It always makes me angry when people are 'satisfied' with Batman being a 'trilogy'. It just seems there is so much material missing. I think when you take Batman stories and incorporate it into movies, it should be a saga instead of taking all this awesome material and cutting out most of it and calling it a trilogy.
Nolan had an interesting take on the character. But when I left 'Rises', I just felt it wasn't enough. I wanted more. Not only was there only three scenes with Bruce in the Batman costume, but it was something more... I wanted the story of how Nolan's Bruce deals with Riddler... Or Penguin.... Or how John Blake becomes Robin or Bat or whatever... As the film concludes, I didn't say "ah, what a great trilogy and ending", I said , man it would be cool to see Joseph Gordon Levitt in the Robin suit ... or what if Leonardo DiCaprio or Guy Pearce was Nolan's Riddler... I didn't say "ok, its over, no more.".
I wouldn't even mind if the actors changed if Freeman, Oldman, Bale, Caine were 'burnt' out of the characters - let the story CONTINUE. Reboot isn't very appealing.
That's a gripe of mine too. Basically, Batman shows up, does his thing for about one year (at the most), vanishes for eight years, comes back for, what, two or three appearances over a five or six month stretch. And I'm supposed to believe that on the strength of that, he becomes a hero that Gotham City will never forget.
Sorry. Don't buy it.
But I GET it. Filmmakers have a boner for trilogies. They create the universe, they build it and then they end it. From their perspective, it's probably a very satisfying experience. The beef is that the characters were designed to be revisited virtually in perpetuity. Trilogies defeat that. After TDK, I'm sure WB had an attitude of "right away, Mr. Nolan" for basically everything. I mean, who wants to be the guy who pisses off Chris Nolan to the point where he walks away from what's likely to be another billion dollar gravy train? But I don't think that serves the character in the long term.
For those reasons, I'm all for a reboot so long as it leaves room for further installments. Actually, my ideal would be an anthology franchise where new filmmakers, casts and crews are brought in for each movie so they can put their own spin on the material, have their fun with it and then move on... and maybe the next movie will tie in but maybe it won't. You go from a Guillermo del Toro Batman to a Robert Rodriguez Batman to M. Night Shamaladingdong's Batman, etc. Any new "Batman saga" will inevitably be compared to Nolan's... and probably also inevitably be found wanting. So why set yourself up for the comparison? Check continuity at the door because this is a big screen version of Legends of the Dark Knight.
Continuity can be good but it's not the be all and end all. It can be a restriction. I greatly prefer one shot, individual adventures. A day in the life type things. Rocking up at Wayne Manor where Bruce is chilling at home and then the signal goes off. He gets his gear on and goes out to deal with the threat. Simple and what the fans want to see from the character. Just like how Bond movies handle things for the most part. B89 and BR went this way and it worked. I get much more satisfaction in seeing how Batman – and all characters, think. What would he do in this situation, etc.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 10 Jan 2013, 06:04
For those reasons, I'm all for a reboot so long as it leaves room for further installments. Actually, my ideal would be an anthology franchise where new filmmakers, casts and crews are brought in for each movie so they can put their own spin on the material, have their fun with it and then move on... and maybe the next movie will tie in but maybe it won't. You go from a Guillermo del Toro Batman to a Robert Rodriguez Batman to M. Night Shamaladingdong's Batman, etc. Any new "Batman saga" will inevitably be compared to Nolan's... and probably also inevitably be found wanting. So why set yourself up for the comparison? Check continuity at the door because this is a big screen version of Legends of the Dark Knight.
Funny, this is exactly what the old films feel like. We got issues #89, 192, 295 and 397. Some basic elements, like the actors playing Alfred and Gordon, remained constant, there were very brief references to events of previous entries, but the films felt like picking up Batman comic issues from different periods. There's maybe a reason they were never numbered (unlike, say, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron-Man, Hellboy, Blade - all had 2s). Then, Nolan's weren't numbered too, but Batman Begins had to follow the Batman
Subtitle tradition, and they couldn't title the sequel Batman Begins Part II.
In my opinion, all of the film's flaws (and let's face it, it had a lot) can be attributed to Nolan's need for finality. In Dark Knight, all he wanted to do was tell an amazing story. With Dark Knight Rises, he wanted to (a) tell an amazing story, (b) have the story come full circle with the first film and (c) have that story serve as an ending point for the franchise.
These goals unfortunately conflicted with each other and the end-result was a haphazardly-edited film which tried to be everything to everyone but, imho, failed miserably.
You're more charitable than I am. I chalked much of TDKRises up to Nolan (A) having a bad taste in his mouth for all things Batman after Ledger's passing (B) freaked the hell out (and not in a good way) over TDK's runaway success (C) wanting to do Bale a solid in not leaving him at some other director's mercy and (D) why the hell not, just take the money and run, knock out another Batman movie while he figures out his real next film. Maybe he didn't intend it but I walked away with the distinct impression that he just didn't give a crap anymore about certain things.
