Apart from Batman upholding a meaningless moral code which he broke before and after the fact and getting people killed for no reason in the process, here's another excuse why keeping the Joker alive is illogical: couldn't it endanger the entire cover-up surrounding Harvey Dent?
Think about it for a second. The Joker was really determined to devastate the public by miraculously brainwashing Harvey into becoming a cold-blooded murderer. So...it wouldn't make much sense if the Joker suddenly kept quiet while Batman framed himself to protect Harvey, would it? And I don't buy the excuse that nobody would believe the Joker if he started talking. After all, if the Joker can manipulate Gordon's partner while in jail and manipulate Harvey into misdirecting his anger out on everybody else, then he's more than capable of exposing the truth about what really happened to Harvey.
Let's face it, if we assume that the Joker is still alive and well by the end of the movie and in the next eight years as suggested by the third movie's novelization and fan fiction, there's no way he'd happily accept defeat and allow Gotham to clean itself up because everybody thought Dent was murdered by Batman.
Which brings up my other point: TDK is a movie where nobody wins. Some people try to argue that Batman taking the fall goes to show that the Joker defeated him from a philosophical point of view. But that's just bullcrap because crime in Gotham has been eliminated thanks to the Dent Act. The truth only came out thanks to Bane conveniently finding Gordon's letter. Otherwise, nobody would've discovered the truth. And yet, we're supposed to believe that the Joker stood by silently somewhere in jail and allowed peace to restore itself in Gotham? Seriously? I thought the Joker wanted anarchy, not order.
If the third film had simply explained that the Joker was killed by the SWAT team before Batman confronted Two-Face, I would've given the TDK's ending a tiny bit of slack. As it stands, it's an annoying, illogical plot hole that nobody dares to address.
I'd like to hear other people's thoughts about this.
Who would believe him?
But for that matter, why would they have believed Bane for exposing it?
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Tue, 24 Mar 2015, 01:37
But for that matter, why would they have believed Bane for exposing it?
Indeed. Believe Bane because he said so!
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Tue, 24 Mar 2015, 01:37
Who would believe him?
Like I said, if the Joker could manipulate Gordon's partner and Harvey Dent, then he's capable of exposing the truth about the whole cover-up. All it takes is for him to say to somebody "You're not really that stupid enough to believe Batman killed those people, do you? If he did, he'd kill me too.", and he'd be able to cast doubt and get people to talk of a conspiracy. It's something that he would definitely try. After all, Batman goes from being a crime-fighter in one moment, but in the next minute he's a cold-blooded murderer? I'd say the opportunity for to exploit that unlikelihood is there for the taking.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Tue, 24 Mar 2015, 01:37
But for that matter, why would they have believed Bane for exposing it?
Exactly. Don't you think it goes to show how utterly moronic TDK's ending is? Batman and Gordon could've easily protected Dent's reputation by putting the blame on Joker and/or his henchmen. Or even claim it an unsolved murder. Instead, they decided to tell a lie that's easily exposed. Rubbish writing.
I do slag on the ending of the dark knight but for different reasons;
I don't believe Batman needs to take the fall for Dent. It could easily be proven that he went crazy after the scarring/Rachels death and thus such shouldn't affect prior convictions.
Now as evil as he was, framing the Joker is too dangerous as that certainly could affect past convictions if it gets proven that Gordon and Batman frame people. Though in TDKR that eventually DOES happen when revealed Gordon frames Batman.
They also open the door for a dirty cop in Ramirez as well as any one else who saw Dent as two face turning them in. Are we to believe that these people all kept quiet while Dent was pronounced dead as a hero? Why on earth couldn't they destroy the body or dispose of it leaving Dent's death a mystery? What kind of message are they giving Gordon's children who clearly know Batman wasn't the one holding them at gun point?
The danger with locking up the Joker is that while he isn't credible, he does know things which are true and could potentially be proven.
I thought the entire point of TDK was that the Joker won the moral victory. Sure, Gordon and Batman can issue whatever propaganda they want but (A) that by itself acknowledges his victory (B) it destroys Batman, which in a weird kind of way is a fulfillment of the promise the Joker made earlier (C) in a weird nonsensical way it makes Batman break his one rule... but not really (D) the entire thing is predicated on lies, which is the Joker's way of destroying Batman and Gordon and (E) it still doesn't change anything. The Joker still destroyed Harvey. Batman and Gordon still have to live with that. Whatever lies they tell themselves and others doesn't make a difference. The Joker won.
This, in fact, is one of the problems I have with TDK.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 18:45
Now as evil as he was, framing the Joker is too dangerous as that certainly could affect past convictions if it gets proven that Gordon and Batman frame people. Though in TDKR that eventually DOES happen when revealed Gordon frames Batman.
Hence, it goes to show that the lie that Gordon and Batman chose to tell was such a horrendous idea if all it took was a little letter that exposed the truth. I really doubt Gordon, Batman or even Ramirez would feel guilty that the Joker and/or his henchmen were framed for Harvey's death.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 18:45
They also open the door for a dirty cop in Ramirez as well as any one else who saw Dent as two face turning them in. Are we to believe that these people all kept quiet while Dent was pronounced dead as a hero? Why on earth couldn't they destroy the body or dispose of it leaving Dent's death a mystery? What kind of message are they giving Gordon's children who clearly know Batman wasn't the one holding them at gun point?
The danger with locking up the Joker is that while he isn't credible, he does know things which are true and could potentially be proven.
The most annoying thing about Ramirez is that while she wasn't a main character in the movie, she still played a prominent part in it. We never see or hear from her again, it's like she was a plot device and then gets discarded. So yes, according to the series, we are supposed to assume she did keep quiet. That's another thing I really dislike about Nolan. He uses characters as plot devices and then throws them away. Scarecrow is another example of this.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 22:20
I thought the entire point of TDK was that the Joker won the moral victory.
I beg to differ. He described his corruption of Harvey Dent as "his ace in the hole" and boasts to Batman that he wouldn't risk fighting for Gotham's soul in a fist fight...but then he mysteriously keeps quiet when his plan to devastate the city over the truth didn't work out at all. The Joker might say a lot of nonsense and lies a lot, but he's not a self-defeating moron. He had a plan. I don't know what the original ideas for the Joker were if he was supposed to appear in TDKR, but in my opinion, there's no believable way he'd go through all that trouble only to give up and let Gotham restore peace through the Dent Act for eight years. Now you might argue that Joker was proven right when the truth was exposed in TDKR, but I'd say that the lie came back to bite Batman and Gordon on the ass. In other words, those two morons got themselves into this mess.
Like I said before, I might have cut the TDK's ending some slack if there was a logical explanation about the Joker's fate in the third film. I understand and even respect why Nolan didn't want to recast the role when Heath Ledger died, but I completely disagree with his decision to not even acknowledge the character in the last film. Like he never existed.
Quote
in a weird nonsensical way it makes Batman break his one rule... but not really
Batman didn't kill Two-Face out of malicious intent, that's true, but it still doesn't change the fact he did it to save a young boy's life. Which like I said many times before, it makes his refusal to kill Joker meaningless if it only put the entire town in harm's way. So yes, I'd say Batman did break his rule. I see a lot of people try to justify that Dent's death was an accident, but I disagree. The way the scene was written and depicted on screen can be compared to the way Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel situation. But of course, you see people attack that film because they hated the way the scene was written where Superman was forced to take that action, and wondered why he didn't use his heat vision to lobotomise Zod. My response is: you might as well condemn Nolan for making Batman break his code, and demand Batman to use a Batarang to disarm Two-Face instead and avoid killing him. But as you know, hypocrisy rules.
Quote
This, in fact, is one of the problems I have with TDK.
And its muddled nonsense is the biggest reason why I really dislike it so much.
Honestly, I think Laughing Fish had the best alternate ending idea in having Batman and Gordon defeat Joker by revealing the truth about Harvey themselves and proving that the city is still ready to believe in good. Dent/Two-Face is a known criminal, but Batman is still the one who saved the city and is the one they can believe in. So Gotham rallies behind Batman as their hero instead.
You know...like in the comics...
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 23:10Hence, it goes to show that the lie that Gordon and Batman chose to tell was such a horrendous idea if all it took was a little letter that exposed the truth. I really doubt Gordon, Batman or even Ramirez would feel guilty that the Joker and/or his henchmen were framed for Harvey's death.
