held Burton in the highest esteem. I don't give that praise lightly. Snyder is the real deal in my view.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17his DCEU movies have characters that ultimately prove to be far more noble than they're given credit for.
Preach it!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17That alone was far better than the so-called "sacrifice" in Rises.
And I get all that. But Bruce through Nolan's movies can honestly be said to be fairly sacrificial with his name and character. In Batman Begins, he allowed the guests at his party to believe that he was a rude, alcoholic a-hole in order to kick them out of his house and save their lives. He lied to serve a greater good.
In TDK, as you've noted, he allowed the people of Gotham to believe that Batman is a murderer and save more lives. He lied to serve a greater good.
In TDKRises, again as you've noted, he allowed the entire world to believe that Batman died to save Gotham from a jury-rigged nuke as he saved lives. He lied to serve a personal good.
My point is that Bruce lying through his teeth for a higher goal isn't exactly new territory by the time we get to TDKRises.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17It's definitely a flawed and overrated film, but it still has good things going for it.
I'd never say otherwise. I just put the emphases on the first seven words of that sentence.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17In contrast, I don't see any genuine moral of the story in Nolan's Batman at all.
Me either. But the difference between you and me is that I don't require Nolan's movies to be amazing or perfect Batman movies. I enjoy their positive elements and tolerate the crappy ones. Batman is less important to me than he is to you so that's probably why I can be open-minded about Nolan but groan, rant, gnash my teeth and howl at the moon about Superman II and Superman Returns.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17Glossing over these things is not any different to getting excited over Superman's return in Singer's film, while ignoring how flawed the premise is to begin with.
I agree... except that context matters in my case. It sounds to me like your loathing for Nolan's Batman is similar to my loathing of Singer's Superman.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17But I have no tolerance for a film series that has become so highly acclaimed
One thing I've noticed, actually, is that the Nolan movies seem to be coming down from the lofty heights at which they were once held. The past few years have shown that a lot of people are cooling to Nolan's films now that they're not quite the zeitgeist they used to be.
No, it isn't perfect. Plenty of people still hold the Nolan trilogy up as the definitive Batman. But that attitude is not as prevalent as it used to be, that's for sure.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 03:05
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 02:17I seriously don't see how the latter is any better.
Hopefully now you do.
Sorry to say, not really. I get you admit to having higher standards for Superman, but I'm still not convinced by Nolan's take on Batman as the lesser evil. Here is why:
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 03:05
That wasn't the ending though. Now was it? The real ending was in TDKRises when Batman learned in many ways and on many levels that he should've been honest from the start. That's the arc between TDK and TDKRises.
We must have seen two completely different movies then, because that's not what happened at all. There's not one moment where Bruce realises he was wrong to lie about Two-Face. The only thing I can take from your interpretation of that is when he has that vision of Ra's al Ghul chastising him for the cover-up. But the film completely glosses over this and he never has a moment of introspection, like Batman did when he was about to kill Superman in BvS. Actually, the film's cynical message doesn't support this assertion at all. For instance, Blake goes from initially chastising Gordon for his involvement in the cover-up halfway through the film. But because of his stand-off with the guards at the bridge, he then claims Gordon was right to take a stance when the system fails, before taking over the mantle as Batman himself. I guess the moral of the story is law and order can't really work after all, right?* Even you acknowledge this is a fair point, so I'm not sure what we're debating here.
*(Another point I don't get with Blake is how could he be so hard on Gordon to begin with when Batman was the one who willingly allowed himself to be villified? He's much at fault than Gordon, in fact, a LOT more.)
Again, if honesty was supposed to be a theme in Rises, it failed because he faked his own death, and runs away while leaving Blake to fend for himself, while the city is left to pick up the pieces he partly left behind. Glossing over things has always been prevalent in Nolan's writing in these films; after all, Rises has Batman owning up to killing Ra's to save the city, while still remaining oblivious to the fact how pointless and inconsistent his no-kill stance is. The whole arc is very poorly done.
The only thing he does learn in Rises, is he had to overcome his own fear of failure in order to climb out of the Pit. That's it.
Quote
But that nevertheless is the arc. The ending of TDK wasn't swept under the rug. It was paid off in the story. It accomplished something. It went somewhere.
Once again, we must've seen two completely different movies.
Quote
I don't recall referring to Batman's actions as inspirational. I've got a fairly simplistic moral code by which I abide. Lying is not permissible. At least not for the reasons Batman did it. It was an error in judgment... for which he paid the price.