Quote from: phantom stranger on Sun, 10 Feb 2013, 03:58
In my opinion, all of the film's flaws (and let's face it, it had a lot) can be attributed to Nolan's need for finality. In Dark Knight, all he wanted to do was tell an amazing story. With Dark Knight Rises, he wanted to (a) tell an amazing story, (b) have the story come full circle with the first film and (c) have that story serve as an ending point for the franchise.
These goals unfortunately conflicted with each other and the end-result was a haphazardly-edited film which tried to be everything to everyone but, imho, failed miserably.
Exactly. Nolan bit off more than he could chew and didn't execute things as good as he could've. It was a mess that fell flat on its face. TDKR is no way near the level of TDK or BB - and I don't particularly like those. But they were better by a long shot. For example, having Bruce down in a hole in the ground for the finale was just a silly move. They could have done anything but they gave us this. Going back to Begins here was pointless. He simply didn't need to do that.
Quote from: Batman333 on Thu, 10 Jan 2013, 05:19
It always makes me angry when people are 'satisfied' with Batman being a 'trilogy'. It just seems there is so much material missing. I think when you take Batman stories and incorporate it into movies, it should be a saga instead of taking all this awesome material and cutting out most of it and calling it a trilogy.
Nolan had an interesting take on the character. But when I left 'Rises', I just felt it wasn't enough. I wanted more. Not only was there only three scenes with Bruce in the Batman costume, but it was something more... I wanted the story of how Nolan's Bruce deals with Riddler... Or Penguin.... Or how John Blake becomes Robin or Bat or whatever... As the film concludes, I didn't say "ah, what a great trilogy and ending", I said , man it would be cool to see Joseph Gordon Levitt in the Robin suit ... or what if Leonardo DiCaprio or Guy Pearce was Nolan's Riddler... I didn't say "ok, its over, no more.".
I wouldn't even mind if the actors changed if Freeman, Oldman, Bale, Caine were 'burnt' out of the characters - let the story CONTINUE. Reboot isn't very appealing.
All I can say to you really is welcome to my world mate lol In 2004 when it was revealed Batman Begins would be a reboot I was furious. The filmmakers we're basically f***ing with my childhood. What? You mean all those movies never happened? It smelt like a whiff of Nazi propaganda, all those events in history never happened so forget them immediately because they weren't done correctly. When I saw the film I accepted it. Yes it was totally brand new but it also had enough similarities and references even to feel like a continuation also. So it never mattered. Unfortunately Nolan's too will be rebooted and for me that's absolutely right. They'll still be there to enjoy but their timespan is now officially up. Seems fair to me after relegating Burton and Schumacher to the "archives".
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 10 Jan 2013, 06:04
That's a gripe of mine too. Basically, Batman shows up, does his thing for about one year (at the most), vanishes for eight years, comes back for, what, two or three appearances over a five or six month stretch. And I'm supposed to believe that on the strength of that, he becomes a hero that Gotham City will never forget.
Sorry. Don't buy it.
Yep. And I
really liked the Nolan films. Robin aside, in the first two films Nolan's Batman was a good 90% the Batman in my head. But he took a sharp left turn with Rises.
Quote from: phantom stranger on Sun, 10 Feb 2013, 03:58
In my opinion, all of the film's flaws (and let's face it, it had a lot) can be attributed to Nolan's need for finality. In Dark Knight, all he wanted to do was tell an amazing story. With Dark Knight Rises, he wanted to (a) tell an amazing story, (b) have the story come full circle with the first film and (c) have that story serve as an ending point for the franchise.
These goals unfortunately conflicted with each other and the end-result was a haphazardly-edited film which tried to be everything to everyone but, imho, failed miserably.
I wouldn't say failed miserably, but it was definitely the weakest of the trilogy and IMHO the weakest of his filmography. But agreed on the 3 points. And again, really really like Nolan.
Memento is still one f my all time favorites. And to see him make his one mediocre film be a Batman film bummed me the heck out...
A theme I'm seeing with TDKR apologists is "people conjured up what they wanted to see and that's why they were disappointed." I agree to an extent, but first and foremost the movie is the movie. People sat down and viewed what was presented. Me, like others, wanted to enjoy it. Indeed, I did not like the direction the movie went down. But it is up to the filmmakers to sell their direction convincingly. They failed to do so.
The main criticisms regarding TDKR are narrative based. It is hard for a filmmaker to sell a plot that doesn't fit. But they chose it. Way I see it, these are points that can be robustly argued and aren't in the quibble category. If I believe the narrative of the third film clashes with what was previously established, that's a legitimate complaint that can't be fobbed off.