The most annoying thing about Ramirez is that while she wasn't a main character in the movie, she still played a prominent part in it. We never see or hear from her again, it's like she was a plot device and then gets discarded. So yes, according to the series, we are supposed to assume she did keep quiet. That's another thing I really dislike about Nolan. He uses characters as plot devices and then throws them away. Scarecrow is another example of this.
I beg to differ. He described his corruption of Harvey Dent as "his ace in the hole" and boasts to Batman that he wouldn't risk fighting for Gotham's soul in a fist fight...but then he mysteriously keeps quiet when his plan to devastate the city over the truth didn't work out at all. The Joker might say a lot of nonsense and lies a lot, but he's not a self-defeating moron. He had a plan. I don't know what the original ideas for the Joker were if he was supposed to appear in TDKR, but in my opinion, there's no believable way he'd go through all that trouble only to give up and let Gotham restore peace through the Dent Act for eight years. Now you might argue that Joker was proven right when the truth was exposed in TDKR, but I'd say that the lie came back to bite Batman and Gordon on the ass. In other words, those two morons got themselves into this mess.
Like I said before, I might have cut the TDK's ending some slack if there was a logical explanation about the Joker's fate in the third film. I understand and even respect why Nolan didn't want to recast the role when Heath Ledger died, but I completely disagree with his decision to not even acknowledge the character in the last film. Like he never existed.
Batman didn't kill Two-Face out of malicious intent, that's true, but it still doesn't change the fact he did it to save a young boy's life. Which like I said many times before, it makes his refusal to kill Joker meaningless if it only put the entire town in harm's way. So yes, I'd say Batman did break his rule. I see a lot of people try to justify that Dent's death was an accident, but I disagree. The way the scene was written and depicted on screen can be compared to the way Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel situation. But of course, you see people attack that film because they hated the way the scene was written where Superman was forced to take that action, and wondered why he didn't use his heat vision to lobotomise Zod. My response is: you might as well condemn Nolan for making Batman break his code, and demand Batman to use a Batarang to disarm Two-Face instead and avoid killing him. But as you know, hypocrisy rules.
And its muddled nonsense is the biggest reason why I really dislike it so much.
The Joker had already been captured. I still think it was Batman taking responsibility he felt he deserved because he blamed himself for Harvey's situation and Rachel's death. Which is backed up by the film. I'm referring to him feeling like it's his fault.
That's the way most films work. She wasn't needed. Scarecrow reappeared in both films afterward.
No matter what the Joker said, there's no reason for a sane person to believe him.
They could've mentioned him, but they didn't. It's hardly a big problem.
Of course Batman broke his rule. But it's pretty clear that he didn't have the intention to kill Harvey. MOS's doesn't work because we see Clark happy afterwards, the film is poorly written and Clark makes out with Lois in the middle of war zone after many people were killed without a care. It's not about him killing Zod. Not to mention the reason the writers did it made no sense. The point being they didn't deal with it. The action scene was also poorly done where after Zod threatens humans he never actually tried anything, which made it uninteresting. Two-Face had the gun to the boy's head. A batarang could've made it go off.
I don't see how it's nonsense.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 23 Mar 2015, 11:22If the third film had simply explained that the Joker was killed by the SWAT team before Batman confronted Two-Face, I would've given the TDK's ending a tiny bit of slack. As it stands, it's an annoying, illogical plot hole that nobody dares to address.
I think it makes the most sense, and can even be inferred, that the Joker was killed or otherwise died shortly after TDK. It is annoying for such a big element to just be completely ignored in the sequel, especially when the sequel does follow-up the Dent part of TDK, but I guess it's understandable that Nolan would think mentioning the Joker, especially as having died, would be disrespectful to Ledger.
Yeah, if he had lived the Joker would have escaped from prison and been effective in undermining order and public trust.
Quote from: Andrew on Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 17:46
I think it makes the most sense, and can even be inferred, that the Joker was killed or otherwise died shortly after TDK. It is annoying for such a big element to just be completely ignored in the sequel, especially when the sequel does follow-up the Dent part of TDK, but I guess it's understandable that Nolan would think mentioning the Joker, especially as having died, would be disrespectful to Ledger.
Yeah, if he had lived the Joker would have escaped from prison and been effective in undermining order and public trust.
As I said before, I completely understand and respect Nolan's wish to not re-cast the role following Ledger's untimely death. But I personally don't see how even a nod to the character's aftermath would be in any way disrespectful to the actor. Oh well, there's nothing anybody can do now. What's done is done.
I think the staging for Dark Knight Rises really eliminates the influence the Joker would have had or perhaps even desired. Batman had gone into hiding and the Joker was institutionalized. The streets got cleaned up so there was no sweeping criminal element for the Joker to immediately connect with when Bane started creating chaos. Batman's return and Banes strong armed influence really eliminated any outside players to come onto the scene. Gotham was more in a military state of takeover than a town run rampant with petty crime. This was not the Joker's element and essentially his tale had been covered in depth from that previous chapter. I think in terms of story responsibilities, there was no reason to merit his return in Rises or make reference about him in dialogue.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 8 Aug 2015, 22:20I thought the entire point of TDK was that the Joker won the moral victory. Sure, Gordon and Batman can issue whatever propaganda they want but (A) that by itself acknowledges his victory (B) it destroys Batman, which in a weird kind of way is a fulfillment of the promise the Joker made earlier (C) in a weird nonsensical way it makes Batman break his one rule... but not really (D) the entire thing is predicated on lies, which is the Joker's way of destroying Batman and Gordon and (E) it still doesn't change anything. The Joker still destroyed Harvey. Batman and Gordon still have to live with that. Whatever lies they tell themselves and others doesn't make a difference. The Joker won.
This, in fact, is one of the problems I have with TDK.
I would just like to say that I stand by this.
Whether or not the public has seen Harvey's true colors, Batman, Gordon and the Joker all know the truth. And I think the Joker would enjoy knowing (A) that he won and (B) pretending that he lost "killed" the Batman... which is what the Joker said he would do.
Lies are like a sugar rush. They're short term and ultimately don't last. Truth is forever. Sure, TDK Rises miraculously had a crime-free Gotham thanks to the Dent Act, but Jokedy Joke Joke (JJJ) won the moral battle regardless of what Gordon and Batman sold to the public....and all three of them all knew it.
Baleman only postponed Gotham's reckoning. And really, withholding the truth for so long only made the situation a tsunami. Think about it, folks. By covering up the truth about Dent, Baleman was smeared as a cop killer for about eight years. His name was mud. And guess what? When the truth came out, his name should still be mud, because he's now just a liar. Baleman was NEVER the moral beacon for Gotham City any way you look at it.
His only heroic deed was carrying the bomb out of Gotham. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror.
I never found Bale overly heroic in his films, to be honest I felt he was selfish, he was more concerned with Rachel and Selina than Gotham.
Another aspect of this cover up which is stupid is the fact that Batman and Gordon couldn't possibly know everything Harvey did after escaping the hospital, they wouldn't have known where he went and when, or who saw him. How did they know that nobody is alive who saw him commit crimes? Especially when they know he's been using the coin to make decisions, how do they know he didn't terrorize someone but let them live because of the result of the coin toss?
I don't understand why they don't just dispose of the body and let everyone believe he died in the hospital explosion? If the reason is the possibility a witness saw him after the hospital was bombed, that just reinforces my point of how easily they could have been caught with the frame job.
One thing to note TDK, the public doesn't know that Batman was involved in framing himself (as Batman never addresses the public). So his reputation could have been spared once the truth came out.
Still I will never believe that framing Batman was the right or strategic thing to do because you will never convince me that Batman or Gordon could have predicted the peace time that would ensue or that another super criminal would emerge. And low and behold it does bite them several times in Rises. Batman actually helped the bad guy escape just by showing up on scene and drawing the cops off him. If it weren't for the frame job, it's likely Batman and the cops stop Bane right there.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 21 Sep 2017, 05:16
I don't understand why they don't just dispose of the body and let everyone believe he died in the hospital explosion? If the reason is the possibility a witness saw him after the hospital was bombed, that just reinforces my point of how easily they could have been caught with the frame job
I don't understand why they didn't just tell the truth. TDK tried to elevate Harvey Dent into JFK status. Some highly esteemed myth that couldn't do anything wrong and was loved by all. I don't buy that. At that point, Dent was just a DA who made a few headlines, but he wasn't a towering national figure or anything. Does anyone here seriously believe all of Gotham's citizens would've lost hope if they blew the whistle on Dent's crimes in 2008?
