Messages

I think the treatment on Bane really demonstrated Schumacher's detachment to comic book lore and certainly played ( I believe) the biggest part in fans hating this movie. Seeing such a iconic villain reduced to a lowly henchman was hard to swallow and I think Schumacher's comments on DVD probably did more harm to the reputation of the film than anything else.

He had a very flip attitude about these characters and spoke about comics with honestly a great degree of disrespect. I don't think he had the slightest notion what hive of wasps he was breaking open, but he seem to go to great lengths to demean and otherwise insult the intelligence of the average Batman fan. I think he certainly had it in him to make a compelling Batman film. His films tend to carry a darker tone and I understand the studio played a big role in how B&R came out. But I highly doubt audiences of that day would have been as forgiving had Warner Bros moved forward with Triumphant.

You have to remember comic book movies were not embraced by Hollywood as a viable trove of stories for blockbusters as it is today. WB nearly wanted to mothball the franchise after BR got some tough commentary from critics and less returns than what they wanted. So studios in those days were not all that prideful about making these movies and seemed almost paranoid to dump them if there was any deviation in the response, even if they were successful.

The flip side to that is comic fans had a huge degree of insecurity attached to these films because this was still a very small market in the movie industry. Fans of this subject matter carried allot of angst from under-produced and generic (if not hollow) versions of their heroes on television and even direct to video features (like Captain America). This was a genre dying for validation in an industry where there were still allot of people who saw this material as juvenile. Professionals who loved comics were just starting to infiltrate the industry and it would be several more years before anything of real relevance (like Spider-man) began to take hold and get the attention of the industry. Yes, I know the X-men to some degree broke the ice, but that film also illustrated technology still needed to catch up to the needs of this kind of story telling and it began to do just that.

So I think even with the fix in, Triumphant likely would have paid for the sins of B&R at the box office. I don't think fans wanted to see Clooney again and likely would have rejected him in this film. I'm not even sure he had the acting chops at that point to really do a dark Batman of the caliber needed to right this ship. It's easy to think audiences would have been forgiving with the right treatment, but that just wasn't reality for that day. I think both the industry and fans felt Batman needed to be mothballed because to keep it going, especially with the same cast, would have hurt the push being made to make more comic book movies. Subsequently that could have stymied the movies we did get to see like X-Men and Spider-man. Both the industry and fans were looking for engaging stories involving characters the audience could embrace and relate with. Schumacher's treatment reminded everyone of what they had been fighting against (for decades) and didn't want to see again.

I'm pretty late getting to this film, but I finally saw it and I thought it was a descent movie. The footage on Youtube and elsewhere do it a complete disservice because it doesn't translate the actual appearance of those effects well. I thought from a CGI perspective they more than met the standard for something this heavy in application. At times it looked like 300 to me, especially when Steppenwolf goes after the Mother box from Themyscira. The only place where Superman's painted chin really jumps out (for me) is the opening sequence with the kids video taping him while asking questions. That looked sloppy. No where else did I really spend time looking too close because I was into the story and I guess nothing of note stood out on its own for me. I'm sure it will after I get the movie on Blu-ray and watch it ten times. That happens with most films though.

In terms of the characters, I thought Batman shined really well here. I  loved that opening sequence where he is fighting that thug. That whole scene and the way it was lit was about as comic bookish a moment as I have ever seen placed to film and I really liked it. THAT was Batman. Of course now that I am finally getting comfortable with Affleck, WB is getting ready to kick him to the curb so that frustrates me to no end. But I digress.

Cavill really brought Superman home in this movie, so I was thrilled about that and now I WANT a Man of Steel II which I understand is in the works. I didn't care that Clark Kent's reappearance was not explained for the Daily Bugle because Superman came in late and we only saw Kent for essentially one scene in the closing sequence, so it was unnecessary. That can be picked up in the following film. With the comics giving Superman his red shorts back, it will be interesting to see if the movies follow. I hope so. That would be great for Superman to finally gel with his iconic look in the comics.

I thought Wonder Woman was great and was utilized exceptionally well in this story. I have zero issues with her. I think Gal Gadot plays her perfectly in all phases and I can't wait for Wonder Woman II. WB keep doing what you;re doing here. For me, her performance really resonates with how I see the character. Just a superb job all around.

The Flash was a mixed bag for me. I really liked his back story and thoroughly enjoyed Snyder using Billy Crudup as Barry's dad.  Nice use of the old cast from Watchmen. How many has he used now from that cast? I know he used Harry Dean Morgan for Thomas Wayne, but I'm sure there are more. I just can't think of them at the moment. but having Barry be this insecure and naive hero was not really an issue for me. Where it got a little off kilter for me was using that as comic relief where it just wasn't needed. There were great scenes where his injection of idiotic comments just made me go, " WTH?" I think he should play that a little more straight and let the humor come from the essence of his insecurities and inexperience rather than it being the punchline for a deliberate joke. I liked most of his running sequences, just didn't understand the last scene where he's running goofy against Superman. Didn't quite understand what the thinking was behind that.

