Personally I thoroughly enjoyed TDKR and I recently real is ed that I have been watching it more than BB or TDK. I find myself quoting Bane a bit more than Ledger's Joker, although the character of the Joker is my favorite villain.
I think it's about how the story escalates from TDK, it really is Bruce's story and the x rippling of Gotham. Great performances, action, scale and scope really has me coming back.
It ranks reasonably high on my rewatchability scale.
Personally, I still place The Dark Knight on top for rewatchability due to pacing. A tough feat with such a long movie, but The Dark Knight carried the audience all the way through. Now, Dark Knight Rises may have even exceeded it in action sequences, but off the top of my head, I can recall a few prolonged sequences that made you feel the runtime. The beginning and after Bane breaks Batman, for instance.
As someone who is really not a fan of Nolan's Batman, I find myself enjoying TDKR better out of the whole three - as long as I treat it as a comedy. And it is a comedy. For example, Talia goes through a plan to get her revenge over Bruce...which includes going to bed with him, and putting him in an underground prison that could be easily escaped from while she sits by in the background together with Batman's allies who are sabotaging her whole plot to destroy Gotham? ;D ;D ;D
I don't think any of these films are very well paced, especially between the second and third acts in the second film, and yes, I'll admit that the third takes a long time to watch for me. But at least the third had a comical goofy performance delivered by Tom Hardy as Bane (I suppose if you've got an unfunny Joker, you might as well go for a funny Bane), a likable performance by Anne Hathaway and I thought Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the only character in the movie worth giving a damn about.
I can watch BB any time. I like that movie a lot, even though there are some dialogue issues littered throughout it. TDK I can watch, but I'm almost always in a bummed out mood by the end of it, so I rarely watch it. With TDKR, I have no intentions of ever watching it again. I may look at some clips here and there, but I think it's a terrible movie, with little to no redeeming qualities to it, at all. It's still the only Batman movie that I've never bought, and I never plan to, either.
I can watch BB from start to finish but I don't like it nearly as much as the Burton films. I've watched TDK a few times since it came out but it's not one I like to watch often because it feels incomplete and it is flawed. I've only seen TDKR once and I might want to see it again sometime. I wasn't really impressed the first time though.
Believe me, I want to like TDK Rises.
But I just can't get on board with it, and I've felt that way since my first screening. I saw the movie again a few days later in 2012 and tried to convince myself it wasn't as bad as I first thought. But that didn't work.
I don't like the narrative structure. Bruce is retired, then he comes back to crimefighting. He's defeated by Bane, and comes back to Gotham - in a way we're never shown. He then fakes his death and retires again.
I actually think the first half of the movie is okay. I'm talking about the segments up to Bane breaking Batman's back - which is later magically fixed in the underground prison with a punch. But the second half of the movie is particularly droning. There's zero sense of fun or rewatch value. It's just Bane making speeches.
I hate how they built up and up the threat level of Bane's occupation only for the final battle to be severely underwhelming and not worthy of the lengthy screen time they devoted to the situation earlier.
Having Bruce stuck in the prison for so long was a stupid plot decision on Nolan's part. Bale was underused and could have done so much more in his final outing.
I'd say with confidence that TDK Rises is the least watchable Batman product in existence.
TDKRises is the one where Nolan bought into his own hype. Several parts of it are just way too self-indulgent. I speak of the bloated second act, where Gotham falls to Bane's Occupy group.
But the first act is pretty interesting. For some reason the story of a hero getting beaten down by life and then ultimately clawing his way back to the top before continuing/dying/retiring/whatever on his own terms is a very powerful concept for me. I don't even know why either.
Nolan takes his jolly sweet time getting to the point. The pacing serves the movie well at this juncture. It's our last chance to hang out with this version of Bruce before the you-know-what hits the fan again. In fact, all the characters benefit from having a chance to breath here in the first act.
The third act relies completely on the audience's investment in Batman after all these years movies and all these years. It's why you can convince yourself that Bruce can somehow evade guided missiles in Batwhatchamacallit in spite of never having any real training as a pilot that we've ever seen or it's how you can believe somehow he escaped a nuclear blast.
But man, that second act is a real slog. Nolan is still taking his time with the plot but it just doesn't work here. Gotham is screwed. It's leadership has mostly been assassinated, the exits have been blocked, the cops have been trapped and Occupy are having their merry way with everything. Meanwhile Bruce is trapped in prison. Those minor issues are worth, what, 10 or 15 minutes of screen time? But, as per my copy of the movie, what I define as the second act runs from 01:16:00 (fade to black on Catwoman after Bane drops Batman's mask) to 01:57:10 (whatsisname getting dragged off to the sentencing hearing before Crane).
It's funny that the second act is the shortest of the film but it feels the longest somehow.
I've seen the dark knight rises 3 times;
once in theatres
once online in 2013
once while tabulating screen time per character last year.
I honestly don't have any plans to ever see it again. IMO it is the worst batman film for rewatchability and I just watched Batman and robin last week; at least that one tried to be entertaining and had fun. This one moved at a snails pace, took forever to develop and the ending wasn't a big pay off. Add in the fact that Nolan seemed to forget to put Batman in the film and I can honestly say if there was a Batman film I had to choose to never see again this one would be it.
Batman begins was okay but it also suffers from pacing issues in the first act. The dark knight is an excellent film on it's own but it's hard to enjoy it now that the dark knight rises exposed Nolans flaws as a film maker (poor action shooting and horrid editing).
The Burton films and Batman Forever had the right blend of camp.
What colors posted above is right. There's a good film in there, but that whole occupation section is a real slog to get through. If sections of that were trimmed or altered in execution, I'd probably be more favourable to the whole. Even if we had one or two more scenes of Bruce in prison and escaping the place sooner.
I rewatched BB recently and it's strange how it emerges as arguably the strongest of the whole trilogy.
The crew wanted to tell this story, the cast were mostly 100% invested in each of their characters, the mostly original story had enough riffs on various popular comics to be interesting to the core fanbase, it legitimately did show stuff that was completely new to Batman cinema (even if the comics had been doing it for decades), the action scenes were innovative to Batman films at the time, the film took itself seriously but not too seriously and it ended on a note that suggested, well, escalation. And yeah, I guess the sequels did escalate but not really in ways that anybody had been looking forward to and I think many cast members were on auto-pilot after BB.
I admit that Nolan's Batman isn't "my Batman" as they say on some other forum I forget the name of but I still think the above has some validity to it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 12 Aug 2015, 22:43
I rewatched BB recently and it's strange how it emerges as arguably the strongest of the whole trilogy.