I don't care how arrogant this sounds, but frankly yes, people on this board could have written TDKR better than what we received. How? Just by watching the previous two movies. For example the tonal shift of TDK's ending with Gordon saying Batman's a badass that can endure anything – and then picking up with Bruce as a bearded recluse. It felt off.
Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 04:34A theme I'm seeing with TDKR apologists is "people conjured up what they wanted to see and that's why they were disappointed."
Doesn't that go both ways? That the apologists are projecting things onto the film that simply aren't there? Most people didn't find this excuse convincing when it used to defend the Star Wars prequels (where it arguably has better application) so why would it work with Nolan? If anything, most fans had an agenda to accept whatever they were given. It's telling that a lot of his vocal supporters backed off from TDKRises (Harry Knowles, I'm looking pretty much right at you).
^ And that's very true. Good perspective. One of the reasons why I like posting here.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 04:34
I don't care how arrogant this sounds, but frankly yes, people on this board could have written TDKR better than what we received. How? Just by watching the previous two movies. For example the tonal shift of TDK's ending with Gordon saying Batman's a badass that can endure anything – and then picking up with Bruce as a bearded recluse. It felt off.
Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.
Couldn't agree more. Hell if the film where basically the same, but at first we see Bruce and battered because he's been battling crime and the cops for 8 years instead because he's sad he's retired it would've fixed a lot with me. That and giving me a logical explanation on how he got back from the pit with no funds...
Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 08:08Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.
Coming back to this.
The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies
WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.
Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.
Great post, I especially agree with
QuoteI've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 04:34
Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.
This happened a lot in the movie, and something I noticed on my first viewing. The biggest contradiction to the other movies that I noticed, was in TDK, Alfred tells Bruce there's been more copycat Batman sightings, and then he tells Alfred "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire", and then cut to then end of the TDKR, and Batman tells Gordon that "that's the point of Batman, anybody can be him". WTF?
^ Indeed. And I made this just now for fun, and to highlight a point:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F25kikic.jpg&hash=f7f23a14fcfd6ba568b4998a4a99ca3b300192bd)
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Thu, 14 Mar 2013, 18:14Great post, I especially agree with
QuoteI've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths)
Well, it's God's truth, isn't it? When I rant about the Nolan Nazis, the True Believers of the Church of Realism, I'm not referring to the rank and file batfan who just so happens to think Nolan got right more than he got wrong. It's about a certain nameless webmaster who shall not be named and his nameless minions without names (and their ilk) behaving as though Nolan either created this character or, for damn sure,
perfected him while burning anybody in effigy who has a different opinion a different opinion. Mankind is good at going to war over land, oil, economics or any number of other causes but a false conflict over who the best Batman director should be very near the bottom of the list, yes?
Nolan Nazis, LOL, this is catchy. I wonder if it falls under "Goodwin's Law".
It'll be interesting to see what these 'Nolan Nazis' do when the next batman film comes along; they don't seem to have the mentality to accept more than 1 version. Some are the 'newer is better' mentality and thus would likely abandon Nolan, perhaps some stay loyal to him.
And yes I agree as well that the 'trilogy' aspect was stupid and hypocritical; didn't Goyer say at one point that Burton had no business killing the Joker (something Nolanites went off on a tangent about until the dark knight and Dent was killed)... well Nolan Killed Batman more or less! That's breaking a golden rule in comics. I can understand killing the villains, there's plenty to go around so they don't need to be re used in films but killing the hero? And you can go on about how Wayne isn't really dead; he painted the series into a corner. It'll need some clever writing to be salvaged.
QuoteAnd yes I agree as well that the 'trilogy' aspect was stupid and hypocritical; didn't Goyer say at one point that Burton had no business killing the Joker (something Nolanites went off on a tangent about until the dark knight and Dent was killed)... well Nolan Killed Batman more or less!
The advantage of a 'trilogy' is that it mirrors the three act structure in classic narratives. Batman Begins is the introduction, laying the groundwork and familiarising the audience with the main protagonists. The Dark Knight is the middle act, the central period of conflict that irreversibly changes the protagonists' lives. The Dark Knight Rises is the resolution, the final act that wraps everything up and concludes the journey embarked upon in the first act. It's not perfect, but overall I think Nolan did a good job of coordinating his three films into a coherent structured series with a beginning, a middle and an end. No previous Batman filmmaker had the foresight to do that before now.
So Batman dying/retiring at the end of TDKR will have no detrimental impact upon the next film, because the next film will take place within a separate continuity. I think killing the Joker at the end of Batman 89
did have a negative impact on the sequels because it ruled out any possibility of Batman's greatest adversary making a return appearance. But again, that's down to Burton's structural approach to the franchise. He viewed each of his Batman films as standalone projects with little to no connections linking them.
Unfortunately that made it a lot easier for the series to get off track once Schumacher came onboard.
