Messages

and you're okay with Nolan turning the 'worlds greatest detective' stupid because it gives him a flaw?

I can and do accept many versions of Batman, including the ones that make bad decisions, have bat credit cards and have purposefully killed people.

Touching on a few points here;

FIGHT SCENES: this was by far BB's biggest flaw. The fight scenes were amateur. Nolan did show marginal improvement in the sequels but part of the appeal to superheroes is seeing them beat up bad guys.  To be honest I think this was arrogance on Nolans part. He knew he wasn't experienced in action, he should have hired a second unit.

HUNGER FROM NOLAN: One thing which Nolan prides himself on and his fanboys use as fodder is that he does not use a second unit or delete scenes. TDKR had BRUTAL editing with far too many scenes dragging on too long. I have a feeling not much effort was spent on post production. BB didn't have that problem. TDK there were scenes which should were cut too short; for instance the Joker's assault on the pent house ends with Batman saving Rachel yet the joker and the goons were still in the penthouse. Likewise the scene of Maroni watching Batman fight thugs in the club came out of nowhere and ended just as randomly (I also hated that he did that. Batman ran from the law the entire trilogy so shouldnt have gone in such a populated area with trained security bouncers. It was just as stupid as him returning to draw the cops off Bane in the 3rd film.

The idea of that was that he was angry about what he thought had happened to Gordon.

That was the point in TDKR too. It wasn't smart. He was making a sideshow of himself.

Well then if Nolan's point was to say that Bruce Wayne is stupid (which I agree he was in that series hence why he bankrupted Wayne Enterprises), that further emphasizes how Nolan truly didn't get the character he was working with.

It likely shows that he's a flawed character.

Touching on a few points here;

FIGHT SCENES: this was by far BB's biggest flaw. The fight scenes were amateur. Nolan did show marginal improvement in the sequels but part of the appeal to superheroes is seeing them beat up bad guys.  To be honest I think this was arrogance on Nolans part. He knew he wasn't experienced in action, he should have hired a second unit.

HUNGER FROM NOLAN: One thing which Nolan prides himself on and his fanboys use as fodder is that he does not use a second unit or delete scenes. TDKR had BRUTAL editing with far too many scenes dragging on too long. I have a feeling not much effort was spent on post production. BB didn't have that problem. TDK there were scenes which should were cut too short; for instance the Joker's assault on the pent house ends with Batman saving Rachel yet the joker and the goons were still in the penthouse. Likewise the scene of Maroni watching Batman fight thugs in the club came out of nowhere and ended just as randomly (I also hated that he did that. Batman ran from the law the entire trilogy so shouldnt have gone in such a populated area with trained security bouncers. It was just as stupid as him returning to draw the cops off Bane in the 3rd film.

The idea of that was that he was angry about what he thought had happened to Gordon.

That was the point in TDKR too. It wasn't smart. He was making a sideshow of himself.

Gordon knows. Alfred knows. Selina knows. Blake has likely figured it out.

Lucius Fox, too.

Yeah. He slipped my mind. Thank you.

[retired from personally fighting crime forever.]

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

This debate about killing with intent has got me thinking about the very first episode of Batman Beyond. In the beginning, we see an aging Batman suddenly suffering a heart attack while in combat, and he's forced to use a gun to defend himself from a crook. Batman didn't even fire the gun and only scared the crook away, but he was so ashamed that he had to resort to using the same weapon that murdered his parents and retired from personally fighting crime forever. Why? Because Batman had a "no-gun" rule. According to him, it didn't matter if he had no choice and his own life was at stake. He armed himself with a weapon he promised to never use, and felt extremely guilty for it. He couldn't forgive himself, and declared "Never Again!" as he closed the Batcave down, and wouldn't go back down there until he met Terry McGinnis decades later.

Now the Nolan trilogy fans might ask: what's your point? My point is that there must be consequences to breaking your own promises. And from a narrative point of view, there must be consequences for Batman breaking his rules if you make his moral code an important plot point. Bruce Wayne in the DC Animated Universe made a vow to never use guns no matter the circumstances. And the consequences of breaking that vow - regardless whether he wanted to or not - led him to giving up being a crimefighter. As BatmAngelus said earlier on: what's the point of having a rule if there aren't any consequences? If breaking your own rule doesn't really affect you, then yes, it does negate the rule and its importance.

It doesn't. Because rules aren't there to follow because of consequences or guilt or shame. It's for you to know what's right and follow them. Bruce set forth a rule because he knew it was right. It wasn't about consequences. But I'm sure Bruce did feel guilt for killing Harvey inadvertently.

It doesn't negate his rule. Having a moral stance, doesn't mean it's something that you end up doing inadvertently.

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

But the character isn't the one doing that.

And that's the problem. The filmmakers can claim to have all the best intentions in the world, but it counts for nothing if their ideas are not executed properly on screen.

With the exception of Blake, not once do any of the main characters in these movies ever learn from their mistakes (let alone even admitting they were wrong), and the messages they preach do get undermined. Alfred says the truth should have its day when he finally confesses to Bruce about Rachel, but then the film ends with Bruce faking his death to run away with another woman. Great, more unnecessary lies! The fact that Bruce doesn't even reconcile with Alfred except for that stupid wink in the end doesn't help matters either.

That's not a lie. Everyone still discovers the truth about Bruce. Gordon knows. Alfred knows. Selina knows. Blake has likely figured it out.