The crew wanted to tell this story, the cast were mostly 100% invested in each of their characters, the mostly original story had enough riffs on various popular comics to be interesting to the core fanbase, it legitimately did show stuff that was completely new to Batman cinema (even if the comics had been doing it for decades), the action scenes were innovative to Batman films at the time, the film took itself seriously but not too seriously and it ended on a note that suggested, well, escalation. And yeah, I guess the sequels did escalate but not really in ways that anybody had been looking forward to and I think many cast members were on auto-pilot after BB.
I admit that Nolan's Batman isn't "my Batman" as they say on some other forum I forget the name of but I still think the above has some validity to it.
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. 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 contrast, BB's fight scenes are so incoherent that you'd have to hit the remote control to watch them in slow motion. Very amateurish stuff, and I can't believe that nearly got away from constant criticism. I didn't think the humour was any good either; they're just a collection of cliche, crappy one liners, like "I got to get me one of those". It wasn't funny when Will Smith said it in Independence Day, and it's not funny here, especially since it refers to that ugly Tumbler.
Personally, I prefer the video game adaptation of BB. Yes, the gameplay might be repetitive, but at least you get to play as Bale's Batman where he doesn't use that stupid voice all the time, the action is obviously better, and he does just a little bit more of investigative work no matter how meager it might be. It's arguably a template to the Arkham video games too. Besides, the ending of the game has Bale delivering a monologue that closely defines Batman than any of that pseudo-intellectual crap that was said in the entire trilogy:
QuoteI once made the mistake of thinking Ra's al Ghul was dead. But when men make themselves symbols, they shed their mortality. Henri Ducard and Jonathan Crane are already gone. Just like Bruce Wayne. He's only a mask. A cover for the face criminals now fear. All that's left...is Batman.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 12 Aug 2015, 22:43
I rewatched BB recently and it's strange how it emerges as arguably the strongest of the whole trilogy.
The crew wanted to tell this story, the cast were mostly 100% invested in each of their characters, the mostly original story had enough riffs on various popular comics to be interesting to the core fanbase, it legitimately did show stuff that was completely new to Batman cinema (even if the comics had been doing it for decades), the action scenes were innovative to Batman films at the time, the film took itself seriously but not too seriously and it ended on a note that suggested, well, escalation. And yeah, I guess the sequels did escalate but not really in ways that anybody had been looking forward to and I think many cast members were on auto-pilot after BB.
I admit that Nolan's Batman isn't "my Batman" as they say on some other forum I forget the name of but I still think the above has some validity to it.
I agree Nolan and the crew had a fire in their belly which is very evident in BB.
I think Nolan still had the passion in TDK Rises - the runtimes got longer each time. But his areas of focus weren't always the best. Even with the established framework Nolan gives us in TDKR, there was a lot of potential.
I think especially with Bruce escaping the pit. The climb itself is actually a great scene. I get chills when the bats fly out of the wall, and the music is great too. In my opinion not showing how Bruce returned to Gotham was unfortunate. It could have been a highlight of the trilogy and would've strengthened Bruce as a character by showcasing his skill set, and further demonstrating his determination, and the insane obstacles he is up against.
That's why BB worked well. It focused on Bruce and Batman more, and I think by focusing on the Gotham siege so much, Nolan lost his way in that respect. Yes, we need a worthy threat for our hero to face. But we also need to be entertained.
Just imagine it. Bruce sneaking back into his city which has been locked down by the militia forces. Getting a fake passport and landing back in America. Hiding underneath a vehicle which then crosses over to the main island, or whatever. Walking across the frozen river and accessing a secret entrance. Anything. But we get nothing.
But in the final product it feels like a plot hole when it really shouldn't.
There are some good sequences in the movie, and really, well done to Nolan for completing his vision and seeing this thing out. But I feel it could've been a whole lot more and that's what I find frustrating about the movie.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 10:28
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 12 Aug 2015, 22:43
I rewatched BB recently and it's strange how it emerges as arguably the strongest of the whole trilogy.
The crew wanted to tell this story, the cast were mostly 100% invested in each of their characters, the mostly original story had enough riffs on various popular comics to be interesting to the core fanbase, it legitimately did show stuff that was completely new to Batman cinema (even if the comics had been doing it for decades), the action scenes were innovative to Batman films at the time, the film took itself seriously but not too seriously and it ended on a note that suggested, well, escalation. And yeah, I guess the sequels did escalate but not really in ways that anybody had been looking forward to and I think many cast members were on auto-pilot after BB.
I admit that Nolan's Batman isn't "my Batman" as they say on some other forum I forget the name of but I still think the above has some validity to it.
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. 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 contrast, BB's fight scenes are so incoherent that you'd have to hit the remote control to watch them in slow motion. Very amateurish stuff, and I can't believe that nearly got away from constant criticism. I didn't think the humour was any good either; they're just a collection of cliche, crappy one liners, like "I got to get me one of those". It wasn't funny when Will Smith said it in Independence Day, and it's not funny here, especially since it refers to that ugly Tumbler.
Personally, I prefer the video game adaptation of BB. Yes, the gameplay might be repetitive, but at least you get to play as Bale's Batman where he doesn't use that stupid voice all the time, the action is obviously better, and he does just a little bit more of investigative work no matter how meager it might be. It's arguably a template to the Arkham video games too. Besides, the ending of the game has Bale delivering a monologue that closely defines Batman than any of that pseudo-intellectual crap that was said in the entire trilogy:
QuoteI once made the mistake of thinking Ra's al Ghul was dead. But when men make themselves symbols, they shed their mortality. Henri Ducard and Jonathan Crane are already gone. Just like Bruce Wayne. He's only a mask. A cover for the face criminals now fear. All that's left...is Batman.
Because that doesn't sound like pseudo-intellectual crap.
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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 10:28Well, 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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 10:28Now 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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 10:28I didn't think the humour was any good either; they're just a collection of cliche, crappy one liners, like "I got to get me one of those". It wasn't funny when Will Smith said it in Independence Day, and it's not funny here, especially since it refers to that ugly Tumbler.
No argument... except even those cliched one-liners were more than we got in the sequels.
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.
Quote from: Vampfox on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 17:41
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.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 14 Aug 2015, 01:44
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 10:28Well, 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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 10:28Now 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.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 14 Aug 2015, 01:44
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.
A separate point here.
I like the concept of people revisiting their past.
Alfred said in BB that he'd never give up on Bruce. But fast forward about a decade and it's interesting to see how things change. I'm definitely not the same person I was a decade ago. Opinions change, sometimes daily or weekly. Even promises we swore never to break can be undone with the passing of time. And with time, as Bruce says in MOTP, "it just doesn't hurt so bad anymore."