QuoteAnd you can go on about how Wayne isn't really dead; he painted the series into a corner. It'll need some clever writing to be salvaged.
I believe that was his intention. Nolan proprietarily capped off the trilogy to make it impossible – or at least extremely difficult – for anyone else to continue. In doing so, he's effectively safeguarded his work from being retroactively damaged (or, to coin a phrase, "Schumachered") by a less talented filmmaker.
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 24 Mar 2013, 14:53
It'll be interesting to see what these 'Nolan Nazis' do when the next batman film comes along; they don't seem to have the mentality to accept more than 1 version. Some are the 'newer is better' mentality and thus would likely abandon Nolan, perhaps some stay loyal to him.
And yes I agree as well that the 'trilogy' aspect was stupid and hypocritical; didn't Goyer say at one point that Burton had no business killing the Joker (something Nolanites went off on a tangent about until the dark knight and Dent was killed)... well Nolan Killed Batman more or less! That's breaking a golden rule in comics. I can understand killing the villains, there's plenty to go around so they don't need to be re used in films but killing the hero? And you can go on about how Wayne isn't really dead; he painted the series into a corner. It'll need some clever writing to be salvaged.
Into a corner? It's the conclusion of the series. Besides even if it wasn't it still isn't hard to bring him back.
Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 14 Mar 2013, 20:31
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 04:34
Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.
This happened a lot in the movie, and something I noticed on my first viewing. The biggest contradiction to the other movies that I noticed, was in TDK, Alfred tells Bruce there's been more copycat Batman sightings, and then he tells Alfred "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire", and then cut to then end of the TDKR, and Batman tells Gordon that "that's the point of Batman, anybody can be him". WTF?
He tells that to Blake. That also doesn't mean at all that he wants people to be Batman without the proper resources. It means, like he says in Batman Begins, that he wants to inspire the people to save their city, to show them that anyone is capable of being a hero in Gotham. Batman is symbolic of the idea of anyone being a hero.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 14 Mar 2013, 01:55
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 08:08Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.
Coming back to this.
The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.
Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.
He doesn't survive a nuclear explosion. He ejects before the Bat even flies over the bridge. Remember the explosion he sets off? That's him covering his ejection.
Quote from: ElCuervoMuerto on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 07:44
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 04:34
I don't care how arrogant this sounds, but frankly yes, people on this board could have written TDKR better than what we received. How? Just by watching the previous two movies. For example the tonal shift of TDK's ending with Gordon saying Batman's a badass that can endure anything – and then picking up with Bruce as a bearded recluse. It felt off.
Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.
Couldn't agree more. Hell if the film where basically the same, but at first we see Bruce and battered because he's been battling crime and the cops for 8 years instead because he's sad he's retired it would've fixed a lot with me. That and giving me a logical explanation on how he got back from the pit with no funds...
The same way he got around in Batman Begins without any funds.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 04:34I don't care how arrogant this sounds, but frankly yes, people on this board could have written TDKR better than what we received. How? Just by watching the previous two movies. For example the tonal shift of TDK's ending with Gordon saying Batman's a badass that can endure anything – and then picking up with Bruce as a bearded recluse. It felt off.
Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.
The hero with a face idea completely imploded, showcasing how wrong it was. Hence the changing of his tune in the next movie.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun 2015, 12:58
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 14 Mar 2013, 01:55
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 08:08Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.
Coming back to this.
The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.
Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.
He doesn't survive a nuclear explosion. He ejects before the Bat even flies over the bridge. Remember the explosion he sets off? That's him covering his ejection.
Think you might want to watch it again. He's clearly in the Bat as it sails over the bridge and into the sunset.
http://youtu.be/ohQY7kpOc50
It's obvious by the final scene in the restaurant that he is alive, but when he ejected....is a mystery (to quote Bane)
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 26 Jun 2015, 15:49
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun 2015, 12:58
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 14 Mar 2013, 01:55
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, 08:08Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.
Coming back to this.
The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.
Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.
He doesn't survive a nuclear explosion. He ejects before the Bat even flies over the bridge. Remember the explosion he sets off? That's him covering his ejection.
Think you might want to watch it again. He's clearly in the Bat as it sails over the bridge and into the sunset.
http://youtu.be/ohQY7kpOc50
It's obvious by the final scene in the restaurant that he is alive, but when he ejected....is a mystery (to quote Bane)
I actually don't see him in the Bat as he sails over the bridge.
However I do agree that the movie does make it more sketchy than I said.
He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 26 Jun 2015, 21:59
He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge
I didn't see the bridge in the background.
I'll say this:
I like the sequence where Batman connects the bomb, kisses Catwoman and effectively reveals his identity to Gordon. Probably one of the better moments in the franchise. However I didn't like the rest of Nolan's choices after that.
Arkham Knight's ending blows this out of the water for me in many aspects, but I won't explore any of those plot points yet out of courtesy.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun 2015, 22:04
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 26 Jun 2015, 21:59
He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge
I didn't see the bridge in the background.