Blake dismisses Gordon's justification for covering up Dent's crimes, but after quitting the police force in disgust in the end, he changes his mind and sympathizes with Gordon's decision, even agreeing that he was right about the system being flawed. So telling a damaging lie that only causes more problems in the long run is actually okay after all?

He doesn't say that. He says that he was right about the structures becoming shackles. He doesn't say that the lie was right.

Of course let's not forget: Bruce was hoping that Batman's symbolism can inspire Gotham to the point he's not needed anymore...and yet, this film's ending heavily implies Blake will become the next Batman.

Him trying to get that blew up in his face.

Although Blake is the only one I came close to caring about, I just don't care for any of the other characters. I'd be much kinder to this trilogy if the filmmakers had cut down on the convoluted writing and consistently explore these purported themes instead. Otherwise, the whole thing feels like lip service and a waste of time. Just because a story is convoluted doesn't mean it's philosophically deep, intelligent or complex.

The themes were explored. You didn't seem pay attention.

[think]

Well, calling the action scenes in BB "innovative" is putting it way too nicely for my liking.  I thought other than the sword battle between Bruce and the fake Ra's while the temple was burning down, the fight scenes were a complete  disaster. Without a doubt, the most poorly directed that I've ever seen in a big budget Hollywood blockbuster.

True but this was all mostly new stuff for a Batman film. Nolan expanded the visual language of Batman cinema. Good or bad, he brought new and more modern ideas to the table.

Now I know I've criticised the action in the sequels for not being very well choreographed, but at least you can tell who is getting hit by whom.

In fairness, what I think Nolan was going for in BB was a sort of visual collage where we "feel" the impact of the punches and whatnot... without necessarily getting a literal beginning, middle and end-style presentation of the fights. We're free to debate how well he accomplished the task and how good an idea that really was anyway but I can't help thinking that's what he was aiming for.

And apparently part of that was logistics. The Batman costume kept falling apart during those action scenes so Nolan decided to cut around the action rather than graphically show it.

From what I understand, we were supposed to watch the murky fight scenes as if we could see from the crooks' point of view as they have no idea what hit them, and neither should we. Be though as it may, that's still no excuse for how incoherent and incompetent the action turned out. I might have accepted that effect if it was used only once during Batman's first appearance at the docks, but not for every single action scene involving him. It undermines the whole premise that he's a martial artist, and makes every battle extremely underwhelming and anticlimactic, i.e. the League and Ra's. When I watch an action movie, I want to tell what's going on. Relying on sound effects as a gimmick isn't going to cut it.

That's the first time I've heard about the suit falling apart. It's puzzling because the Batsuits in the Burton/Schumacher series only had  movement issues, and yet, the fight scenes in those films were far better executed than anything in this trilogy. The short alley fight between Batman and the Joker's ninja swordsman alone is better than what we saw here. Nolan really should've hired a second unit director for this sort of expertise.

I'm not arguing that the movie is the greatest thing to ever happen to Batman. You all know me better than that. But (A) it's a lot more fun than the sequels and (B) it was new and powerful vision of Batman at a time when he really needed it. It's nowhere remotely close to definitive for me (and I'm starting to think "definitive" is an impossible thing for Batman in any medium to ever reach) but it hasn't aged as terribly as I originally expected. It's hardly timeless but I suspect TDKRises and especially TDK will be a lot harder to watch in the coming years.

In terms of fun: eye of the beholder I suppose. I reckon Tom Hardy's Bane with his pompous demeanor and laughable story in TDKR is more watchable than constantly being explained why Bruce needs to overcome his fear of bats from beginning to end. But having said that, I kinda agree with you in hindsight that the BB's story is better than the sequels. It's just that I also think BB is the most poorly directed out of all three.

In terms of doing something "new"? In my opinion, these films benefit from the enormous backlash surrounding Joel Schumacher. I really do believe that people's expectations in the franchise got so incredibly low following Batman & Robin that it got to the point that nearly everybody was desperate to embrace a new movie that took itself more seriously, and willingly ignore the most obvious flaws. Batman being arguably the most popular superhero in pop culture for decades is another factor to consider. Whereas for instance, and as much as it annoys me to say it, Superman seems to be looked down upon in comparison, and the films and comics in that franchise tends to be scrutinized a lot more. And in some cases, they get unfairly criticised for faults that some Batman media are just as guilty for having.

It's shame really. The Schumacher films definitely have their own faults, but unlike the Nolan films, I thought BF and B&R have some admirable plot points. It's too bad those positives get overlooked. It makes me wonder if the overacting was toned down a bit, the humour was better written and if the films had no erotic costumes, would they have gotten a much better reception? Because there are great movies hidden within those two. In my opinion anyway.

I like both Schumacher and Nolan's films.

Of all the Nolan Batman movies I find TDKR to be the hardest to rewatch. My biggest problem is that Batman is hardly in it. Seriously people like to complane about Batman's screen time in Batman Returns, but he has even less screen time in this movie. After Bane breaks his back and he's sent to the pit their's about a good 20 minutes where we don't even see him. Nolan seemed way more interested in Blake then Bruce.

It doesn't change what the story is about.

It is interesting how we're reduced to arguing over intent and squabbling over degrees. The very fact of that concedes the point.

Batman kills in the Nolan films in spite of taking moral stands against doing so.

It doesn't negate his rule. Having a moral stance, doesn't mean it's something that you end up doing inadvertently.