But with TDKR Bruce, he was frozen in time and didn't want to move on. Alfred did. He was simply fed up with Bruce's lethargic lifestyle and likelihood of death. So indeed - Alfred breaking his "never" promise isn't a problem to me. Because situations do change. We can be pushed into making decisions we hadn't planned on making. Alfred was loyal to a tee, but even loyalty has its limits. And he has a life of his own to live, given his age.
I don't exactly buy Bruce's reasons for becoming a hermit, but I do think it's quite interesting. If you don't change as a person, others around you will. And you'll be left all alone. I think it's a lesson for us all. We have to be greater than what we suffer, or like Bruce you are stagnant. When we do 'wake up', it's probably going to be too late. Life can pass you by very quickly.
Great insight TDK. You put more insight in Alfred leaving Bruce than the film itself. 8)
If memory serves me right, we were told that Bruce hadn't been seen by the general public for years, and he had become reclusive because of his depression over Rachel's death. Alfred knew the truth about Rachel...and yet he still chose to keep it a secret and let Bruce languish and mistakenly believe he would've gotten together with Rachel if she were still alive? Alfred's excuse for burning Rachel's letter was he didn't want to cause Bruce any more anguish, but if anything, it actually did more harm than good.
It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know about anyone else here, but if I knew the truth about something that a friend of mine didn't, I'd tell them before their depression could get any worse. Isn't that common sense?
A theme of the movie is the consequences of past actions. In TDK we are left with the message that lying to make someone feel better is okay - be it Gordon and Batman lying about Dent to Gotham, or Alfred lying to Bruce about Rachael's decision about her personal life. There is a short term good that comes from it, but ultimately there is a long term bad. If you look at things that way, I actually don't there is a contradiction of themes from both movies. It's just that the passing of time changes the context.
It seems Alfred tried to coax Bruce out into public life with every method except the truth. The message then become more wholesome. Like Superman, truth, combined with justice, is the only way forward. The truth may be hard to accept, and in some cases people may deteriorate further. But once they get through that period, wounds are healed and people simply move on.
Did TDK Rises handle this coherently? Maybe not. But I'm sure the above was the intention. And as you can see, I trying to give TDK Rises another shot.
Let's see how long that lasts.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 15 Aug 2015, 01:08
Did TDK Rises handle this coherently? Maybe not. But I'm sure the above was the intention.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I really hope the upcoming DC movies avoid making these same mistakes.
Bear in mind the following is me playing the part of a TDK Rises apologist trying to salvage something from the film. ;)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 15 Aug 2015, 02:15
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.
In BB Batman has the idea to inspire people with an everlasting symbol. In TDK he's trying to pass the mantle off to Dent and retire. Dent goes nuts, and as a result in TDK Rises, it seems Bruce has given up on heroes with faces. "If you're working alone, wear a mask," he tells Blake. I guess Batman did become a symbol with the statue being unveiled to the public at the end of Rises. And whatever Blake decides to do, even though he'd last one night IMO, is just an added bonus. The Nolan Batman always had an intention to retire and hand over to someone (Blake wouldn't have been my choice, but whatever), so that was fulfilled by Nolan.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 15 Aug 2015, 02:15
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.
This is true. I assume Nolan wanted to 'bring it full circle' to BB where he is also presumed dead by the greater populace. It can muddle the themes the film established in TDKR, however I guess it's not a lie that really has consequences ala the Dent revelation. Bruce gets what he wants - to retire, and Gotham gets a new orphanage. They lied about Dent's true nature in TDK, but Bruce's will and testament left the city with a positive lasting memory, and one that was true, even if he's lied about his death.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 14 Aug 2015, 11:11
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 14 Aug 2015, 01:44
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 10:28Well, 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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 13 Aug 2015, 10:28Now 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.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 14 Aug 2015, 01:44
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.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 15 Aug 2015, 02:15And 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.
QuoteBlake 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.
QuoteOf 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.
QuoteAlthough 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.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 15 Aug 2015, 08:24
Gordon knows. Alfred knows. Selina knows. Blake has likely figured it out.
Lucius Fox, too.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 15 Aug 2015, 08:39
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 15 Aug 2015, 08:24
Gordon knows. Alfred knows. Selina knows. Blake has likely figured it out.
Lucius Fox, too.
Yeah. He slipped my mind. Thank you.
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.
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 17:30
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.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:46
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 17:30
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.
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:54
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:46
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 17:30
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.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 17 Aug 2015, 08:00
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:54
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:46
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 17:30
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.
and you're okay with Nolan turning the 'worlds greatest detective' stupid because it gives him a flaw?
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 17 Aug 2015, 17:40and 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.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:46
That was the point in TDKR too. It wasn't smart. He was making a sideshow of himself.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 17 Aug 2015, 08:00
It likely shows that he's a flawed character.
You know, your posts are really growing on me Dagenspear. I like your point of view in regards to the Nolan series, TDKR in particular. I'm beginning to see things from your perspective.
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:54
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)
Taking a leaf from Dagenspear, I'll defend TDKR here for a bit.
As he said, Bruce was shown to be deeply flawed. Making a sideshow of himself during his comeback. Having a suicidal streak. Locking himself away from the world for up to a decade. And indeed...letting his company go to the dogs by not showing any interest in it.
There's quite a bit that's imperfect with Bale's Bruce and Batman. Instead of running from these issues, Dagenspear embraces them as legitimate plot points. Which is actually kind of cool and refreshing.
Bruce hands over the company to Tate, because simply, he doesn't have the passion, energy or interest to do so himself. The Nolan Bruce never did. Nor did he develop any of his gear. He left that all to Fox. And as we know, when he hands over to Tate that goes horribly wrong. Tate screws over Bruce and indeed all of Gotham.
The personal bankruptcy Bruce goes through is a result of Bane and Catwoman teaming up. So he couldn't really do much there anyway. But indeed, back to the main topic. Nolan's Bruce is maybe not
stupid, but deeply flawed and different to the other versions in key areas. He was eager for a quick fix, and to hand over to a replacement and retire. While that's not my Bruce Wayne....you have to admit, it's offering something different to the table. For better or worse, you make your own decision.
I'll just say that it doesn't bother me so much what Nolan did with Batman, or if his movies succeeded or failed to send a clear message, but what bothers me is what some people say about those movies: that they are the best Batman movies ever, the definitive version, that they are objectively superior to any other live-action interpretation, and that anyone who doesn't think so must have an inferior intellect or another problem.