Don't forget that Fox found out that Bruce fixed the Bat's auto-pilot. That alone tells us that he survived, otherwise why bother telling the audience if he didn't make it? Never mind the fact that Alfred saw Bruce and Selina at that restaurant.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 23:43
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun 2015, 22:04
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 26 Jun 2015, 21:59
He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge
I didn't see the bridge in the background.
Don't forget that Fox found out that Bruce fixed the Bat's auto-pilot. That alone tells us that he survived, otherwise why bother telling the audience if he didn't make it? Never mind the fact that Alfred saw Bruce and Selina at that restaurant.
I agree. He survived.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 01:20I'll say this:
I like the sequence where Batman connects the bomb, kisses Catwoman and effectively reveals his identity to Gordon. Probably one of the better moments in the franchise. However I didn't like the rest of Nolan's choices after that.
What makes that bit play for me is (A) the honesty Batman has in revealing his identity to Gordon and (B) I don't question his sincerity in that scene. I mean, on the rewatch you know Batman knew he was going to fake his death. But at the same time, that doesn't change much of anything for me in the scene inasmuch as he
would have sacrificed himself to save the city. The previous movies set that up rather nicely (and without a bunch of didactic exposition, which I appreciate) but arguably more than the BB and TDK, TDKRises shows that even though Gotham has nothing to offer Bruce, he still loves the city and would do anything (anything at all) to protect it. I think he'd view flying a nuclear freaking bomb out to sea so his city could live in exchange for his own life as a fair trade. He'd look for a way to save himself... but he'd sacrifice himself if he had to. There are some big emotional moments in that trilogy that Nolan flatout didn't earn. But you're totally right, he earned
that big moment.
The sequence preceding the moment in question is problematic for the Nolan crowd, (sending a missile barrage at Talia's truck) because it once again proves there are situations in which Batman must take lethal action to protect his city, ala B89. And Talia's death scene is just awful. But yes, that little section where Batman speaks to Gordon and flies off? Gold.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 03:48
The sequence preceding the moment in question is problematic for the Nolan crowd, (sending a missile barrage at Talia's truck) because it once again proves there are situations in which Batman must take lethal action to protect his city, ala B89. And Talia's death scene is just awful. But yes, that little section where Batman speaks to Gordon and flies off? Gold.
Why is it problematic? The guy didn't get killed on purpose. Batman wasn't trying to kill him.
He apparently wasn't trying to kill any people during the BB League of Shadows temple scene. He wanted to spare one life, but his actions resulted in the deaths of many. He didn't want to kill Harvey Dent in TDK, yet he did. He wanted to stop Talia's truck, yet his actions resulted in the death of her and the driver.
Yes, there is such a thing as collateral damage. However, again, it all just proves there are times when killing is simply unavoidable. The fact Bale's Batman is so big on 'no guns, no killing' just makes it all seem ridiculous and hypercritical.
Keaton's Batman has intent to kill and does.
Bale's Batman has intent to save and ends up killing anyway.
I wonder which one appears more incompetent?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 06:03
He apparently wasn't trying to kill any people during the BB League of Shadows temple scene. He wanted to spare one life, but his actions resulted in the deaths of many. He didn't want to kill Harvey Dent in TDK, yet he did. He wanted to stop Talia's truck, yet his actions resulted in the death of her and the driver.
Yes, there is such a thing as collateral damage. However, again, it all just proves there are times when killing is simply unavoidable. The fact Bale's Batman is so big on 'no guns, no killing' just makes it all seem ridiculous and hypercritical.
Keaton's Batman has intent to kill and does.
Bale's Batman has intent to save and ends up killing anyway.
I wonder which one appears more incompetent?
Whichever person isn't trying to be a murderer.
I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.
Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.
You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 09:12
I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.
Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.
You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.
I would add that Keaton remarks how 'Batman' saved the city from property damage in Returns, something Bale clearly had no interest in. Baleman destroyed quite a bit of police property, Keaton clearly made an attempt to minimize collateral damage
To be fair to Bale's Batman in TDKRises, (A) how much worse could the city get by that point and (B) yeah, a nuclear explosion could probably mess things up even more... which was the very thing Batman was trying like hell to prevent from happening.
Maybe my standards are too low but the ends sometimes do have to justify the means.
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 22:21I would add that Keaton remarks how 'Batman' saved the city from property damage in Returns, something Bale clearly had no interest in. Baleman destroyed quite a bit of police property, Keaton clearly made an attempt to minimize collateral damage
Who cares about property damage (like John McClane says in Die Hard "who gives a damn about glass?")? Keaton's Batman let a lovely young woman fall to her death and just stood there like a dummy! >:( All the preservation of property in the world doesn't make up for that failure.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 23:48Keaton's Batman let a lovely young woman fall to her death and just stood there like a dummy! >:( All the preservation of property in the world doesn't make up for that failure.