I accepted Aquaman with his general appearance, but I really took issue with his personality. His personality was just too.... whats the word... socially stylized?  I didn't envision a man from a underwater civilization carrying all of the rhythms of someone better suited for a person you and I might know, possessing all of the expressions used in the lexicon of modern society. He just felt too integrated to be from a world that exotic. It will be interesting to see how that plays in his own movie coming out later this year.

I was pleasantly surprised by Cyborg. I really liked how they flushed him out. A surprisingly human portrayal from a more fantastical concept that could have been played very generic. And I enjoyed his ability to be essentially "plugged-in" to anything that has a network. I liked that whole set up and I felt the effects on him were actually quite descent. I'm looking forward to seeing more from him. A total treat and I'm glad he's now part of the DCU theatrically. They nailed it.

I was relieved to see J.K. Simmons play Commissioner Gordon straight and not try and spin his J Jonah Jameson character into that role. He did a really good job and contrasts nicely with what he did in the Spider-man films. He'll do a really good job if they keep him in whatever Batman project eventually gets made.

I was fine with Steppenwolf and his general application to the story. I felt that Justice League already had enough story responsibilities in introducing many of the heroes, that it would have been too much information to cater to a brand name villain as well. I think the havoc Steppenwolf created presented enough backstory to bring in Darkseid at a later date. Fans tend to like their popular villains properly flushed out. I don't think this movie had enough time to do that. Had all of these heroes already been in separate movies and their stories properly told, then yes, they could have focused considerable more time to a brand name villain. Justice league did not get that advantage and I accepted that. I was there to see the heroes.

In terms of the CGI treatment on him, he was clearly a CGI character. That felt more obvious with his facial movements when he spoke. But overall he integrated into the overall look of the picture, so his presence never took me out of the story. They made him a big enough a-hole that it certainly played well when Superman showed up. So I think his villainy was properly carved out to give him all the necessary relevance needed here. I enjoyed watching him get his arse kicked at the end. I was essentially watching a very expensive version of the Sueprfriends, so some leniency and a healthy suspension of disbelief is needed to watch this kind of film. I came in expecting a train-wreck and walked out pleasantly surprised. Critics were WAAAAAAY to hard on it. I think Snyder captured the necessary essence of the comics and I would LOVE to see his official version of this film. I think the lighthearted stuff was the worst part of this movie. The film already had a pretty decent tonal balance in place, so I didn't see where the added jokes brought any real value to the story telling experience. A definite thumbs up for me. I think Snyder redeemed himself and the movie is getting a really bad rap that is not deserved.

I'm happy to hear that. It's not surprising to see the cast members throw BvS under the bus - Cavill said BvS was a "niche". Even though I think BvS is a masterpiece...this is business. Reality is the film got savaged by dumb critics, and the studio shot themselves in the foot by not release the ultimate edition in the first place. This is 1992 all over again. Like Batman Returns, we will likely never see something like BvS for a long time, with the tone lightening up in a way similar to Batman Forever...which still had elements of darkness. Not necessarily a complaint, but an observation.

I think that pretty well sums it up. And I completely get why some really like BVS. I understand the film is a kind of "coming of age" for Batman where he has to face his demons or be destroyed by them. But, FOR ME, it just blurred the lines a bit more than I like to see with Batman in terms of his general state of mind and the films insistence in keeping the mood incredibly grim. It felt like Rob Zombie had invaded the DC Universe. I could see Batman, but I could never feel him. For me, he was pushed too far to the edge to come back so quickly at the end. But its a theme that has been examined extensively in graphic novels and comics, so I completely understand why some really liked that departure. It just wasn't for me.

It's nice to see optimism returning to the brand. At least that's what the trailers are pushing. I just hope they do evolve Barry into a more contained and assured hero near the end. His story responsibilities (from the trailers) seem to feel more like comic relief than real character evolution. If I'm being honest, he really seems to be getting the Peter Parker treatment as that character is stylized by Marvel right now. He's got all this ability and intelligence but no direction. So Bruce Wayne plays that Stark role of being his mentor and grooming him to the finer aspects of being a hero. At least that is the vibe I get from the trailers.