I'm not referring to anyone on this board, everyone here is better than that.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 14:11
I'll just say that it doesn't bother me so much what Nolan did with Batman, or if his movies succeeded or failed to send a clear message, but what bothers me is what some people say about those movies: that they are the best Batman movies ever, the definitive version, that they are objectively superior to any other live-action interpretation, and that anyone who doesn't think so must have an inferior intellect or another problem.
I'm not referring to anyone on this board, everyone here is better than that.
I have no problem if people get entertainment value from watching those movies. But it makes me laugh that anybody could believe that those films are "deep, intellectual high art", and have the audacity to insult others for not "getting them". But like you say, that doesn't quite happen here, thankfully.
I'm all for Batman having flaws and I'm not demanding him to be perfect all the time. The Keaton Batman's flaws could arguably be that he mostly lives as a loner inside his mansion and separates himself from Gotham society when he's not on duty as Batman. The only times he makes public appearances are when he feels that he
needs to. Not to mention that he struggles to keep close relationships because of the double life that he lives. Romance is unsustainable for him.
If you go watch The New Batman Adventures, you'll notice how Batman becomes more detached compared to his behavior in BTAS, and his approach to crime-fighting becomes even more intense to the point that it ends up putting a strain on his relationship with Robin. This leads to a huge falling out between the two, and Dick Grayson quits being Robin for good. And the two never really made amends to fix their friendship, even when the they do work together as Batman and Nightwing for a few occassions.
Nolan's Batman is constantly two steps behind the villains and he's so gullible and incompetent that he ends up making the situation a lot worse, and it always gave me the impression that he never learned anything about the criminal mind. That was the whole reason he left Gotham and traveled around the world in BB, remember? It doesn't help that the guy makes up a lot of rules and intentions but then flip-flops whenever it's convenient, going completely out-of-character. So yes, because of the lack of consistency of the writing and the fact that he never learns from his mistakes in all three films, I'd definitely call him stupid.
Sorry to say I just can't accept a version of Batman where Bruce Wayne is stupid. That's like saying "let's make a Flash film where Barry Allen is slow so that he'll have a flaw"
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 00:18
Sorry to say I just can't accept a version of Batman where Bruce Wayne is stupid. That's like saying "let's make a Flash film where Barry Allen is slow so that he'll have a flaw"
I think an important point is Bale's Bruce saw Batman as merely something to use, not to
be.
He was disinterested in areas and very trusting of allies. The other Batmen weren't like that, and I'm glad they weren't. I wouldn't want this to be the norm. But for one narrative? I can take it.
In any case, Affleck's version will cream TDK Trilogy, I'm sure.
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 00:18
Sorry to say I just can't accept a version of Batman where Bruce Wayne is stupid. That's like saying "let's make a Flash film where Barry Allen is slow so that he'll have a flaw"
It's not stupidity. It's just a guy who makes mistakes.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 13:16
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:46
That was the point in TDKR too. It wasn't smart. He was making a sideshow of himself.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 17 Aug 2015, 08:00
It likely shows that he's a flawed character.
You know, your posts are really growing on me Dagenspear. I like your point of view in regards to the Nolan series, TDKR in particular. I'm beginning to see things from your perspective.
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 16 Aug 2015, 20:54
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)
Taking a leaf from Dagenspear, I'll defend TDKR here for a bit.
As he said, Bruce was shown to be deeply flawed. Making a sideshow of himself during his comeback. Having a suicidal streak. Locking himself away from the world for up to a decade. And indeed...letting his company go to the dogs by not showing any interest in it.
There's quite a bit that's imperfect with Bale's Bruce and Batman. Instead of running from these issues, Dagenspear embraces them as legitimate plot points. Which is actually kind of cool and refreshing.
Bruce hands over the company to Tate, because simply, he doesn't have the passion, energy or interest to do so himself. The Nolan Bruce never did. Nor did he develop any of his gear. He left that all to Fox. And as we know, when he hands over to Tate that goes horribly wrong. Tate screws over Bruce and indeed all of Gotham.
The personal bankruptcy Bruce goes through is a result of Bane and Catwoman teaming up. So he couldn't really do much there anyway. But indeed, back to the main topic. Nolan's Bruce is maybe not stupid, but deeply flawed and different to the other versions in key areas. He was eager for a quick fix, and to hand over to a replacement and retire. While that's not my Bruce Wayne....you have to admit, it's offering something different to the table. For better or worse, you make your own decision.
Thank you. It's like this: You don't have to like it. I'm not saying you have to. But it's not a flaw in the writing. You can view as a flaw in the interpretation all you want. But almost every version of the character on screen is a flawed interpretation. The one that is the closest to not being so flawed is the DCAU version.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 14:52
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 14:11
I'll just say that it doesn't bother me so much what Nolan did with Batman, or if his movies succeeded or failed to send a clear message, but what bothers me is what some people say about those movies: that they are the best Batman movies ever, the definitive version, that they are objectively superior to any other live-action interpretation, and that anyone who doesn't think so must have an inferior intellect or another problem.
I'm not referring to anyone on this board, everyone here is better than that.
I have no problem if people get entertainment value from watching those movies. But it makes me laugh that anybody could believe that those films are "deep, intellectual high art", and have the audacity to insult others for not "getting them". But like you say, that doesn't quite happen here, thankfully.
I'm all for Batman having flaws and I'm not demanding him to be perfect all the time. The Keaton Batman's flaws could arguably be that he mostly lives as a loner inside his mansion and separates himself from Gotham society when he's not on duty as Batman. The only times he makes public appearances are when he feels that he needs to. Not to mention that he struggles to keep close relationships because of the double life that he lives. Romance is unsustainable for him.
If you go watch The New Batman Adventures, you'll notice how Batman becomes more detached compared to his behavior in BTAS, and his approach to crime-fighting becomes even more intense to the point that it ends up putting a strain on his relationship with Robin. This leads to a huge falling out between the two, and Dick Grayson quits being Robin for good. And the two never really made amends to fix their friendship, even when the they do work together as Batman and Nightwing for a few occassions.
Nolan's Batman is constantly two steps behind the villains and he's so gullible and incompetent that he ends up making the situation a lot worse, and it always gave me the impression that he never learned anything about the criminal mind. That was the whole reason he left Gotham and traveled around the world in BB, remember? It doesn't help that the guy makes up a lot of rules and intentions but then flip-flops whenever it's convenient, going completely out-of-character. So yes, because of the lack of consistency of the writing and the fact that he never learns from his mistakes in all three films, I'd definitely call him stupid.
TDKT Bruce didn't do that. I'm sad to say that it reaches a point where it seems like you want to dislike it.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 11:27
Thank you.