Um, that was a plot point of the movie. Batman couldn't save her. That's the premise of the scene. Literally nothing comes from the collateral damage in the Nolan movies.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 09:12
I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.
Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.
You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.
Being a murderer will always be more incompetent than not being one.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 4 Aug 2015, 02:38
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 23:48Keaton's Batman let a lovely young woman fall to her death and just stood there like a dummy! >:( All the preservation of property in the world doesn't make up for that failure.
Um, that was a plot point of the movie. Batman couldn't save her. That's the premise of the scene. Literally nothing comes from the collateral damage in the Nolan movies.
He couldn't save her? He barely tried to. He also shows no amount of caring about it.
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 22:21
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 09:12
I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.
Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.
You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.
I would add that Keaton remarks how 'Batman' saved the city from property damage in Returns, something Bale clearly had no interest in. Baleman destroyed quite a bit of police property, Keaton clearly made an attempt to minimize collateral damage
Property damage doesn't matter.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 3 Aug 2015, 23:48
Who cares about property damage (like John McClane says in Die Hard "who gives a damn about glass?")?
We're not talking about "damn glass". We're talking about Batman recklessly crushing cars and property
that endangers innocent people. Bloody hell, he was extremely lucky he didn't manage to kill those cops during that chase scene in BB. I think this does matter, especially if Batman wanted to become an "incorruptible symbol" yet he doesn't give a damn about people's safety. The very same people he's supposed to be protecting. ::)
And yeah, I'll agree that Batman could've at least
tried to save the Ice Princess if he wasn't so taken surprised in the heat of the moment. But you know what? I find it's more reprehensible that Batman justified his decision to kill Talia's father to "save millions of innocent people", but allowed the more destructive Joker to murder so many for no reason, other than because the writers wanted a contrived moral dilemma. That to me is the biggest disgrace of them all. And what's even worse, people ate that up. >:(
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 4 Aug 2015, 02:48
Being a murderer will always be more incompetent than not being one.
So in that case, Bale is just as bad as Keaton since he effectively killed off a defenseless Ra's and justified doing so to his daughter.
And don't give me that rubbish that 'he didn't kill Ra's" or "it's not murder". You acknowledged before that Batman did break his moral code, and his code was not killing. Therefore, Bale's Batman is a murderer too. Saying otherwise only defies common sense.
In my opinion, I find it's more disturbing that Batman doesn't react or feel guilty over the deaths of the people he ended up killing in the temple, Two-Face or Talia, if he really didn't intend to harm them. Where's his conscience?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 4 Aug 2015, 09:37So in that case, Bale is just as bad as Keaton since he effectively killed off a defenseless Ra's and justified doing so to his daughter.
And don't give me that rubbish that 'he didn't kill Ra's" or "it's not murder". You acknowledged before that Batman did break his moral code, and his code was not killing. Therefore, Bale's Batman is a murderer too. Saying otherwise only defies common sense.
In my opinion, I find it's more disturbing that Batman doesn't react or feel guilty over the deaths of the people he ended up killing in the temple, Two-Face or Talia, if he really didn't intend to harm them. Where's his conscience?
Doing the right thing isn't about feeling bad if you do the wrong thing. It's about the right thing. But Keaton's shows just as much remorse. He actually smiles. That's disturbing. But I disagree that the characters didn't feel guilt.
I didn't acknowledge that. I said that he kinda broke his rule in that instance. I didn't say that he did break is rule in that instance.
He didn't murder.
I googled murder. This was one of the things that came up:
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
That is not what Batman did. By this definition, he never did that.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 4 Aug 2015, 09:37And yeah, I'll agree that Batman could've at least tried to save the Ice Princess if he wasn't so taken surprised in the heat of the moment.
But he's Batman. He's supposed to be prepared for the unexpected. Why didn't he rush forward to grab her when the bats came flocking at her? :(
And bearing in mind how far the film goes to demonstrate how dumb the Ice Princess is, the filmmakers could easily have kept her alive, after being saved by Batman, but still wrongfully accuse him of her kidnap. After all, anyone who is dumb enough to think that they press a tree-lighting button after the tree lights up, that a Batarang is a camera and that the Penguin is a talent scout, would be dumb enough to believe that Batman kidnapped them.
With this scenario, Batman still gets to be heroic whilst maintaining the plotline concerning him being framed.
I think the Batman universe is always going to be littered with expectations it can never fulfill. I think no matter who is directing a Batman film, that treatment will always have a limited life span. So much is expected from this franchise and sometimes the public doesn't even know what it wants. But they certainly let you know if you guess wrong in that assessment.