Sure, it would've been disappointing. But people would've got on with their lives. If anything, the news would've elicited satisfaction. "Hey bro, did ya hear that Dent fella killed a buncha cops?" "Nah, man. Is he goin' to jail or what?" "Nah, that mothafunkin' fool is dead". "Cool man, let's have a beer to celebrate". A criminal did a bunch of crimes and paid the ultimate price himself. That's the system and nobody is above it.
Dent did more good in death than in life. That's what the sequel tries to sell, but I still don't buy that. Does crime vanish because a piece of legislation is passed? No way, Jose. Crime is always present, and if it vanishes to the extent TDK Rises shows, someone moves in to take advantage. Eight years of peace and quiet is absolute ridiculousness. I mean....seriously. Does anyone think that over a period of a decade, a city like New York's biggest issue would be overdue library books? That's probably the single most unrealistic notion in the TDK Trilogy.
They overstate the importance of Dent and the effectiveness of the Dent Act.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 21 Sep 2017, 05:16
One thing to note TDK, the public doesn't know that Batman was involved in framing himself (as Batman never addresses the public). So his reputation could have been spared once the truth came out.
The letter which Mask Man reads out implicates Baleman. "He saved my boy then took the blame for Harvey's appalling crimes so that I could, to my shame, build a lie around this fallen idol." They conspired together. Why Gotham would just believe this because Bane said so is anyone's guess. But that's what the film presents. Baleman is offended at Alfred for hiding the truth about Rachel...while he's hiding the truth about Dent from Gotham. What a hypocrite.
TDK I don't disagree with anything you wrote, my preference would have been telling the truth as well. Supposedly they're worried that any convictions Dent got could be put in jeopardy if Gotham finds out what he did. To that I say baloney- it could be easily proven that Harvey went off the deep end after Rachel's death and his scarring. That would have been far more logical than tampering with a murder scene to frame Batman.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 21 Sep 2017, 04:14
Lies are like a sugar rush. They're short term and ultimately don't last. Truth is forever. Sure, TDK Rises miraculously had a crime-free Gotham thanks to the Dent Act, but Jokedy Joke Joke (JJJ) won the moral battle regardless of what Gordon and Batman sold to the public....and all three of them all knew it.
Baleman only postponed Gotham's reckoning. And really, withholding the truth for so long only made the situation a tsunami. Think about it, folks. By covering up the truth about Dent, Baleman was smeared as a cop killer for about eight years. His name was mud. And guess what? When the truth came out, his name should still be mud, because he's now just a liar. Baleman was NEVER the moral beacon for Gotham City any way you look at it.
His only heroic deed was carrying the bomb out of Gotham. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror.
I've said before, and I'll say it once again: it boggles my mind that pretentious airheads argue that Joker won the moral battle, while still declaring TDK and TDKR as "inspirational" and "heroic" compared to BvS. To this day, I am astounded by the utter stupidity of these critics and fanboys. I feel as if we live in the world depicted in that film Idiocracy.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Sep 2017, 10:54
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 21 Sep 2017, 04:14
Lies are like a sugar rush. They're short term and ultimately don't last. Truth is forever. Sure, TDK Rises miraculously had a crime-free Gotham thanks to the Dent Act, but Jokedy Joke Joke (JJJ) won the moral battle regardless of what Gordon and Batman sold to the public....and all three of them all knew it.
Baleman only postponed Gotham's reckoning. And really, withholding the truth for so long only made the situation a tsunami. Think about it, folks. By covering up the truth about Dent, Baleman was smeared as a cop killer for about eight years. His name was mud. And guess what? When the truth came out, his name should still be mud, because he's now just a liar. Baleman was NEVER the moral beacon for Gotham City any way you look at it.
His only heroic deed was carrying the bomb out of Gotham. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror.
I've said before, and I'll say it once again: it boggles my mind that pretentious airheads argue that Joker won the moral battle, while still declaring TDK and TDKR as "inspirational" and "heroic" compared to BvS. To this day, I am astounded by the utter stupidity of these critics and fanboys. I feel as if we live in the world depicted in that film Idiocracy.
It's the classic "Nolan can do no wrong" tale. Still at this stage of his career Nolan hasn't learned how to shoot action or edit his films properly and yet rarely gets called out for it.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Sep 2017, 10:54
I've said before, and I'll say it once again: it boggles my mind that pretentious airheads argue that Joker won the moral battle, while still declaring TDK and TDKR as "inspirational" and "heroic" compared to BvS.
Honestly, I think the only Batman film that truly qualifies as having an inspirational and heroic ending is B89. Danny Elfman's use of 'Finale' really cements my opinion....because that music screams heroism in a big way. It's total victory. The villain is defeated, his goons are rounded up, the hero stands victorious, and his girlfriend will be waiting back at home for him. BF and B&R end happily, but not
triumphantly. Same thing with Begins. It's a good little scene but it's low key in comparison to B89. Burton and Elfman gave such a satisfying conclusion and release to their film that still manages to give me goosebumps. Batman retains his mystery but he steps out of the shadows. It's a really cool balance.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 24 Sep 2017, 15:19
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Sep 2017, 10:54
I've said before, and I'll say it once again: it boggles my mind that pretentious airheads argue that Joker won the moral battle, while still declaring TDK and TDKR as "inspirational" and "heroic" compared to BvS.
Honestly, I think the only Batman film that truly qualifies as having an inspirational and heroic ending is B89. Danny Elfman's use of 'Finale' really cements my opinion....because that music screams heroism in a big way. It's total victory. The villain is defeated, his goons are rounded up, the hero stands victorious, and his girlfriend will be waiting back at home for him. BF and B&R end happily, but not triumphantly. Same thing with Begins. It's a good little scene but it's low key in comparison to B89. Burton and Elfman gave such a satisfying conclusion and release to their film that still manages to give me goosebumps. Batman retains his mystery but he steps out of the shadows. It's a really cool balance.
That's an interesting observation, actually.
BR... well, we know all about that one.
BF has Batman gaining a new partner, a new girlfriend (shortlived apparently) and a sense of inner peace. But the victories are moral and psychological rather than visceral.
B&R is happy, like you say, but more like a breath of relief than an exultation of absolute victory.
With BB, things arguably are worse than they were before.
TDK shows things definitely being worse.
TDKRises shows a conclusion but the ending is anything but happy. Resolute but not triumphant.
Hell, even Batman: The Movie shows the UN delegates completely screwed up and Bruce realized his relationship with Ms. Kitka was a scam by Catwoman (as nonsensical as that might be, continuity-wise).
BVS shows Batman realizing he made a huge mistake.
B89 truly is the only happy, triumphant ending the character has ever had in live action.
Of all movies MOTP can't be said to have a happy ending.
It raises the question of if Batman movies should have triumphal endings or if the bittersweet approach is better.
I'll take it a step further and do the same for the spider-man movies
Spider-man: Harry is mourning Norman's death and vows revenge on spider-man, Peter decides not to be with MJ
Spider-man 2: Peter and MJ are finally together but Harry has learned Peter is Spider-man and now off for revenge on Peter
Spider-man 3: Harry is dead, Pete and MJ seem to be staying broken up
Amazing spider-man: Captain Stacey is dead and Gwen is hurt by what happened with Doctor Connors.
Amazing Spider-man 2: Gwen is dead
Spider-man homecoming: Liz' father is in prison, Peter is foregoing his goal of becoming an Avenger
so Spidey never gets a truly happy triumphant ending either, the closest we get is the newest film which still has somewhat of a somber ending. I guess that's the tragedy of being a super hero, your war is never truly won.
I'm a lover of tragedy. Apart from Batman, I'm also fascinated by Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader's story. I find him so engaging because in the story triangle there's always three key roles...the victim, the villain and the hero. Anakin is all three. I won't go into much more detail about Vader, but needless to say, strong and theatrical characters like Vader and Batman aren't always what they project. They're fighting an internal battle on a regular basis, and truthfully, they're not far off ending it all. But they manage to keep going despite all this. They find reasons to live.