No worries - keep it up.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 11:27
It's like this: You don't have to like it. I'm not saying you have to. But it's not a flaw in the writing. You can view as a flaw in the interpretation all you want. But almost every version of the character on screen is a flawed interpretation. The one that is the closest to not being so flawed is the DCAU version.
I've long had issues with TDK Rises. So I've seen this as a chance to wrap my head around the plot decisions.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 21 Aug 2015, 03:10
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 14:52
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 14:11
I'll just say that it doesn't bother me so much what Nolan did with Batman, or if his movies succeeded or failed to send a clear message, but what bothers me is what some people say about those movies: that they are the best Batman movies ever, the definitive version, that they are objectively superior to any other live-action interpretation, and that anyone who doesn't think so must have an inferior intellect or another problem.
I'm not referring to anyone on this board, everyone here is better than that.
I have no problem if people get entertainment value from watching those movies. But it makes me laugh that anybody could believe that those films are "deep, intellectual high art", and have the audacity to insult others for not "getting them". But like you say, that doesn't quite happen here, thankfully.
I'm all for Batman having flaws and I'm not demanding him to be perfect all the time. The Keaton Batman's flaws could arguably be that he mostly lives as a loner inside his mansion and separates himself from Gotham society when he's not on duty as Batman. The only times he makes public appearances are when he feels that he needs to. Not to mention that he struggles to keep close relationships because of the double life that he lives. Romance is unsustainable for him.
If you go watch The New Batman Adventures, you'll notice how Batman becomes more detached compared to his behavior in BTAS, and his approach to crime-fighting becomes even more intense to the point that it ends up putting a strain on his relationship with Robin. This leads to a huge falling out between the two, and Dick Grayson quits being Robin for good. And the two never really made amends to fix their friendship, even when the they do work together as Batman and Nightwing for a few occasions.
Nolan's Batman is constantly two steps behind the villains and he's so gullible and incompetent that he ends up making the situation a lot worse, and it always gave me the impression that he never learned anything about the criminal mind. That was the whole reason he left Gotham and traveled around the world in BB, remember? It doesn't help that the guy makes up a lot of rules and intentions but then flip-flops whenever it's convenient, going completely out-of-character. So yes, because of the lack of consistency of the writing and the fact that he never learns from his mistakes in all three films, I'd definitely call him stupid.
TDKT Bruce didn't do that. I'm sad to say that it reaches a point where it seems like you want to dislike it.
I really don't think you're in any position to make a dig at me like that. After all, I'm not the one who tries to have his cake and eat it too like you do, like acknowledging that Batman did break his no-kill rule throughout the series, but still insist he didn't really kill anyone and make an outrageous comment like "
indirectly breaking your rule doesn't undermine it or the importance of it". I just can't take an opinion like that seriously.
What logical sense would it make for me to want to hate these movies? I'm not some juvenile, stubborn fanboy who only worships one interpretation of the character and dismisses the rest. I tried very hard to like these movies, but it simply didn't work out because I thought they were badly written, and not very well made. God, the fact that I gave my ideas on what would've made the films much better only goes to show that I do want to like them. If I really wanted to hate them, I'd say something like "these films should never have made been in the first place and Batman should never have been rebooted". Now that is a true hater, because they believe that no future movie will ever match or top their preferred interpretation of the character. Come to think of it, I thought I already explained myself to you in the "Is it weird..." thread back in the BF sub-forum?
I don't give a damn how popular these movies are or how much money they earned at the box office, these films are not above criticism. Not only do I think that they're not anywhere near as good as people make them out to be, I just happen to think they're not even good at a competent level. I'm not going to mince my words because it's "not cool" to dislike these films. Especially since I come across people like yourself who haven't made convincing or adequate arguments why the criticisms against the films are wrong. Nonetheless, if you want to ignore these flaws or don't even care about them, fine. That's your prerogative. And it's also my prerogative to use them as examples to explain why I don't like them.
Yes, you're right that every movie has flaws. But there is so much you can take until they become way too apparent and continuous, and rules get introduced only to get broken every single time without any consequences at all, or fail to give me characters to care about. For me, that's when a movie becomes bad. It starts from subjective things like the quality of the action and the acting, and then it gets to the writing. I could list down all the contradictory things and facts that occurs in this trilogy once again, but I won't bother since you'll just deny them, despite the fact you even acknowledge that Batman did break a rule. Regardless, I'm pretty sure you've come across a number of films that you really didn't like, even if some of them are rather popular ones, so you should at least empathize where I'm coming from. Everyone has their likes and dislikes after all. But I guess if people desperately want to like something, they become willing to deny and turn a blind eye to every flaw, right?
I am a Batman fan, but I'm not going to let blind loyalty to the character get in the way of what I really think about a film. And that doesn't make me less of a fan; quite the opposite in fact. I'm not a ten year old kid who is only excited to see the guy in the suit: I expect a well told story with characters to care about.
Bottom line: if you disagree, fine. I'm not going to tell you what to enjoy, nor do I have the right to do such a thing. But I'm not going to tolerate being accused as wanting to hate something on purpose despite pointing out the legitimate problems in these movies. That crap is not on. If my posts bother you so much, feel free to ignore me from now on. And if you want, I'll happily return the favour.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 21 Aug 2015, 10:51I really don't think you're in any position to make a dig at me like that. After all, I'm not the one who tries to have his cake and eat it too like you do, like acknowledging that Batman did break his no-kill rule throughout the series, but still insist he didn't really kill anyone and make an outrageous comment like "indirectly breaking your rule doesn't undermine it or the importance of it". I just can't take an opinion like that seriously.
It's true. Breaking a rule doesn't take that rule away. Many people break rules, but the rules are still there. This rule isn't here because it's about guilt or being arrested. It's because it's right. I never said that he didn't actually kill anyone that I remember. I said that he didn't kill Ra's. I said that he killed Harvey. But I said that wasn't his fault because it wasn't his intention.
QuoteCome to think of it, I thought I already explained myself to you in the "Is it weird..." thread back in the BF sub-forum?
I replied to that.
QuoteI don't give a damn how popular these movies are or how much money they earned at the box office, these films are not above criticism. Not only do I think that they're not anywhere near as good as people make them out to be, I just happen to think they're not even good at a competent level. I'm not going to mince my words because it's "not cool" to dislike these films. Especially since I come across people like yourself who haven't made convincing or adequate arguments why the criticisms against the films are wrong. Nonetheless, if you want to ignore these flaws or don't even care about them, fine. That's your prerogative. And it's also my prerogative to use them as examples to explain why I don't like them.