Plenty of good vibes coming from people who saw the screening of this film. I think for the first time since they started building this DC universe, I feel at least hopeful that something good will come from this. Fingers crossed that the new inserts and story adjustments have done the trick here and we have product that everyone can champion. It would be fun to embrace this film. If nothing else, I like the fact it's not so dark. No, I'm not a big fan of how Barry Allen is playing here (and note he will be just Barry in the film - no Flash reference yet), but like others have speculated, maybe that will be a growth cycle that sees him through to a satisfying ending. I hope so. I love the Flash.

Wow!! That's amazing. Definitely on my list.

A few new scenes. It's based off of Flash. I'm really liking what we're seeing of him.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=mP23BBlED-o

My whole problem with the Flash is just about every line feels like it's intended to be a joke. And if it stretches thin just in a trailer, then I can only imagine how irritating he'll become in the whole movie. I sure hope he is not just this comic relief buffoon. The Flash deserves  more dignity than that. So far the movie trailers are playing the way I feared which is an over correction of BVS. Everything is now a one-liner.

The movie never has Batman in a situation where killing the Joker is an action needed to save a life/lives at any moment, even his own. All these moments I cited were when Bruce's only option to save a life, even his own, was something that would cause a villain's death. Nothing like that happens with the Joker. Ruthless killer or not, killing the Joker without defense of himself or others isn't comparable to any of those other moments. Doing that would be essentially execution, which is what Bruce stated to Ra's he wouldn't do. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

But you're stating it's a natural reaction to turn himself in because he's perceiving his surrender as a life saving action. I'm saying it makes no sense because the Joker is a known killer that does so indiscriminately. How does Bruce save lives if he takes Batman out of the picture? The elementary answer is he doesn't. So what is the dilemma that leads Bruce to turn himself in? Where's the logic?

[Honestly, it falls pretty neatly in line with Nolan Batman's structure of morality and actions. He never tries to kill someone unless there's immediate danger in play. Harvey was trying to kill a kid. Blowing up the monastery was the only way he could escape the LOS, who'd just told him they were planning to destroy Gotham and were telling him that he must kill someone to prove his worth to them and there was no turning back. Even then, the monastery was just a distraction so he could escape that gets some LOS members killed. Crashing the train was the only way to stop it and Batman tried to stop it manually and would have if Ra's hadn't stabbed the console.

All of these events mentioned only support why this is a weak plot contrivance. Wayne has already been in several circumstances where he's had to kill or chosen not to do anything which results in someone being killed (in theory). So now we're into situational ethics where Bruce decides life and death. With the Joker, he is already known to be a ruthless killer which exempts no one, not even his own kind. He's telling Batman on television (like he's a public figure) that he will continue doing what he has always done if Batman does not turn himself in. How exactly is that a dilemma? Anyone in that situation with an ounce of common sense knows the Joker is simply trying to remove his primary threat, which is Batman. So why would Bruce give him that? Because the Joker will keep killing people like he does already? What has the Joker introduced that is different here? The fact he's saying it on television and Batman has a reputation to protect? No. So which is it? Is he being selfish or is he simply stupid because he HONESTLY thinks the Joker will stop killing people because he turns himself in? I just don't think there's any rationale that gets you to the decision he made. It feels very forced and undermines all the risk he has taken to fight for the "greater good" of the public he wants to defend. How is the public served if he turns himself in and the Joker overruns the city with death and more crime?

And if you paid attention to TDK, you'd see that same aspect in the public not destroying eachother on the boats. Batman's whole structure is about breaking the law for the greater good. That's not a compromise of his ideals. Batman lies by the very nature of having a secret identity. And him lying to protect the public very much lines up with Batman's comic canon attitude and ideals, who is willing to lie to Dick about his parents killer to protect him. Even in TDK, when Batman catches Harvey threatening that Joker goon, he doesn't say a word to anyone about it. When Harvey turns himself in as Batman, no word. Batman thinks it's right. It's not a compromise of his ideals. The thing is: Are those ideals right? For a lie like with Harvey or the one that Alfred gives Bruce, and I'd also say in regards to Harvey threatening the Joker goon: No, as shown by TDKRises. I guess the movie's just too deep for ya. I jest. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I think DK has a couple of plot weaknesses that are pretty glaring. Bruce created Batman as a symbol to fight the establishment without having to answer to the boundaries that would face a public figure exposed to the limitations of his property, friends, family, and reputation as open targets. The problem Nolan creates is this idea that Batman IS a public figure. In the first film, Batman is portrayed as something that is more myth than fact. Only the criminals and detectives working certain cases understand there is another entity involved. That's the concept working as it should. But in Dark Knight you suddenly have people imitating him like crime fighter cos-players.