So needless to say, I'm a fan of poignant, downbeat endings. Batman Returns being the key example here. Really, it's PERFECT when you consider what I typed in my first paragraph. Bruce is being driven around Gotham with lingering thoughts about Selina probably being dead. At the very least, she outright rejected his love and attacked him. That's rocket fuel for depression and something don't get over easy. Penguin had to be stopped, but in any case, I think Bruce was affected by his story in some way. Even if just for the fact he grew up without his parents. So there's that.
So the guy is feeling down, and he's probably very nearly out. But he spots a silhouette on a wall and gets excited for a split second. He gets out of the car and to his disappointment, he doesn't find what he's looking for. But he does find a cat, and that alone manages to lift his spirits. He's starting to feel better already, even if he is still hollow and full of longing. It just enough to say life isn't all doom and gloom, even if it mostly is.
But don't downplay B89's ending. It's unforgettable and the perfect way to end that film. These types of endings have their place, and I'm expecting something similar for Justice League. But for my money, something somber better suits Batman.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 25 Sep 2017, 15:41Bruce is being driven around Gotham with lingering thoughts about Selina probably being dead.
This is something I'd never connected before. But the ending of BR is a dark counter-point to the ending of B89, where Alfred drives a happy Vicki to a date (or a meeting of some kind) with Bruce. Love is in the air. Contrast that with BR, where Bruce drives a lonely Bruce through Gotham City. It may be Christmas but heartbreak is in the air.
Interesting...
It's not terrible, but I still don't like the added shot of Catwoman standing in thin air looking at the bat signal. It wasn't needed, and it only created a mistake. In my opinion it also tarnishes any mystery the silhouette on the wall created moments before. Batman's eye shadow? Reusing shots of Batman watching the missiles rain down? I don't care about that. But I find that Catwoman ending annoying, and doubly so when you realize it wasn't originally planned. I guess Batman doesn't know she lived, but the error remains. She's not standing on anything!
So there you have it. I prefer the tone of BR's ending, but prefer how 'clean' B89's is.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 25 Sep 2017, 04:04
With BB, things arguably are worse than they were before.
I think BB's ending is the least problematic out of Nolan's films because whether you like it or not, Batman still saves the day. The League of Shadows always wanted to destroy Gotham City long before Bruce got involved with them. Sure, they would come back to finish what Ra's al Ghul started in the future. But there may never have been a future for Gotham City if Bruce never became Batman.
Unfortunately, Batman's decisions in the sequels definitely made things worse for the city.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 25 Sep 2017, 04:04
B&R is happy, like you say, but more like a breath of relief than an exultation of absolute victory.
I'd have to disagree. As relieving it was for Alfred to survive, the ending had Batman and Robin making amends with petty differences and Batgirl joining their ranks. If there was an evolving character arc for Batman linking Burton with Schumacher, it's that Batman has found a surrogate family and no longer drifts along alone in the world. I think him finding that closure is a triumph by itself.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 26 Sep 2017, 01:54
It's not terrible, but I still don't like the added shot of Catwoman standing in thin air looking at the bat signal. It wasn't needed, and it only created a mistake. In my opinion it also tarnishes any mystery the silhouette on the wall created moments before. Batman's eye shadow? Reusing shots of Batman watching the missiles rain down? I don't care about that. But I find that Catwoman ending annoying, and doubly so when you realize it wasn't originally planned. I guess Batman doesn't know she lived, but the error remains. She's not standing on anything!
So there you have it. I prefer the tone of BR's ending, but prefer how 'clean' B89's is.
I can understand the argument against having Catwoman staring up at the Batsignal because it does diminish the shadow on the wall, if one wanted to see it as open to interpretation whether she's alive or not. But I never paid much attention to the spatial error (if that's the correct term). I always assumed she was standing from the foreground.
I would have preferred the final shot have been the flickering Bat signal , it fit the plot of the film and could have been a way to show Bruce was right about Gotham's power supply.
I will forgive Burton for putting Catwoman there though. At the time he planned on using her in a future film which would have made more sense. You have to remember comic book movies were still in it's infancy so sequel continuity was not what it is now. It does go down as an unresolved cliff hanger and open up more unanswered questions about what exactly happened to Selina.
I take the ending that hope is enough to keep Bruce going and fighting.
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 24 Sep 2017, 02:41It's the classic "Nolan can do no wrong" tale. Still at this stage of his career Nolan hasn't learned how to shoot action or edit his films properly and yet rarely gets called out for it.
From many people who love the Nolan movies I have seen complaints about the editing and choreography. Personally it never concerned me. Fighting in Batman is good, but Batman isn't really about him punching people. In BvS Bruce running into the crumbling rubble of the city in an alien invasion is 10x cooler than almost anything in that warehouse fight to me.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 24 Sep 2017, 15:19Honestly, I think the only Batman film that truly qualifies as having an inspirational and heroic ending is B89. Danny Elfman's use of 'Finale' really cements my opinion....because that music screams heroism in a big way. It's total victory. The villain is defeated, his goons are rounded up, the hero stands victorious, and his girlfriend will be waiting back at home for him. BF and B&R end happily, but not triumphantly. Same thing with Begins. It's a good little scene but it's low key in comparison to B89. Burton and Elfman gave such a satisfying conclusion and release to their film that still manages to give me goosebumps. Batman retains his mystery but he steps out of the shadows. It's a really cool balance.
The endings to BF and B&R are very hopeful, certainly B&R's is more hopeful than B89.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 22 Sep 2017, 04:19TDK I don't disagree with anything you wrote, my preference would have been telling the truth as well. Supposedly they're worried that any convictions Dent got could be put in jeopardy if Gotham finds out what he did. To that I say baloney- it could be easily proven that Harvey went off the deep end after Rachel's death and his scarring. That would have been far more logical than tampering with a murder scene to frame Batman.
Bruce needlessly martyring himself was a pretty big point in the movie. He blames himself for the Joker's existence, for Rachel's death and for Harvey's insanity. "Did I bring this on her Alfred? I was meant to inspire good. Not madness, not death." "Gotham needs its true hero. And I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell." "I'm sorry, Harvey." No one and I mean no one in either movies pretends this is a good thing. It's not even about what can be proven. It's about trying to place Harvey as a maryr for the cause, a false martyr. Havrey becomes that for the cops and the city who all look up to Harvey as someone who is apart of the system. They even all practically cheer Harvey on when he turns himself in. Batman has never inspired true hope for the city at that point. He's an unsanctioned vigilante, who pummels criminals that the cops overlook. People turn on Batman when things go bad because he's not someone they view as the heroic White Knight. He's morally dubious. Dent was a noble Prince Charming type hero to them. That's the illusion Batman and Jim want to maintain and it's wrong to do.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Sep 2017, 10:54I've said before, and I'll say it once again: it boggles my mind that pretentious airheads argue that Joker won the moral battle, while still declaring TDK and TDKR as "inspirational" and "heroic" compared to BvS. To this day, I am astounded by the utter stupidity of these critics and fanboys. I feel as if we live in the world depicted in that film Idiocracy.
The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. Even BvS understands what you don't want see on some level: The existence of bad winning a battle doesn't erase heroism or hope or inspirational-ness. It's simply a false notion. The Joker can win a battle. That doesn't negate any heroism or inspiration. You insulting that understanding seems so cynical. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 26 Sep 2017, 01:54
It's not terrible, but I still don't like the added shot of Catwoman standing in thin air looking at the bat signal. It wasn't needed, and it only created a mistake. In my opinion it also tarnishes any mystery the silhouette on the wall created moments before.
The Joker and the Penguin died so I thought it was nice to see a break and avoidance of that trend and acknowledgment that the villains usually don't die. And there's still some ambiguity about does she want a rematch (that's how I most often interpret the ending), is she going to forgive Batman, become a criminal but avoid Batman or planning to leave?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 25 Sep 2017, 04:04
BF has Batman gaining a new partner, a new girlfriend (shortlived apparently) and a sense of inner peace. But the victories are moral and psychological rather than visceral.
There's also the weirdness that, against what he said should be done, he killed (or didn't save) Two-Face in the end. But I think I and most viewers did see not saving him as pretty different.
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 26 Sep 2017, 13:55
I would have preferred the final shot have been the flickering Bat signal , it fit the plot of the film and could have been a way to show Bruce was right about Gotham's power supply.