You haven't made a convincing argument about why this movie is wrong. You've ignored facts from the movies in these discussions.
QuoteYes, you're right that every movie has flaws. But there is so much you can take until they become way too apparent and continuous, and rules get introduced only to get broken every single time without any consequences at all, or fail to give me characters to care about. For me, that's when a movie becomes bad. It starts from subjective things like the quality of the action and the acting, and then it gets to the writing. I could list down all the contradictory things and facts that occurs in this trilogy once again, but I won't bother since you'll just deny them, despite the fact you even acknowledge that Batman did break a rule. Regardless, I'm pretty sure you've come across a number of films that you really didn't like, even if some of them are rather popular ones, so you should at least empathize where I'm coming from. Everyone has their likes and dislikes after all. But I guess if people desperately want to like something, they become willing to deny and turn a blind eye to every flaw, right?
Consequences aren't what rules are about. What you care about is your responsibility. Him breaking his rule incidentally isn't a contradiction. I'm fairly sure that happening was the point.
QuoteBottom line: if you disagree, fine. I'm not going to tell you what to enjoy, nor do I have the right to do such a thing. But I'm not going to tolerate being accused as wanting to hate something on purpose despite pointing out the legitimate problems in these movies. That crap is not on. If my posts bother you so much, feel free to ignore me from now on. And if you want, I'll happily return the favour.
The problems that you cite aren't the problems the movie has. And it does have problems. But I'm very sorry you feel that way about me.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 21 Aug 2015, 08:25
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 11:27
Thank you.
No worries - keep it up.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 11:27
It's like this: You don't have to like it. I'm not saying you have to. But it's not a flaw in the writing. You can view as a flaw in the interpretation all you want. But almost every version of the character on screen is a flawed interpretation. The one that is the closest to not being so flawed is the DCAU version.
I've long had issues with TDK Rises. So I've seen this as a chance to wrap my head around the plot decisions.
I'm very sorry if I made it seem I was talking about you. I was talking about many people who trash these movies because they don't live up to their idea of the character. I come at batman in the Burton films, but I don't attack the movies. But I've taken to accepting that all the Burton/Schumacher films are a tremendous arc for Bruce Wayne from a vigilante to a legitimate hero. That's not to say that the Burton films don't have big flaws, but I don't trash those films by cracking about how the penguin magically gets the schematics to the batmobile. I just pretend that penguin's group has engineers that reverse engineered the schematics by examining images of the batmobile. Thank you again!
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
QuoteIt's true. Breaking a rule doesn't take that rule away. Many people break rules, but the rules are still there. This rule isn't here because it's about guilt or being arrested. It's because it's right. I never said that he didn't actually kill anyone that I remember. I said that he didn't kill Ra's. I said that he killed Harvey. But I said that wasn't his fault because it wasn't his intention.
QuoteConsequences aren't what rules are about. What you care about is your responsibility. Him breaking his rule incidentally isn't a contradiction. I'm fairly sure that happening was the point.
Good God. What kind of logic is that?! What's the point of having rules if there are no consequences for breaking them?!
You have to be trolling me, because I refuse to believe anybody could be this dense.
If cops and soldiers break the law themselves, or do something very unethical and betray what they stood for, they get disgraced and kicked out of the force/military. Yes, the rules are still there for everybody else to follow, but those who don't will face the consequences. Even when cops and soldiers who are well within their right to kill a criminal when lives are at stake when they believe it's necessary, still need to answer to their superior officers to find out whether their actions were the right choice. And when an inquiry results that their decision to act was unnecessary for whatever reason, they end up losing their jobs, even if they thought they were doing the right thing.
If people break the law, they face the consequences depending on the severity of the crime, either by paying a fine, being sent to community service or by going to jail.
If a person breaks a promise or a rule they imposed onto somebody, they risk facing the consequences of losing that other person's trust. Many family disputes and relationship breakups, or even a breakdown in business relationships happen when people go against their word.
God, in the real world people who don't even mean to break their rules still end up facing the negative ramifications of their actions.
What makes Batman's case unique is he had a self-imposed rule, which is not to kill. It's never explored what certain degrees or exceptions are there when breaking the rule is okay. All he says is killing is wrong. You can debate about "intent" all you want, but the fact is he broke his rule. How can you say consequences aren't what rules are about? That's ignorant to me. If Batman doesn't regret breaking his own rules and nothing happens as a result, then why should I care about him or take him seriously? Nothing's at stake then. Why does he even have a code and justified it against the deadly Joker if it's only putting people in harm's way... when this is the same guy who justified killing Ra's al Ghul when millions of people's are at stake? Likewise, if he didn't mean to get people killed, I'd thought he'd be devastated, instead of trying to justify himself.
If Batman showed any regret for killing Ra's al Ghul, then I could've accepted why he resisted killing the Joker. If Batman's reason for retiring because he felt guilty for killing Two-Face, then that too would've worked . And if we get to the whole symbolism nonsense, Batman and Gordon would've realized that lying about Harvey Dent was a terrible mistake would've been worthwhile. But none of these things happened on screen because the films didn't explore them. And it makes the character's actions less sense. Because if killing Ra's was right, then he should've applied the same action against Joker as well. The movies made a big deal about his code and it ended up being a complete waste of time. Whereas, the Batman Beyond version stayed true to his no-gun policy by retiring after he was forced to use a gun at one stage. That's how committed he was to keep that rule. He could've justified that he aimed a gun to protect himself, but he didn't care about that, even though he had every right to use that as an excuse. In his mind, he thought that he can't be Batman any more if it reaches the moment where he has to arm himself with a weapon that a coward used to murder his parents. The rule was that important to him, and he lived up to it. THAT is how you develop a character arc.
And besides, you admitted in other threads that Batman did break his rule against Ra's before, but still deny he killed him.
QuoteYou haven't made a convincing argument about why this movie is wrong. You've ignored facts from the movies in these discussions.
So I guess anyone else here who share similar opinions about these movies as I do (even if they're probably not nearly as unforgiving as I am) haven't made any convincing arguments about what's wrong with them either? At least people like me can back up our opinions with logic. I'm sorry, but when I read your faulty justification why Batman didn't break his rules, it puts me off from spending time or having the inclination to read your so-called 'facts'.
QuoteThe problems that you cite aren't the problems the movie has. And it does have problems. But I'm very sorry you feel that way about me.
Hey, all I did in this thread was expressing my opinions and used examples and facts to back up my arguments. I was being rational. I didn't attack you or anyone else. Everything in this thread was going okay until you made the baseless accusation that I want to dislike the films. If there is any tension growing, it's because of what
you said.