How many times have we've seen a new super-hero franchise take off with exceptional wit and style (coupled to a seemingly endless array of story possibilities) come crashing to earth with the first or second sequel? SO MUCH is made of these films when they do well. And when they find their audience, people drown themselves in overkill. They see the movie six times, buy the t-shirts, play the video game, fight over the toys, get the soundtrack, purchase the $300 deluxe figures from Hot Toys, and finally get the movie on DVD/Blu ray watching it in excess while they debate the finer points on forums. Did I miss anything? Probably quite a bit which is scary. All this for ONE movie. This is why these types of movies don't hang around forever. The public exhausts themselves on them.
The worst part is once the studios get done with the business of celebrating and selling product for the film, which is really the chief reason why these films exist, then you have to contend with the critical mass which is saturated with opinions that are all destined to find disappointment at some point. Fans who watch these movies over and over often make themselves victims of their own obsession.
How many times have we heard the criticism that the latest installment was too much like the previous one? Or when the public loved the effects in the first film, but complained there were too many in the next? The best one is when people complain about too much story when the previous installment was disliked for not having enough. That's the heaven and hell world of franchises. Fans bore themselves by watching these movies too much, but then want a similar experience on the next installment so they can OD on that too. For those reasons, I think a trilogy is the most practical and realistic expectation for any one treatment. Fans are simply unforgiving if there is one miscue in that series, and history has shown they make it far too personal when those miscues occur.
If you look at the history of Batman as a licensed hero for film and movies, the treatments are all successful but wildly contradict themselves at every turn because audiences quickly grow tired of what they claim to "want". The Batman '66 series was so popular it's often mentioned as one of the big three iconic "B's" from the 60's - The Beatles, Bond, and Batman. Yet in less than three years time, the series was quickly reviled and the cast mostly type cast for decades.
When Burton released his iteration of Batman in 1989, he first had to weather the pre-production pressure of fans trying to boycott the project along with a nationwide petition to have him removed for bringing in Keaton for the Batman/Bruce Wayne character. People feared it would touch on the campiness of the '66 television show because of Keaton's association with big hit comedies. When the film was released, the collective base took a deep breath and was relieved...then rejoiced at Burton and Keaton's "brilliance". But with Batman Returns, audiences became "concerned" with the dark and edgy mood so many had demanded be an indelible part of the character's world. Enter Schumacher.
I think one of the underlying reasons why I enjoy the Schumacher films so much is because it forces a segment of diehard fans to face their hero for what he is...pure fantasy. With Batman Forever, Schumacher quickly dipped into the '66 box of ideas and showed the public a snippet of what was "possible". Note this was something the studios had religiously kept from in the first two treatments. Fans and critics rejoiced at the relaxed tone and praised Schumacher for bringing more color and fun to the concept. Many felt he had SAVED the franchise. But with Batman & Robin, Schumacher was relegated to super-hero purgatory for giving the public too much of what he and the studios thought they wanted. Warner Bros gave the franchise a rest while diehards sought professional help. Enter Nolan eight years later...
The Nolan trilogy is without question the most financially successful franchise in Batman's history. The director conceptualized the character while trying to adhere closely to the themes and grittiness of the comics. The public rewarded the franchise with nearly $2.5 billion in worldwide ticket receipts alone. Add in the merchandise and aftermarket DVD/Blu-ray revenue and there's no mistaking what the public was hungry for. But after even all that, fans are beginning to divide over that treatment and so the pendulum is beginning to move again on preference.
The studios are now trying to build a Justice League franchise by teaming up Superman and Batman. Snyder has been brought on board to direct and the "dark and brooding" Batman appears to be in full swing. Studios believe they "know" what the public "wants". So here we are...once again. The public has lapped up a particular treatment for an extended period of time. Warner Bros. is banking the public still wants that, so they are gambling high. The love-hate cycle perpetuates itself in the Batman franchise. So what DO the fans want? I don't think there will ever be an easy answer for that. Because once you think you've got it figured out, that's when the rug gets pulled out from under you. Ask Warner Bros and the directors who have experienced being embraced and reviled for trying to bring this character to life. Why is Batman limited to a trilogy? Well...honestly he only made it there once. Burton did two and Schumacher did two. Yes, we can argue it was on the same story continuum, but when you ask the fans, they tend to break them apart by preference. So the short answer to that question is, it's the fans and general public.
People like Batman in small doses. And when they like the treatment, they celebrate him for all it's worth. But like anything, they suffer from fatigue in celebrating and take a break, often expecting a change up when they get hungry again. That's the eternal riddle of Batman... You never know whose going to be onboard for the next ride.
For me, Nolan's films felt just like a small part of Batman, and with plenty of misses and some hits.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 9 Nov 2015, 15:09But with Batman Returns, audiences became "concerned" with the dark and edgy mood so many had demanded be an indelible part of the character's world.