I will forgive Burton for putting Catwoman there though. At the time he planned on using her in a future film which would have made more sense. You have to remember comic book movies were still in it's infancy so sequel continuity was not what it is now. It does go down as an unresolved cliff hanger and open up more unanswered questions about what exactly happened to Selina.
I take the ending that hope is enough to keep Bruce going and fighting.
Not sure how a flickering bat signal would prove Bruce right. If anything, it would vindicate Max Shreck.
Quote from: Andrew on Thu, 28 Sep 2017, 16:10
There's also the weirdness that, against what he said should be done, he killed (or didn't save) Two-Face in the end. But I think I and most viewers did see not saving him as pretty different.
I don't think the argument that Batman didn't save Two-Face holds any water because he was directly responsible for causing Two-Face to fall to his watery grave. So yes, I'd say he definitely killed him.
Nonetheless, I believe it served a purpose plotwise. Bruce had warned Dick that getting revenge over his parents' killer would only grow the desire for vengeance instead of ending it, which he knows from experience after killing the Joker. Him causing Two-Face's demise prevents Dick from making the same mistake and move on with the rest of his life.
Of course, Dick seemingly enjoying Two-Face's death may leave somebody to wonder whether or not he really understood how toxic vengeance is, but that's an argument for another day.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 29 Sep 2017, 00:49
Quote from: Andrew on Thu, 28 Sep 2017, 16:10
There's also the weirdness that, against what he said should be done, he killed (or didn't save) Two-Face in the end. But I think I and most viewers did see not saving him as pretty different.
I don't think the argument that Batman didn't save Two-Face holds any water because he was directly responsible for causing Two-Face to fall to his watery grave. So yes, I'd say he definitely killed him.
Nonetheless, I believe it served a purpose plotwise. Bruce had warned Dick that getting revenge over his parents' killer would only grow the desire for vengeance instead of ending it, which he knows from experience after killing the Joker. Him causing Two-Face's demise prevents Dick from making the same mistake and move on with the rest of his life.
Of course, Dick seemingly enjoying Two-Face's death may leave somebody to wonder whether or not he really understood how toxic vengeance is, but that's an argument for another day.
I'm a bit wary about calling Harvey Dent's death a deliberate kill by Batman. Dent was flipping a coin to decide if Gordon's boy lived or died. Batman was not going to leave that to chance. So when he jumped on Dent, the boy fell with them. Batman had to save himself to save the boy. We can say that technically it was Batman's actions that led to Dent's death, but it was circumstantial. Batman's intent was to save the boy and that's what he did. And actually Batman allowed himself to fall after the boy was handed off to Gordon, so in the end he allowed chance to determine his fate like Harvey's. Batman survived the fall, Dent did not. I don't believe Batman had any intention of killing him. Fate determined that.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017, 11:52
I'm a bit wary about calling Harvey Dent's death a deliberate kill by Batman. Dent was flipping a coin to decide if Gordon's boy lived or died. Batman was not going to leave that to chance. So when he jumped on Dent, the boy fell with them. Batman had to save himself to save the boy. We can say that technically it was Batman's actions that led to Dent's death, but it was circumstantial. Batman's intent was to save the boy and that's what he did. And actually Batman allowed himself to fall after the boy was handed off to Gordon, so in the end he allowed chance to determine his fate like Harvey's. Batman survived the fall, Dent did not. I don't believe Batman had any intention of killing him. Fate determined that.
Are we talking about Batman Forever or The Dark Knight? I was referring to Batman Forever because Andrew was replying to thecolorsblend's comments about BF's ending.
In any case, whether Batman meant to or not in either film, he still had to have been aware that his actions were going to put Two-Face at risk. It may not necessarily have been
murder, but it doesn't negate the fact that he still killed him. In Forever, he had to distract Two-Face from threatening him, Chase and Robin, and in doing so, Two-Face dies much to Robin's satisfaction. In DK, he had to do something to save Gordon's son. And I wouldn't have a problem with the latter movie...if it didn't spend the last half hour having Batman refuse to kill the mass-murdering Joker at the expense of an entire town's safety. That's just pathetic, as was the silent reaction by the audience. Especially when you consider the laughable over-exaggeration when people derided Superman for reluctantly killing a genocidal Zod or Batman blows Knyazev's flamethrower tank to save Martha Kent.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 29 Sep 2017, 13:20
Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017, 11:52
I'm a bit wary about calling Harvey Dent's death a deliberate kill by Batman. Dent was flipping a coin to decide if Gordon's boy lived or died. Batman was not going to leave that to chance. So when he jumped on Dent, the boy fell with them. Batman had to save himself to save the boy. We can say that technically it was Batman's actions that led to Dent's death, but it was circumstantial. Batman's intent was to save the boy and that's what he did. And actually Batman allowed himself to fall after the boy was handed off to Gordon, so in the end he allowed chance to determine his fate like Harvey's. Batman survived the fall, Dent did not. I don't believe Batman had any intention of killing him. Fate determined that.
Are we talking about Batman Forever or The Dark Knight? I was referring to Batman Forever because Andrew was replying to thecolorsblend's comments about BF's ending.
In any case, whether Batman meant to or not in either film, he still had to have been aware that his actions were going to put Two-Face at risk. It may not necessarily have been murder, but it doesn't negate the fact that he still killed him. In Forever, he had to distract Two-Face from threatening him, Chase and Robin, and in doing so, Two-Face dies much to Robin's satisfaction. In DK, he had to do something to save Gordon's son. And I wouldn't have a problem with the latter movie...if it didn't spend the last half hour having Batman refuse to kill the mass-murdering Joker at the expense of an entire town's safety. That's just pathetic, as was the silent reaction by the audience. Especially when you consider the laughable over-exaggeration when people derided Superman for reluctantly killing a genocidal Zod or Batman blows Knyazev's flamethrower tank to save Martha Kent.
My apologies. I was referencing the Dark Knight segment. With context applied to Forever, I absolutely agree with you across the board. That was a deliberate kill and I think the thought process there (for Batman) was to make that moral sacrifice to spare Robin the dilemma he struggled over to seek revenge. You could see that opportunity lost on Robin's face as he see's him fall.
With Dark Knight I also agree with you on the uneven application of the morality play in Nolan's script. Actually I have a bigger problem with how that whole scenario played out between the ships and the detonation switches. I think in the "real world" the Joker wins that argument completely. Nolan leaned painfully on bad stereotypes and a unrealistic high moral society that I refuse to believe exists under those conditions. Batman's argument (and speech) to the Joker is so painfully contrived, it's hard to watch. That speech also underscores what Keaton always said about Batman which is he should be seen more than heard.
I like the Nolan movies and they are entertaining. But they are heavily flawed in their self-anointed morality play that Nolan tries too hard to weave into the fabric of the plot. Just as with Snyder, when you try to marry highbrow social themes too closely with the concept, the story tends to collapse on itself. Vigilantism within it's own construct is not truly an ideal that warrants scores of virtue since the basis of it's existence is to apply justice and punishment according to the beholders personal value system which he/she believes everyone should follow because of the emotion they feel for themselves. By all accounts, it's actually very self-serving.
We can romanticize that notion in the world of Batman as an unspoken trait that understands he is mostly right (and well intending) when he executes his will. But if we try to press the point and apply real world ideas against it, then the concept ceases to work because Batman is not real, nor are the ideas that govern his ability to exist in his world. That's why movies like Dark Knight, Rises, and BVS have enormous credibility holes in their stories. The writers get too married to these characters which makes them try and validate them with a real world psychology. For me, it just doesn't translate well.
That's why I LOVE Burton's movies and to a lesser extent Schumacher's because both keep Batman in his world and don't try to sell him as anything more than he should be in our world. Batman is great escapist fun. Let me come to his world, but keep him out of mine. I spend enough time here.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 29 Sep 2017, 00:49
Quote from: Andrew on Thu, 28 Sep 2017, 16:10
There's also the weirdness that, against what he said should be done, he killed (or didn't save) Two-Face in the end. But I think I and most viewers did see not saving him as pretty different.
I don't think the argument that Batman didn't save Two-Face holds any water because he was directly responsible for causing Two-Face to fall to his watery grave. So yes, I'd say he definitely killed him.