But hey, if being in denial and making illogical excuses helps people to enjoy the films, then it's not my problem.
QuoteGod bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
I'm doing just fine thanks. I hope God blesses you and those around you though.
I've had my say in this thread. I'm out of here.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 22 Aug 2015, 06:24Good God. What kind of logic is that?! What's the point of having rules if there are no consequences for breaking them?!
You have to be trolling me, because I refuse to believe anybody could be this dense.
The point of rules is so we know what to do. Not that there are consequences. If there aren't consequences to rules and laws, would that make it okay to break them? No. You follow rules because you know that they're the right thing to do. Not because you might be hurt because you break them.
QuoteIf cops and soldiers break the law themselves, or do something very unethical and betray what they stood for, they get disgraced and kicked out of the force/military. Yes, the rules are still there for everybody else to follow, but those who don't will face the consequences. Even when cops and soldiers who are well within their right to kill a criminal when lives are at stake when they believe it's necessary, still need to answer to their superior officers to find out whether their actions were the right choice. And when an inquiry results that their decision to act was unnecessary for whatever reason, they end up losing their jobs, even if they thought they were doing the right thing.
If people break the law, they face the consequences depending on the severity of the crime, either by paying a fine, being sent to community service or by going to jail.
If a person breaks a promise or a rule they imposed onto somebody, they risk facing the consequences of losing that other person's trust. Many family disputes and relationship breakups, or even a breakdown in business relationships happen when people go against their word.
God, in the real world people who don't even mean to break their rules still end up facing the negative ramifications of their actions.
But those consequences aren't the reason you should follow the rules or the laws. You should follow them because it's the right thing to do.
QuoteWhat makes Batman's case unique is he had a self-imposed rule, which is not to kill. It's never explored what certain degrees or exceptions are there when breaking the rule is okay. All he says is killing is wrong. You can debate about "intent" all you want, but the fact is he broke his rule. How can you say consequences aren't what rules are about? That's ignorant to me. If Batman doesn't regret breaking his own rules and nothing happens as a result, then why should I care about him or take him seriously? Nothing's at stake then. Why does he even have a code and justified it against the deadly Joker if it's only putting people in harm's way... when this is the same guy who justified killing Ra's al Ghul when millions of people's are at stake? Likewise, if he didn't mean to get people killed, I'd thought he'd be devastated, instead of trying to justify himself.
He didn't kill Ra's. He killed Harvey, but that was incidental. And there were consequences to that. You should care about him because he does the right thing as much as he can. Why else would you care about him?
QuoteIf Batman showed any regret for killing Ra's al Ghul, then I could've accepted why he resisted killing the Joker. If Batman's reason for retiring because he felt guilty for killing Two-Face, then that too would've worked. And if we get to the whole symbolism nonsense, Batman and Gordon would've realized that lying about Harvey Dent was a terrible mistake would've been worthwhile. But none of these things happened on screen because the films didn't explore them. And it makes the character's actions less sense. Because if killing Ra's was right, then he should've applied the same action against Joker as well. The movies made a big deal about his code and it ended up being a complete waste of time. Whereas, the Batman Beyond version stayed true to his no-gun policy by retiring after he was forced to use a gun at one stage. That's how committed he was to keep that rule. He could've justified that he aimed a gun to protect himself, but he didn't care about that, even though he had every right to use that as an excuse. In his mind, he thought that he can't be Batman any more if it reaches the moment where he has to arm himself with a weapon that a coward used to murder his parents. The rule was that important to him, and he lived up to it. THAT is how you develop a character arc.
And besides, you admitted in other threads that Batman did break his rule against Ra's before, but still deny he killed him.
I didn't say that. I said he kind of did. He didn't kill Ra's and that's a fact. He kind of did in the sense that he had a hand in his death, but he didn't kill him.
QuoteSo I guess anyone else here who share similar opinions about these movies as I do (even if they're probably not nearly as unforgiving as I am) haven't made any convincing arguments about what's wrong with them either? At least people like me can back up our opinions with logic. I'm sorry, but when I read your faulty justification why Batman didn't break his rules, it puts me off from spending time or having the inclination to read your so-called 'facts'.
He did break his rule with Harvey. I said that several times. He even did with that the driver. But he didn't with Ra's.
QuoteHey, all I did in this thread was expressing my opinions and used examples and facts to back up my arguments. I was being rational. I didn't attack you or anyone else. Everything in this thread was going okay until you made the baseless accusation that I want to dislike the films. If there is any tension growing, it's because of what you said.
But hey, if being in denial and making illogical excuses helps people to enjoy the films, then it's not my problem.
I said that because you ignore what happens in the films. That isn't rational.
QuoteI'm doing just fine thanks. I hope God blesses you and those around you though.
I've had my say in this thread. I'm out of here.
Please, I beg you not to use God's name with sarcasm. That's not for me. That's for you. I don't want you to hurt yourself spiritually. God loves you no matter what though.
I mean this with complete and utter sincerity:
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
I don't think you are wrong on the meaning of rules, Dagenspear, but there is something else to consider. Yes, people should follow rules because it's the right thing to do, but if there are no consequences to breaking them whatsoever, the rules won't have any power, and many people might break them freely.
I think it would have been better if these movies didn't stress the "one rule" so much, we all know Batman is a good guy, but in some situations a hero has to choose between killing a villain and letting innocents be killed. He couldn't let Two-Face shoot the boy, so he had to do something, even if it meant possibly killing him.
Guys one request; can we please knock off all the use of the word 'God", religion isn't even tolerated in the off-topic forums let alone the Batman ones? Thanks
A rule is not a rule if it has no consequences for breaking it. At best it is a guideline. And the fact that Bale breaks his own rule whenever he feels like it, makes it a guideline at best.
Nolan fans have used this 'no killing rule' as one of the many reasons why their films are godlike and Burtons films were amateurs. They've used Keaton killing the Joker and smiling after strapping dynamite to the goon as fodder for their arguments many times. But explain what is any different than the Jokers death in 89 vs Two faces in TDK? They only difference is Bale stated many times he doesn't kill while Keaton made no such promise. I think we all remember before TDK when Nolanites claimed villains shouldn't be killed period and Burton had no business killing the Joker before backtracking once Nolan killed two face (and later Bane, Talia and even batman)
By the way, Bale announcing to bad guys including the Joker that he has a no-killing rule is another example of the stupidity of the character; Batman is there to create a symbol to intimidate bad guys, announcing he wont kill severely reduces his intimidation presence especially the guns on his bat vehicles.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 22 Aug 2015, 23:59
Guys one request; can we please knock off all the use of the word 'God", religion isn't even tolerated in the off-topic forums let alone the Batman ones? Thanks
A rule is not a rule if it has no consequences for breaking it. At best it is a guideline. And the fact that Bale breaks his own rule whenever he feels like it, makes it a guideline at best.
