Worst cheesy moment

[The Dark Knight]

He must have had a suit in the panic room. That is the only logical explanation.

[thecolorsblend]

He must have had a suit in the panic room. That is the only logical explanation.

True, I would agree with that but I like that Nolan left it unexplained.  (A) We can kinda figure what he's doing and (B) Batman should be mysterious.  I don't think it's good to tip his hand on every single trick he has up his sleeve.

Sometimes, any amount of explanation only complicates that which should be inherently simple.  Bruce did it because he's Batman and Batman can do anything.  Anything more isn't necessary.

[Gotham Knight]

He must have had a suit in the panic room. That is the only logical explanation.

That wasn't the issue I had...it was doing in front of these people...minutes later batman shows up. connecting the dots is inevitable.

[batass4880]

One moment from BB that I thought was kind of lame was the shot of Bruce coloring his suit black. It's like, "I've always wondered how he did that!"

[Joker81]

He must have had a suit in the panic room. That is the only logical explanation.

MMMMMMM, I dont think it was a panic room.... it was a secret door to the new batcave.

[The Dark Knight]

I've got a mammoth spray here. It's been going around my head for a few hours, so I'm just going to let it out somewhere. Here will do.

So far both of the Nolan films have been tediously boring.

Give me the Burton films any day. They didn't need a two hour film to explain who Batman is. Sure, Burton covers the villains more deeply, but characters such as the Joker are much more interesting and complex characters.

Batman is simple. He's an ansgty man boy who plays dress up because his parents died. I mean, we know what Batman is all about. We want to see him respond to different types of situations.

You could say why even bother having Batman in the title if it?s not about him, but the villains are always the more prominent characters in most Batman stories. Without a decent and complex set of villains, the hero is worthless.

Burton respects Batman's privacy. Less is more for him. Batman should be as short and minimal as possible. He should try and remain hidden.

Burton's movies feel more like comics, they allow for things to be over the top and impossible. Nolan's movies play everything straight so things that don't seem real, just feel wrong and with so much explained, everything that isn't explained just feels more like a plot hole than a mystery.

Burton's world allows for all of the events of his stories to happen and I think things seem more out of place in Nolan's world.

Source material is what it is; the movies are completely different interpretations of it. I'm not saying Burton's world is complete comic fantasy (that would be Schumacher's god awful take), but it's very shrouded in mystery and I do think it has an overall tone that accepts the impossible, whereas I think Nolan's world does so much explaining, that everything left to imagination seems more out of place.

I don't mean it's a huge detractor or anything, it's somewhat of a backhanded compliment, actually. It's like so much work has been done for things to feel real and possible, that when something doesn't fit and isn't explained it stands out more.

The most unreal aspect of Nolan's films is the fact that every character stops and has a gigantic monologue about what is going on. It's a visual medium. Clearly Nolan has never heard the old saying... "Show, don't tell." But every scene we get people having these lengthy speeches. Every aspect of their Batman is dragged out and explored. He's not mysterious at all in the new films, and that just makes him dull. Alfred having a long-winded pointless speech for every situation is tedious as well.

In Nolan?s films, it seems like the entire movie is made of several plot points and merely moves from point to point instead of getting a flow, without regard to the characters. They don't dictate the story; the story tells the characters what to do. It's getting bothersome after repeated viewings.

[thecolorsblend]

So far both of the Nolan films have been tediously boring.

I believe you know my views concerning the Nolan franchise (suffice it to say, I'm Burton's man through and through).  Therefore, while this assessment applies to BB, I do find TDK to be a genuinely entertaining film.  It has many of the weaknesses BB had (goofy one liners, sight gags, etc) but in large part it's a massive improvement over the original.

Burton respects Batman's privacy. Less is more for him. Batman should be as short and minimal as possible. He should try and remain hidden.