Nonetheless, I believe it served a purpose plotwise. Bruce had warned Dick that getting revenge over his parents' killer would only grow the desire for vengeance instead of ending it, which he knows from experience after killing the Joker. Him causing Two-Face's demise prevents Dick from making the same mistake and move on with the rest of his life.
That's possible but if so it's very weird storytelling since we saw Robin earlier choose to spare Two-Face's life, settle for jail, although that nobility then backfired and got him captured. But I guess Batman didn't see that and even if he inferred that it happened he might worry Robin might not be noble again.
It's also possible that he was feeling vengeful, especially after nearly losing Chase and/or Robin and especially worried with Two-Face knowing his secret identity. And/or he just couldn't come up with a better way to defeat Two-Face other than tossing the many coins.
I think Batman's choice in BF was more deliberate but not very different in context or implication from that in TDK ending.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017, 16:26
With Dark Knight I also agree with you on the uneven application of the morality play in Nolan's script. Actually I have a bigger problem with how that whole scenario played out between the ships and the detonation switches. I think in the "real world" the Joker wins that argument completely. Nolan leaned painfully on bad stereotypes and a unrealistic high moral society that I refuse to believe exists under those conditions. Batman's argument (and speech) to the Joker is so painfully contrived, it's hard to watch.
Batman's argument wouldn't be so contrived if he backed up everything he said about people ready to believe in good by telling the truth about Harvey Dent. That's the thing I despise the most from these movies. They introduce an unrealistic ideal, and then make a conclusion that doesn't even support the message they promote. And that's something that's carried over in the third film when the lie is exposed and the fearful and angry populace descends to chaos. The truth wouldn't have prevented Bane and Talia from trying to finish what Ra's al Ghul had started, but it definitely would've prepared the people of Gotham to stand up to their horror, as they did against the Joker.
This is why I love Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Peter Parker comes back after gone MIA for months and uses his strength and willpower to stop the train, and that act of bravery inspires all the grateful passengers by keeping his identity a secret, and even trying to defend him from Doctor Octopus. In the real world, the cynic in me would cry how unrealistic it is, but the world portrayed in Spider-Man 2 backs up this idealism where the hero inspires good and doesn't compromise his ideals to supposedly 'protect' the wide community. That's heroic.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 06:48
Batman's argument wouldn't be so contrived if he backed up everything he said about people ready to believe in good by telling the truth about Harvey Dent.
That's a really good point.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 06:48
Batman's argument wouldn't be so contrived if he backed up everything he said about people ready to believe in good by telling the truth about Harvey Dent. That's the thing I despise the most from these movies. They introduce an unrealistic ideal, and then make a conclusion that doesn't even support the message they promote. And that's something that's carried over in the third film when the lie is exposed and the fearful and angry populace descends to chaos. The truth wouldn't have prevented Bane and Talia from trying to finish what Ra's al Ghul had started, but it definitely would've prepared the people of Gotham to stand up to their horror, as they did against the Joker.
This is why I love Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Peter Parker comes back after gone MIA for months and uses his strength and willpower to stop the train, and that act of bravery inspires all the grateful passengers by keeping his identity a secret, and even trying to defend him from Doctor Octopus. In the real world, the cynic in me would cry how unrealistic it is, but the world portrayed in Spider-Man 2 backs up this idealism where the hero inspires good and doesn't compromise his ideals to supposedly 'protect' the wide community. That's heroic.
Well said!
Quote from: Wayne49 on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 13:05Well said!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 12:17That's a really good point.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 06:48Batman's argument wouldn't be so contrived if he backed up everything he said about people ready to believe in good by telling the truth about Harvey Dent.
That would contradict Bruce's whole characterization in the movie, where he endlessly states that Harvey is the true hero of Gotham, while thinking of Batman, himself, as an inspiration for madness.
QuoteThat's the thing I despise the most from these movies. They introduce an unrealistic ideal, and then make a conclusion that doesn't even support the message they promote.
The movie makes no such conclusion. Bruce is wrong and proven to be so in TDKRises.
QuoteAnd that's something that's carried over in the third film when the lie is exposed and the fearful and angry populace descends to chaos.
That literally never happens. Criminals are the only ones shown to do any damage. No one else. So the ideal is still intact.
QuoteThe truth wouldn't have prevented Bane and Talia from trying to finish what Ra's al Ghul had started, but it definitely would've prepared the people of Gotham to stand up to their horror, as they did against the Joker.
The only thing the lie did was make Batman the enemy of the GCPD because Bruce was too cynical to trust the truth. Bruce is the one who doesn't believe in that ideal. He believes that without the inspiration of a pure white knight hero like Dent, the city will lose hope, because he loathes himself and the damage that he thinks he causes by being Batman.
QuoteThis is why I love Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Peter Parker comes back after gone MIA for months and uses his strength and willpower to stop the train, and that act of bravery inspires all the grateful passengers by keeping his identity a secret, and even trying to defend him from Doctor Octopus. In the real world, the cynic in me would cry how unrealistic it is, but the world portrayed in Spider-Man 2 backs up this idealism where the hero inspires good and doesn't compromise his ideals to supposedly 'protect' the wide community. That's heroic.
And if you paid attention to TDK, you'd see that same aspect in the public not destroying eachother on the boats. Batman's whole structure is about breaking the law for the greater good. That's not a compromise of his ideals. Batman lies by the very nature of having a secret identity. And him lying to protect the public very much lines up with Batman's comic canon attitude and ideals, who is willing to lie to Dick about his parents killer to protect him. Even in TDK, when Batman catches Harvey threatening that Joker goon, he doesn't say a word to anyone about it. When Harvey turns himself in as Batman, no word. Batman thinks it's right. It's not a compromise of his ideals. The thing is: Are those ideals right? For a lie like with Harvey or the one that Alfred gives Bruce, and I'd also say in regards to Harvey threatening the Joker goon: No, as shown by TDKRises. I guess the movie's just too deep for ya. ;) I jest. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 16 Oct 2017, 07:40
And if you paid attention to TDK, you'd see that same aspect in the public not destroying eachother on the boats. Batman's whole structure is about breaking the law for the greater good. That's not a compromise of his ideals. Batman lies by the very nature of having a secret identity. And him lying to protect the public very much lines up with Batman's comic canon attitude and ideals, who is willing to lie to Dick about his parents killer to protect him. Even in TDK, when Batman catches Harvey threatening that Joker goon, he doesn't say a word to anyone about it. When Harvey turns himself in as Batman, no word. Batman thinks it's right. It's not a compromise of his ideals. The thing is: Are those ideals right? For a lie like with Harvey or the one that Alfred gives Bruce, and I'd also say in regards to Harvey threatening the Joker goon: No, as shown by TDKRises. I guess the movie's just too deep for ya. ;) I jest. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
I think DK has a couple of plot weaknesses that are pretty glaring. Bruce created Batman as a symbol to fight the establishment without having to answer to the boundaries that would face a public figure exposed to the limitations of his property, friends, family, and reputation as open targets. The problem Nolan creates is this idea that Batman IS a public figure. In the first film, Batman is portrayed as something that is more myth than fact. Only the criminals and detectives working certain cases understand there is another entity involved. That's the concept working as it should. But in Dark Knight you suddenly have people imitating him like crime fighter cos-players.
How is Batman suddenly that well known when his existence is still compared with Bigfoot and Gordon won't even confirm the existence of the Batsignal, choosing instead to describe it as a malfunctioning light to the prosecuting attorney? Even the public imitators have somehow duplicated Batman's cowl with uncanny accuracy like he is a licensed product. I can accept some of this to simply advance the plot line since we're watching a superhero movie. But Nolan insists on leaning on this logic to drive the story which takes me out of the film because he's asking me to weigh it at face value which doesn't work.
If Batman is suddenly a brand name from which the public can distinguish his motivation and purpose, how effective can he truly be anymore? He now has a reputation to foil. So why does the Joker need to kill people to make him turn himself in? Why not just muddy the image? Why not commit crimes in his image so that even the authorities have no idea what side Batman is on? Why this morality play on Batman's "no-kill" clause? That is the problem with this entire story. Everyone is gifted with the ability to know the motivations and values of one another even though Batman is supposed to be more enigma than personality.