Nolan fans have used this 'no killing rule' as one of the many reasons why their films are godlike and Burtons films were amateurs. They've used Keaton killing the Joker and smiling after strapping dynamite to the goon as fodder for their arguments many times. But explain what is any different than the Jokers death in 89 vs Two faces in TDK? They only difference is Bale stated many times he doesn't kill while Keaton made no such promise. I think we all remember before TDK when Nolanites claimed villains shouldn't be killed period and Burton had no business killing the Joker before backtracking once Nolan killed two face (and later Bane, Talia and even batman)
By the way, Bale announcing to bad guys including the Joker that he has a no-killing rule is another example of the stupidity of the character; Batman is there to create a symbol to intimidate bad guys, announcing he wont kill severely reduces his intimidation presence especially the guns on his bat vehicles.
Bruce didn't kill joker in batman 89. Bruce didn't kill bane in tdkr. And he didn't kill talia in tdkr.
He doesn't tell people what his rule is. He didn't announce that to anyone outside catwoman in tdkr and ra's in ra's.
Rules are there to tell us what we should do. Whether there's punishment or not doesn't matter. You should still follow them because it's right.
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms: regulation, ruling, directive, order, act, law, statute, edict, canon, mandate, command, dictate, decree, fiat, injunction, commandment, stipulation, requirement, guideline, direction; formalordinance
"health and safety rules"
2.
a strip of wood or other rigid material used for measuring length or marking straight lines; a ruler.
verb
1.
exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people).
"Latin America today is ruled by elected politicians"
synonyms: govern, preside over, control, lead, dominate, run, head, administer, manage More
2.
make parallel lines across (paper).
"a sheet of ruled paper"
Bruce broke the rule once, maybe twice if you stretch it. But there was consequences for the first one. The second, for all intents and purposes, he doesn't know about.
What nolanites say doesn't effect the movie.
I'm sure if there was an issue it would have been brought up.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 22 Aug 2015, 22:05
I don't think you are wrong on the meaning of rules, Dagenspear, but there is something else to consider. Yes, people should follow rules because it's the right thing to do, but if there are no consequences to breaking them whatsoever, the rules won't have any power, and many people might break them freely.
I think it would have been better if these movies didn't stress the "one rule" so much, we all know Batman is a good guy, but in some situations a hero has to choose between killing a villain and letting innocents be killed. He couldn't let Two-Face shoot the boy, so he had to do something, even if it meant possibly killing him.
But that's not an issue for everyone. But thank you.
There's a lot to enjoy about Nolan's trilogy. But I have a real attachment to TDKRises for some reason. I don't even completely understand why. The second act is a bloated mess and the third act is mostly a paint-by-numbers climax with a "twist" that was pretty well telegraphed earlier in the film.
But the first hour and fifteen minutes of the movie (ie, the moment Bane's knee impacts Batman's spine) is top notch. I seriously dig that part of the film. For some reason I have an affection for stories where a hero has to struggle and reemerge as a hero. And there's a lot of that in TDKRises. He's been beaten down by life and by circumstance, he's superficially turned his back on his most cherished ideals and even when he has to spring back into action, it's obvious that Bruce's heart really isn't in it anymore. But it needs to be done. So he does it.
Bane is not as clever a villain as Ra's al-Ghul or as captivating as Ledger's Joker. It's just not arguable. But he has a certain dignity about him. He's dangerous to anybody he sets his sights on. He's merciless and brutal when he needs to be. But there's still a certain elegance to his speech and his vocabulary. Even a lot of his methods have a certain sophistication to them. He's deadly... but he's not necessarily destructive for destructiveness' sake. Ledger's Joker would blow up a building just to prove it's possible to do such a thing. Bane would only do it if it fits in with his agenda -- and his remote control would work right the first time.
Nolan's a fairly verbose filmmaker. So all of his characters, especially his villains, tend to be fairly articulate. But Bane is the only one I'd truly call flowery. If Batman was beating the piss out of Ra's, Ra's would criticize his technique. If it was the Joker, the Joker would tempt him to commit murder. But Bane offers psychoanalysis: "Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you." "You fight like a young man; nothing held back. Admirable but mistaken."
And that first fight against Bane is painful to watch. In BB and TDK, Bruce would've had his hands full with Bane... but, push comes to shove, he could've taken him. He would've sweat and maybe bled a little for it. But it would've been doable.
In TDKRises, even Bane's henchmen don't take Batman seriously. They don't lift a finger to come to Bane's aid. Bane barely even defends himself from Batman's attacks. He "blocks" most of Batman's punches with his face because Batman's strength and agility are long gone. If he'd had a few months to train his body, he might've made a better accounting of himself. But he didn't have months. With no training or conditioning, he put his Batman gear back on and went looking for trouble. Even after eight years of inactivity, that's still all he needs in order to deal with most of League of Assassins Shadows members. But it's not even remotely enough for Bane.
I can take or leave the movie after that scene. But up until then, yeah, it's an amazing piece of cinema.
On balance, I seem to have the fewest problems with TDKRises. I think BB is overall the most enjoyable of the three to watch. It holds up the most. But, by numbers, I've got more problems with BB. Major issues and minor nitpicks scattered through the movie. That's even truer of TDK. A lot works well in that movie. But for every cool thing that happens, there's usually at least two or three other problems going on as well scattered all through the film.
TDKRises? Honestly, the entire second act doesn't work for me. But that's really the only "problem" I've got. It's a huge problem, I admit, but it's still just one problem for me. And I can skip right past that one problem to watch the stuff I do enjoy. The other movies don't allow me that luxury.
So yeah.
I thoroughly enjoyed the Nolan trilogy, but out of all of the Nolan installments, I probably watch the Dark Knight the most. I have no issues with Rises and felt the ending was executed fairly well. But Rises is such an all consuming wrap up in the series, it's hard to watch that as a standalone experience. I just about have to watch it only after the Dark Knight to fully encapsulate the storytelling experience.
I like the Nolan movies, but they are my least watched movies in the Batman series because they don't individually stand alone as well as some of the others. Each one is such an integral part to the next film, it almost begs for a continuation after you watch one of them. And that's not a criticism on any level. It just comes down to time and also what kind of mood I'm in. For Batman I find myself reaching out for the lighter material because it's a good source for elevating my mood if I'm wanting something for pure escapism.