You'd be surprised how some people defend that ending, and even call it "inspirational". I've seen fools argue TDK's ending could be seen as the Joker's triumph, which is utterly ludicrous. That ending was even darker than anything we saw in BvS.
Quote
The values and sentiments that make for a good Captain America story are different from those that make for a good Superman story. Both are different from what makes for a good Batman story. It isn't wise to impose one character's values upon another as though they're interchangeable commodities.
Maybe so...but that still doesn't justify framing a superhero to protect a criminal. That would be like a movie where Superman preaches "truth, justice and the American way" and how he trusts people in having hope, but then the film ends with him killing a corrupted maniac and he takes the fall to avoid the fear of a population's reaction. It's a massive downer, to the point that it's insulting.
QuoteThis aspect of Nolan's trilogy is murky. In Batman Begins, Bruce viewed Batman as a symbol. In TDK, he viewed Batman as an inspirational force for change. In TDKRises, he viewed Batman as a generic aspirational totem. It's inconsistent and the muddy through-line undermines a lot of Nolan's ultimate ambitions.
Then again, another way of looking at it is that Batman came to mean different things to Bruce over the years.
And THAT is the damn problem. I'm not asking for perfection from writers, but for God's sake, have a consistent narrative throughline for your arc. If people need to keep reinterpreting things all the time to the point you have to ignore extremely sloppy writing, then that's a sign of very weak storytelling.
QuoteEasy, now. I'm one of the loudest pro-Snyder cheerleaders on this message board. He is the perfect Batman director... and I say this as a guy who just a year ago held Burton in the highest esteem. I don't give that praise lightly. Snyder is the real deal in my view.
I know that, don't you worry. I was trying to make a comparison in light of the backlash against Snyder by speaking in general terms, and I wanted to explain why I prefer the Snyder films. Apologies if I came across as having a go at you.
Quote
Me either. But the difference between you and me is that I don't require Nolan's movies to be amazing or perfect Batman movies.
Hold on, I don't need Nolan to be perfect or amazing either. All I was expecting from him was to be consistent with Batman's character arc, or at the very least, display why he's supposed to be a beacon of strength. The thing with comics is the heroes no matter what flaws they have, there's always that moment of where they take a course of action based on some sort of strong conviction.
Had Batman decided to tell the truth about Two-Face at the end of TDK, I could've tolerated the inconsistent no-kill approach, and the other flaws in the film, because that choice would've made up all of his faults in the film. I still wouldn't have loved the movie, but I'd be willing to cut it some slack if it ended that way. Same thing if he didn't fake his death in Rises, and helped the city out by getting his wealth back and used it help clean up the city's mess. That way he does more of a contribution and the day came when Batman can finally lay to rest.
I think BB is the lesser of the three evils. Sadly, the biggest problem of that film is the most poorly made and poorly acted out of the whole three. But in retrospect, it's a lot tolerable than the sequels offered, plotwise. Though the video game adaptation isn't too bad.
Quote
It sounds to me like your loathing for Nolan's Batman is similar to my loathing of Singer's Superman.
Yes, you're right. I understand your disappointment in Singer because you waited for decades for a new Superman film, and instead you got cheap misguided love letter to the 1978 film mixed with ridiculous father issues that don't belong to Superman. But put it this way, that film didn't manage to fool the audience. I seriously suspect a lot of people are easy on Nolan because expectations of the franchise got so incredibly low with Batman & Robin, that they were willing to accept anything, and ignore then blatantly every flaw.
Now, the same standard they hold against something the DCEU, is conveniently not applied when it comes to Nolan. While Nolan is still somehow a critical darling, despite what he offered is less coherent than what the DCEU has done. The DCEU films aren't perfect by any means, but this stance will never make any sense to me.
QuoteOne thing I've noticed, actually, is that the Nolan movies seem to be coming down from the lofty heights at which they were once held.
I don't even know if that's the case, or convinced that's possible, to be honest.
I do think the Nolan films came at the right time. After all the silliness that we saw in the Schumacher films it definitely was refreshing to see Batman get taken seriously again and they do answer the question "what if Batman existed in the real world?" It is worthy to note as well that in 2005, rebooting franchises had not become common yet so the idea to scrap the previous series for a new one after Batman and Robin wasn't as obvious back then as it would be now. The reality was that a reboot was the best thing for the character, eight years after the last entry, the previous series was best left alone (as the superman franchise should have been instead of Superman Returns).