How is Batman suddenly that well known when his existence is still compared with Bigfoot and Gordon won't even confirm the existence of the Batsignal, choosing instead to describe it as a malfunctioning light to the prosecuting attorney? Even the public imitators have somehow duplicated  Batman's cowl with uncanny accuracy like he is a licensed product. I can accept some of this to simply advance the plot line since we're watching a superhero movie. But Nolan insists on leaning on this logic to drive the story which takes me out of the film because he's asking me to weigh it at face value which doesn't work.

If Batman is suddenly a brand name from which the public can distinguish his motivation and purpose, how effective can he truly be anymore? He now has a reputation to foil. So why does the Joker need to kill people to make him turn himself in? Why not just muddy the image? Why not commit crimes in his image so that even the authorities have no idea what side Batman is on? Why this morality play on Batman's "no-kill" clause?  That is the problem with this entire story. Everyone is gifted with the ability to know the motivations and values of one another even though Batman is supposed to be more enigma than personality.

And why would Bruce Wayne feel any inclination to fall for the Joker's obvious bait to turn himself in since he already understands the Joker is not working from principle and Batman is not supposed to be a public figure? And how does anyone know Batman has a no-kill clause? When did he give an interview? When did he come out of the shadows to even offer his mission statement? That is such an impossible leap in assumption, it never works. And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway. You can apply all the subtext and analysis you like to what you believe was intended here. The bottom line is the framework of the character does not fit the forced conclusion to cave to the Joker's demand.

The second glaring plot weakness is the boat sequence between the two stereotyped groups. First, it's way too self aware as a plot device because it's Nolan once again preaching while he tries to  force feed some pretentious notion that Batman has a pulse on the good in society and that only he understands the will of what the average person would do. It's completely preposterous because once again it leaps off the charts of reason and makes this universal claim of understanding the greater good of society.  It gets even funnier when you realize Batman was supposed to be created from the corruptible element of mankind. It leaves the solar system of logic when you realize the basis for his training and conditioning comes from a radical group with militia intentions. So everything in that story plot is completely unbelievable. Nothing established in that world (and certainly nothing in the real world) would EVER get you to that moment of rationale. Painfully contrived and not remotely believable.

Batman as a concept makes for great theater. When visionary directors like Burton get a hold of this character, they create magical worlds that are incredible to visit, which makes for tremendous escapist fun. And like any good film, they can provide social commentary where applicable while still embracing the more fantastical aspects of this character. Batman provides a broad range of perspectives to explore. But at the end of the day he is fantasy.

I think Nolan is an exceptionally gifted director. I think his imprint on Batman is well earned and quite frankly speaks for itself. I would never suggest or attempt to take away the credits he has garnered for making a truly successful trilogy that has yet to be commercially challenged by any other interpretation. In many ways it's original in it's execution and I praise Nolan for working outside the box to offer a different perspective on this character. That is the strength of Batman.

But like any installment in this franchise, I have to be in the right mood for each treatment. Burton pleases me the most with his tremendous visual gifts and artful direction. For me, his vision is the closest to the Batman I embrace the most. Schumacher is a great release when the world gets too dark and depressing. It's great eye candy that is good for the spirits and those young at heart. And Nolan is a perfect fix when I want an all encapsulating profile on the psychology of Bruce Wayne as Batman. Nolan creates real drama in his stories and for me took the most daring of moves by giving Bruce Wayne a happy ending. I respect that because it's nice to see all that turmoil and angst find resolve and peace.

One detail that most people overlook in the Burton films is Batman still shows some detective prowess. Just as he shows Vicki Vale which chemicals the Joker tainted to create the Smylex gas, he uses the Batcomputer again to investigate Oswald's past and connections with the Red Triangle Gang, proving his suspicions right all along. Albeit much to his dismay. Whereas Alfred, as the rest of Gotham City, believes Cobblepot is a kind and misunderstood outcast, Batman continues to uncover how deviant he is.

People can debate Batman's screen time in BR all they want, but they're kidding themselves if they believe he doesn't drive the plot.

Anther aspect I believe gets missed is that Wayne appears to be the architect and engineer behind Batman and the tools he utilizes. Note when the Batmobile is returned after being hijacked by the Red Triangle Gang, it is Bruce Wayne in mechanic overalls working on the car. Alfred seems to remain in a butler capacity maintaining care of the suits and facility, but not coming across as the designer of these items as future films would take liberties in assigning to him.

I think Schumacher exaggerated Alfred's role to ridiculous proportions making him look like the chief brains of the entire outfit while the kids played dress up. In Burton's world, Bruce certainly seem to be the author of his alternate life and had to remind Alfred of his need to remain committed to his secret (even chastising him for letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave). I think this point is relevant to the overall character of Bruce Wayne, because if he had to be co-dependent on others in the creation process, then he likely wouldn't be much of a detective to resolve more complex matters.