Again, I agree with that in many ways but I do think Burton could've included him a bit more in at least BR than he did.  I still think BR is the best Batman movie up to this point but nothing's perfect and this is one thing that genuinely could've been improved a little bit.

The most unreal aspect of Nolan's films is the fact that every character stops and has a gigantic monologue about what is going on. It's a visual medium. Clearly Nolan has never heard the old saying... "Show, don't tell." But every scene we get people having these lengthy speeches. Every aspect of their Batman is dragged out and explored. He's not mysterious at all in the new films, and that just makes him dull. Alfred having a long-winded pointless speech for every situation is tedious as well.

One gripe I had about BB was the senseless flashback to Thomas and young Bruce playing with the stethoscope when adult Bruce sifted through the Wayne Manor rubble.  It simply wasn't necessary.

That said, Nolan is a very different kind of filmmaker from Burton.  For better or for worse, Nolan is the filmmaker who likes putting the movie in the text (ie, dialogue) while Burton relies more on visuals.  Both are legitimate approaches to filmmaking.  I prefer the Burton school myself as you can really go as far as you want in interpretation and so forth whereas with Chris Nolan, well, you've got what's on the printed page and that's basically it.

Separate from all that, I've always seen flaws in Nolan's vision of realism.  Aside from cutting off a metric crapton of potential villains (Poison Ivy, Clayface, Bane, Hugo Strange and his monsters, Mr. Freeze, etc) you start running into problems with the other highly stylized elements of Batman's world.  I could possibly believe that some lunatic really is dressing up in a costume and beating up bad guys; I cannot believe he's capable of dodging that many bullets each night.  Also, some of the tech used in TDK either doesn't exist outright or else doesn't work in the way it's used in that movie.  Neither of those things are problems in a fantasy'ish Burton world (ie, a directional batarang) but it's a tough sell in a universe meant to resemble our own.

[The Dark Knight]

I do think Burton could've included him a bit more in at least BR than he did.  I still think BR is the best Batman movie up to this point but nothing's perfect and this is one thing that genuinely could've been improved a little bit.

That's fine. Myself, I think Batman is in the film for the perfect ammount of time. Aside from manufacturing new scenes, where would you place him in the scenes already present in the film?

[thecolorsblend]

That's fine. Myself, I think Batman is in the film for the perfect ammount of time. Aside from manufacturing new scenes, where would you place him in the scenes already present in the film?

For the scenes we've already got, the only suggestion I would make would be to throw Bruce into the meeting between Shreck and the Gotham City government officials at the beginning.  A guy like Bruce would naturally want to deal with Shreck one on one (a sentiment Burton clearly agrees with) but I think some juice could've been gotten out of it.  It would somewhat strengthen Batman saving Selina just a few minutes later.  Plus, there's an idea you could run with there.  Bruce simply doesn't find pre-accident Selina interesting (Bruce mostly ignores her during the meeting and Batman throws her only a perfunctory save).  It's only after her accident (y'know, damaged goods) that Bruce is intoxicated by her.

[The Dark Knight]

For the scenes we've already got, the only suggestion I would make would be to throw Bruce into the meeting between Shreck and the Gotham City government officials at the beginning.  A guy like Bruce would naturally want to deal with Shreck one on one (a sentiment Burton clearly agrees with) but I think some juice could've been gotten out of it.  It would somewhat strengthen Batman saving Selina just a few minutes later.  Plus, there's an idea you could run with there.  Bruce simply doesn't find pre-accident Selina interesting (Bruce mostly ignores her during the meeting and Batman throws her only a perfunctory save).  It's only after her accident (y'know, damaged goods) that Bruce is intoxicated by her.

That wouldn't be possible as the film is.

Bruce is back home brooding in pitch black darkness waiting for his call to action. You'd be putting Bruce in a scene and removing quite a lengthy Batmobile/Batman scene in the process. Given the time frame of the scene, I just wouldn't buy Bruce getting back to his dark room in that short space of time.

But with slight alterations made, sure. Good idea.