I haven't discussed the character with a Nolanite since the IMDB boards shut down so maybe my need to trash the Nolan films have subdued but I still maintain there is a huge drop in quality in the dark knight rises so much so that it doesn't feel like a Batman film anymore, it felt like JGL was the star of the film instead of Batman. The premise is compelling enough about Batman retiring and then needing to make a comeback but it took way too long to set up and even when it did happen, he got hurt after two scenes. Rises is an awful movie to watch for repeated viewings and such should not be the case for superhero films.
I think the thing I hate the most about the Dent handling is the fact that by the end of the Dark Knight, Batman had become an inspiration to Gotham. Him taking the wrap wrecked everything he worked towards to be a symbol of hope and let a lot of people down who admired Batman when they found out their hero was a murderer. The truth would have been fine, none of Dents convictions would have been compromised because it could easily be proven he went rogue after his scarring and Rachel's death. If they were going to tamper with the scene, why not just hide or destroy the body? I also don't buy the fact that everyone would just accept that Batman killed Dent, there are still living witnesses who saw him as two face. For instance Ramirez should be able to adequately piece together what happened, she knew Dent was holding Gordon's family on the rooftop, are we to believe that when she learns Dent died there and Batman supposedly did it that she keeps her mouth shut over what she knew while Dent is celebrated as a hero?
Sorry for venting folks, the Dark Knight rises just happens to be one of my most hated films ever and one of the few I wish were never made. When Begins came out, I thought it was better than Batman Returns and definitely what we needed after Batman and Robin. Once the Dark Knight came out I thought it was even better than the 89 film. But Rises really exposed the flaws in the Nolan films (which I wont list out of fear of redundancies). Bale was fine as Bruce Wayne but I cringed every time he opened his mouth from inside the cowl. It's not just his voice, the dialogue was awful too and definitely made me clamour for the days in which Keaton barely spoke while suited up. Personally if Nolan only made two films, I would hold them in much higher esteem. At the end I just felt it was too drawn out. By contrast Burton and even Schumacher made their respective two films more different from each othe than any of the Nolan films which gives the individual films less identity as individual films.
After the dust has settled, I still have the Dark Knight on Blu Ray and have seen it four times since Rises came out and plan to every year or two going forward. I've seen Rises three times now and have no interest seeing it again. I've only seen Begins twice since the Dark Knight came out; once in 2008, once in 2016. I've considered picking up Begins on DVD but opted not to. I figure one film of this version of the character in my collection is enough because I truly do want to accept and celebrate all versions of the character so I would much prefer to release my hate on for the Nolan films. And truth me told many of my criticisms were over the fact that those films were once held in such high esteem. Once Affleck donned the cowl, people began to move on from the Nolan films.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 29 Jul 2017, 14:59
I also don't buy the fact that everyone would just accept that Batman killed Dent, there are still living witnesses who saw him as two face. For instance Ramirez should be able to adequately piece together what happened, she knew Dent was holding Gordon's family on the rooftop, are we to believe that when she learns Dent died there and Batman supposedly did it that she keeps her mouth shut over what she knew while Dent is celebrated as a hero?
I'm seeing this differently now.
I think Bane says it perfectly: "Theatricality and deception are powerful agents to the uninitiated."
How many of the public are paying attention, or are willing to go down the rabbit hole?
Gordon said Dent died a hero. The media reported this as fact for just under a decade. They were even having an annual Harvey Dent Day to celebrate his life.
Witnesses or evidence don't mean much anymore. You can say footage or documents are doctored, or people simply don't listen and dismiss it outright, because things like 'Harvey Dent Day' being manufactured is too much cognitive dissonance for true believers to wrap their heads around. If Dent isn't a hero, it opens up too many uncomfortable questions.
But I also believe living witnesses who disagree about the Dent deception
would keep their mouths shut in these circumstances. Once the system decides to do something, and stick to the official narrative, it's set in stone.
If a lie that big is going to be broadcast as fact, you're dealing with powerful forces. The story has snowballed into something way bigger than you. If you speak up to the contrary, you're going to be sidelined as a kook or possibly even killed. Or alternatively, the living witnesses are willing participants and agree with the tactics anyway, and say nothing.
Bane comes to town and says Dent was a murderer. It's a shame we didn't get to see the greater public's reaction to that. But I'm glad the story had Bane coming to town to expose the falsehood that would've stood as truth for eternity otherwise.