And why would Bruce Wayne feel any inclination to fall for the Joker's obvious bait to turn himself in since he already understands the Joker is not working from principle and Batman is not supposed to be a public figure? And how does anyone know Batman has a no-kill clause? When did he give an interview? When did he come out of the shadows to even offer his mission statement? That is such an impossible leap in assumption, it never works. And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway. You can apply all the subtext and analysis you like to what you believe was intended here. The bottom line is the framework of the character does not fit the forced conclusion to cave to the Joker's demand.
The second glaring plot weakness is the boat sequence between the two stereotyped groups. First, it's way too self aware as a plot device because it's Nolan once again preaching while he tries to force feed some pretentious notion that Batman has a pulse on the good in society and that only he understands the will of what the average person would do. It's completely preposterous because once again it leaps off the charts of reason and makes this universal claim of understanding the greater good of society. It gets even funnier when you realize Batman was supposed to be created from the corruptible element of mankind. It leaves the solar system of logic when you realize the basis for his training and conditioning comes from a radical group with militia intentions. So everything in that story plot is completely unbelievable. Nothing established in that world (and certainly nothing in the real world) would EVER get you to that moment of rationale. Painfully contrived and not remotely believable.
Batman as a concept makes for great theater. When visionary directors like Burton get a hold of this character, they create magical worlds that are incredible to visit, which makes for tremendous escapist fun. And like any good film, they can provide social commentary where applicable while still embracing the more fantastical aspects of this character. Batman provides a broad range of perspectives to explore. But at the end of the day he is fantasy.
I think Nolan is an exceptionally gifted director. I think his imprint on Batman is well earned and quite frankly speaks for itself. I would never suggest or attempt to take away the credits he has garnered for making a truly successful trilogy that has yet to be commercially challenged by any other interpretation. In many ways it's original in it's execution and I praise Nolan for working outside the box to offer a different perspective on this character. That is the strength of Batman.
But like any installment in this franchise, I have to be in the right mood for each treatment. Burton pleases me the most with his tremendous visual gifts and artful direction. For me, his vision is the closest to the Batman I embrace the most. Schumacher is a great release when the world gets too dark and depressing. It's great eye candy that is good for the spirits and those young at heart. And Nolan is a perfect fix when I want an all encapsulating profile on the psychology of Bruce Wayne as Batman. Nolan creates real drama in his stories and for me took the most daring of moves by giving Bruce Wayne a happy ending. I respect that because it's nice to see all that turmoil and angst find resolve and peace.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 13:37I think DK has a couple of plot weaknesses that are pretty glaring. Bruce created Batman as a symbol to fight the establishment without having to answer to the boundaries that would face a public figure exposed to the limitations of his property, friends, family, and reputation as open targets. The problem Nolan creates is this idea that Batman IS a public figure. In the first film, Batman is portrayed as something that is more myth than fact. Only the criminals and detectives working certain cases understand there is another entity involved. That's the concept working as it should. But in Dark Knight you suddenly have people imitating him like crime fighter cos-players.
I think that's just Nolan playing in the pool of realism. If Batman has a batsignal by the police, who targets the mob, there's no way the character would be looked at by the public at large as a myth. We're at the point in TDK where Batman has been Batman for at least a year. It's pretty reasonable that he would go from myth to known figure.
QuoteHow is Batman suddenly that well known when his existence is still compared with Bigfoot and Gordon won't even confirm the existence of the Batsignal, choosing instead to describe it as a malfunctioning light to the prosecuting attorney? Even the public imitators have somehow duplicated Batman's cowl with uncanny accuracy like he is a licensed product. I can accept some of this to simply advance the plot line since we're watching a superhero movie. But Nolan insists on leaning on this logic to drive the story which takes me out of the film because he's asking me to weigh it at face value which doesn't work.
Gordon won't confirm it to officials, but it exists and everyone knows it. Batman isn't really compared to bigfoot. Bigfoot being a batman suspect, along with Abraham Lincoln felt like, to me, that it was a crack that the cops aren't even trying to figure out who batman is.
QuoteIf Batman is suddenly a brand name from which the public can distinguish his motivation and purpose, how effective can he truly be anymore? He now has a reputation to foil. So why does the Joker need to kill people to make him turn himself in? Why not just muddy the image? Why not commit crimes in his image so that even the authorities have no idea what side Batman is on? Why this morality play on Batman's "no-kill" clause? That is the problem with this entire story. Everyone is gifted with the ability to know the motivations and values of one another even though Batman is supposed to be more enigma than personality.
The authorities do know what side Batman is on. Gordon works with Batman. Joker's job that he's hired for is to get rid of Batman, not to make people hate him. No one knows Batman's motivations or values. Joker thinks he does, but doesn't get it until the end. Batman doesn't get it about the Joker until Rachel dies. The mob doesn't know jack about Batman, they just figure out how he works, which isn't a leap. The Joker doesn't try to play on Batman's morality until the interrogation scene.
QuoteAnd why would Bruce Wayne feel any inclination to fall for the Joker's obvious bait to turn himself in since he already understands the Joker is not working from principle and Batman is not supposed to be a public figure? And how does anyone know Batman has a no-kill clause? When did he give an interview? When did he come out of the shadows to even offer his mission statement? That is such an impossible leap in assumption, it never works. And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway. You can apply all the subtext and analysis you like to what you believe was intended here. The bottom line is the framework of the character does not fit the forced conclusion to cave to the Joker's demand.
Bruce doesn't understand the Joker though. Alfred is does. Bruce is utterly flabbergasted on how to deal with it. Bruce is willing to turn himself in because he doesn't know what else to do. This isn't analysis or subtext. This is in the movie. In the interrogation scene Bruce calls Joker garbage who kills for money. Bruce doesn't understand until after Rachel dies. No one knows Batman has a no-kill clause and no one says that they do. Moroni says that people have become wise to the fact that Batman has rules. It's just basic understanding of Batman at this point. He works with the police. He doesn't actively kill people. He has rules.
QuoteThe second glaring plot weakness is the boat sequence between the two stereotyped groups. First, it's way too self aware as a plot device because it's Nolan once again preaching while he tries to force feed some pretentious notion that Batman has a pulse on the good in society and that only he understands the will of what the average person would do. It's completely preposterous because once again it leaps off the charts of reason and makes this universal claim of understanding the greater good of society. It gets even funnier when you realize Batman was supposed to be created from the corruptible element of mankind. It leaves the solar system of logic when you realize the basis for his training and conditioning comes from a radical group with militia intentions. So everything in that story plot is completely unbelievable. Nothing established in that world (and certainly nothing in the real world) would EVER get you to that moment of rationale. Painfully contrived and not remotely believable.
Actually, there's no structure of real greater good presented. In the movie, the majority votes to blow the criminals up, but no one chooses to do it. On the criminals boat, its run by cops and no criminal can do a thing without getting killed. The one who does something is someone willing to take a stand, who wouldn't be afraid of getting killed. If anything, the movie more or less splits the difference between people doing good and people doing bad. The scene could have been done better, but it's not constructed in as black and white a way as you say. More than anything, the movie seems to point at the idea that people as a whole aren't boiled down to completely good or completely evil. We see a man doing good on the boat and we Harvey doing evil after that. Actually, I'd say the movie points to Batman being wrong about the people at his perception that he doesn't accomplish good and that Harvey is the city's true hero. Bruce believes the city's goodness is conditioned on whether or not Harvey is good and that's simply not true. If anything, Batman has a cynical view of the city. He thinks they're ready to believe in good, by his own words and he seems to hope they will do good, but he doesn't believe they're good. He thinks they can only do good and have hope with Harvey Dent, which is false.
QuoteAnd Nolan is a perfect fix when I want an all encapsulating profile on the psychology of Bruce Wayne as Batman. Nolan creates real drama in his stories and for me took the most daring of moves by giving Bruce Wayne a happy ending. I respect that because it's nice to see all that turmoil and angst find resolve and peace.
I agree in a sense. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 13:37
If Batman is suddenly a brand name from which the public can distinguish his motivation and purpose, how effective can he truly be anymore? He now has a reputation to foil. So why does the Joker need to kill people to make him turn himself in? Why not just muddy the image? Why not commit crimes in his image so that even the authorities have no idea what side Batman is on?
He considers it more fun to actually corrupt Batman and/or not lie per se to the city but have the city turn against Batman even thinking he's a good guy but indirectly causing more harm.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 13:37
Why this morality play on Batman's "no-kill" clause? That is the problem with this entire story. Everyone is gifted with the ability to know the motivations and values of one another even though Batman is supposed to be more enigma than personality.