The more time goes by, the more I think that popular narrative is an absolute crock. I don't remember parent groups having some sort of huge outcry against the movie or any such revisionist nonsense. The general consensus I recall from the time was a sentiment along the lines of "It's good but nothing will be as good as the original".
Critics adored the crap out of Batman Returns and it came out in a time when sequels were not expected to do remotely similar business to their predecessor(s).
Frankly I think the real outrage against the movie that WB had was they understood that Batman was a merchandising gold mine waiting to happen but even B89 didn't explore the merch factor as deeply as it probably could've. My firm belief is they invented some cock and bull story about people have tantrums over the film's darkness and that's become part of fanboy dogma on the subject. Frankly
NOTHING in Burton's movies is as dark as some of the stuff Nolan did. But those movies did crazy business so nobody is likely to complain about it at WB.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 10 Nov 2015, 14:43
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 9 Nov 2015, 15:09But with Batman Returns, audiences became "concerned" with the dark and edgy mood so many had demanded be an indelible part of the character's world.
The more time goes by, the more I think that popular narrative is an absolute crock. I don't remember parent groups having some sort of huge outcry against the movie or any such revisionist nonsense. The general consensus I recall from the time was a sentiment along the lines of "It's good but nothing will be as good as the original".
Critics adored the crap out of Batman Returns and it came out in a time when sequels were not expected to do remotely similar business to their predecessor(s).
Frankly I think the real outrage against the movie that WB had was they understood that Batman was a merchandising gold mine waiting to happen but even B89 didn't explore the merch factor as deeply as it probably could've. My firm belief is they invented some cock and bull story about people have tantrums over the film's darkness and that's become part of fanboy dogma on the subject. Frankly NOTHING in Burton's movies is as dark as some of the stuff Nolan did. But those movies did crazy business so nobody is likely to complain about it at WB.
I was finishing up college when this movie came out and was an avid fan of the Batman movies. Rest assured the movie was not the 'darling of critics' like Rotten Tomatoes makes it out to be today. Those critic and "audience" scores are updated annually to fit with current opinions, so the revisionist aspect resides solely on the internet. And I would dare guess the 'audience score' are from kids who were likely not even born when that movie came out. All you have to do is log in and grade it, so you know that's not accurate.
That being said, no one is suggesting the movie was a total bust either. I think there's too much of a knee jerk reaction to those comments, because some want to covet this film a little closer than others. And that's fine to love the movies you like. I don't believe anyone is suggesting differently here. But Batman Returns enjoyed a bigger opening weekend than the original, yet quickly fell off the pace and finished nearly $100 million short of it's predecessor. And lets make one important distinction here. Batman was a big movie for it's day in 1989, but it was not a box office phenomenon like Jaws. So it's not like Batman Returns couldn't compete with the receipts of what Batman did. And while many sequels routinely see a decline in box office returns, a nearly $100 million decline(domestically alone) was a significant drop especially after being the first sequel to an aspiring franchise. So Warner Bros had every reason to believe they were going the wrong direction.
One can also point to the comments of Schumacher who made it crystal clear that he had to campaign to get Batman Forever made because the industry considered the franchise DOA. So this movie may have found more appreciation over time, but history definitely shows it was an artistic miscue that took the air out of the franchise balloon very quickly in 1992. The studio went a different direction and Forever made $70 million more worldwide, so clearly the new treatment brought audiences back and restored confidence in the franchise.
But ultimately I don't want any of that to derail our topic. Returns is a fine film. I'm pleased it has appreciated over the ensuing decades and I'm glad today's generation embraces it well. I'm not here to stand in opposition of that. But from an historical context, Returns demonstrated that audiences can walk away from a newly celebrated franchise very quickly if not all the right notes are hit. The studio made changes that brought allot of people back. But one film later, they were back out of the game. My point is audiences for Batman are very fickle. Studios are always having to anticipate and even with the advent of the internet, it's still difficult to gauge excitement from several forums (or conventions) as a referendum for how a new treatment will sell to the general public.
QuoteFrankly NOTHING in Burton's movies is as dark as some of the stuff Nolan did.
I disagree. Nolan's films may have had lots of moments of darkness, but the violence in the Burton's films is more graphic e.g. Catwoman viciously clawing a rapist in the face, Joker laughing as he electrocutes someone to death and mocks their burnt corpse, a bloodied Batman and Joker fight in the cathedral, and so on. People get down and dirty in the Burton films, whereas the violence gets toned down under Nolan and everything looks too clean, i.e cutting out a shot of Lau being burnt alive by the Joker. Only Two-Face's disfigurement was graphic.
But even if we're not talking about violence, the themes in Burton's stuff is pretty grim, e.g. Selina's mental breakdown and Penguin's plot to murder first born babies. But having said that, it's odd that people get horrified by the Penguin's plot, but nobody seemed to noticed that Talia was rescued by Bane when she was likely to get raped and murdered by other prisoners when she was a child.