I guess it's a contrivance but reasonable that he deduced it from him being a vigilante and yet not killing criminals (he may also assume that someone who isn't sadistic like him and fights for society must have a lot of society's restraints in general).
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 13:37
And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway.
Yeah that felt like a rather phony dilemma.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 13:37
The second glaring plot weakness is the boat sequence between the two stereotyped groups. First, it's way too self aware as a plot device because it's Nolan once again preaching while he tries to force feed some pretentious notion that Batman has a pulse on the good in society and that only he understands the will of what the average person would do. It's completely preposterous because once again it leaps off the charts of reason and makes this universal claim of understanding the greater good of society.
That scene is pretty weird-Batman interprets it as the public proving the Joker wrong but really most of the civilians wanted to blow the other up, and were close to though they ultimately didn't, and only one criminal decided against doing so.
Quote from: Andrew on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 21:19Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 13:37And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway.
Yeah that felt like a rather phony dilemma.
Honestly, it falls pretty neatly in line with Nolan Batman's structure of morality and actions. He never tries to kill someone unless there's immediate danger in play. Harvey was trying to kill a kid. Blowing up the monastery was the only way he could escape the LOS, who'd just told him they were planning to destroy Gotham and were telling him that he must kill someone to prove his worth to them and there was no turning back. Even then, the monastery was just a distraction so he could escape that gets some LOS members killed. Crashing the train was the only way to stop it and Batman tried to stop it manually and would have if Ra's hadn't stabbed the console.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 22:22
[Honestly, it falls pretty neatly in line with Nolan Batman's structure of morality and actions. He never tries to kill someone unless there's immediate danger in play. Harvey was trying to kill a kid. Blowing up the monastery was the only way he could escape the LOS, who'd just told him they were planning to destroy Gotham and were telling him that he must kill someone to prove his worth to them and there was no turning back. Even then, the monastery was just a distraction so he could escape that gets some LOS members killed. Crashing the train was the only way to stop it and Batman tried to stop it manually and would have if Ra's hadn't stabbed the console.
All of these events mentioned only support why this is a weak plot contrivance. Wayne has already been in several circumstances where he's had to kill or chosen not to do anything which results in someone being killed (in theory). So now we're into situational ethics where Bruce decides life and death. With the Joker, he is already known to be a ruthless killer which exempts no one, not even his own kind. He's telling Batman on television (like he's a public figure) that he will continue doing what he has always done if Batman does not turn himself in. How exactly is that a dilemma? Anyone in that situation with an ounce of common sense knows the Joker is simply trying to remove his primary threat, which is Batman. So why would Bruce give him that? Because the Joker will keep killing people like he does already? What has the Joker introduced that is different here? The fact he's saying it on television and Batman has a reputation to protect? No. So which is it? Is he being selfish or is he simply stupid because he HONESTLY thinks the Joker will stop killing people because he turns himself in? I just don't think there's any rationale that gets you to the decision he made. It feels very forced and undermines all the risk he has taken to fight for the "greater good" of the public he wants to defend. How is the public served if he turns himself in and the Joker overruns the city with death and more crime?
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017, 14:48All of these events mentioned only support why this is a weak plot contrivance. Wayne has already been in several circumstances where he's had to kill or chosen not to do anything which results in someone being killed (in theory). So now we're into situational ethics where Bruce decides life and death. With the Joker, he is already known to be a ruthless killer which exempts no one, not even his own kind. He's telling Batman on television (like he's a public figure) that he will continue doing what he has always done if Batman does not turn himself in. How exactly is that a dilemma? Anyone in that situation with an ounce of common sense knows the Joker is simply trying to remove his primary threat, which is Batman. So why would Bruce give him that? Because the Joker will keep killing people like he does already? What has the Joker introduced that is different here? The fact he's saying it on television and Batman has a reputation to protect? No. So which is it? Is he being selfish or is he simply stupid because he HONESTLY thinks the Joker will stop killing people because he turns himself in? I just don't think there's any rationale that gets you to the decision he made. It feels very forced and undermines all the risk he has taken to fight for the "greater good" of the public he wants to defend. How is the public served if he turns himself in and the Joker overruns the city with death and more crime?
The movie never has Batman in a situation where killing the Joker is an action needed to save a life/lives at any moment, even his own. All these moments I cited were when Bruce's only option to save a life, even his own, was something that would cause a villain's death. Nothing like that happens with the Joker. Ruthless killer or not, killing the Joker without defense of himself or others isn't comparable to any of those other moments. Doing that would be essentially execution, which is what Bruce stated to Ra's he wouldn't do. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 01:32The movie never has Batman in a situation where killing the Joker is an action needed to save a life/lives at any moment, even his own.
You mean aside from the Joker blowing up cop cars with bazookas? If Batman had killed the Joker, those casualties either would've been mitigated or else avoided entirely. Not to mention the other people the Joker kills after that sequence.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 02:48You mean aside from the Joker blowing up cop cars with bazookas? If Batman had killed the Joker, those casualties either would've been mitigated or else avoided entirely. Not to mention the other people the Joker kills after that sequence.
There was never a moment there for him to kill the Joker. I suppose you're suggesting that he wreck the truck, but I'm not sure he had the opportunity. He has to stop the tumbler to activate the weapon's system and his first action in that chase is to take a missile hit, which puts him out of action for a minute and allows the Joker to keep going. When he finally catches up, he's very much in a position and takes it by wrecking the truck, but Joker lives and then just stands there, waiting for Batman to hit him, which wouldn't be defensive if he did. But you seem to be talking about preventive, not defensive. I'm talking about defensive. Batman in Nolan's movies tends to generally take defensive actions.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 01:32
The movie never has Batman in a situation where killing the Joker is an action needed to save a life/lives at any moment, even his own. All these moments I cited were when Bruce's only option to save a life, even his own, was something that would cause a villain's death. Nothing like that happens with the Joker. Ruthless killer or not, killing the Joker without defense of himself or others isn't comparable to any of those other moments. Doing that would be essentially execution, which is what Bruce stated to Ra's he wouldn't do. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
But you're stating it's a natural reaction to turn himself in because he's perceiving his surrender as a life saving action. I'm saying it makes no sense because the Joker is a known killer that does so indiscriminately. How does Bruce save lives if he takes Batman out of the picture? The elementary answer is he doesn't. So what is the dilemma that leads Bruce to turn himself in? Where's the logic?
Quote from: Wayne49 on Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 14:35But you're stating it's a natural reaction to turn himself in because he's perceiving his surrender as a life saving action. I'm saying it makes no sense because the Joker is a known killer that does so indiscriminately. How does Bruce save lives if he takes Batman out of the picture? The elementary answer is he doesn't. So what is the dilemma that leads Bruce to turn himself in? Where's the logic?
Bruce isn't thinking with logic. He's thinking with guilt. He blames himself for the Joker's actions. Bruce doesn't understand that the Joker is an indiscriminate killer. In the interrogation scene he still thinks Joker is someone who kills for money. Bruce doesn't get what the Joker is until after that scene. His actions are all he thinks he can do at the time. He's thinking through a guilty conscience and even to an extent what the people think of him. He's wrong of course and the movie slaps him down hard for that.
TDK's ending has always bugged me. There's something more well-rounded that could have been done with Dent, more so than turning his legacy into a cover up that turns into a law that miraculously removed the entire criminal underworld from Gotham. It might've worked better if they removed the cover up idea from the ending and let it end with a somewhat downbeat, gritty note with a touch of hope.
The thing is, this situation was the Kobayashi Maru. The moment Two Face started killing people, the "white knight" thing went kaput. The characters lost before the climax. The Joker won in that aspect. That's the ending. The cover up feels too much like a storyteller trying re-direct the natural progression of the story.
But another thing that really bugs me about the final confrontation is everyone ignores the elephant in the room. Two Face is blaming Gordon and Batman for Rachel's death. These are the people who tried to save her. No one addresses that. Also left out was a moment of self-realization, a moment where Two Face becomes Harvey again, which is something I feel like the story and this particular version of Harvey Dent needs. When he is killed, it feels like the character has unfinished business. I feel like a logical outcome was Harvey Dent beating Two Face instead of Batman, that Harvey realized the monster he had become and in a moment of self-reflection, he flips his coin, looks at it, points the gun to his head, and tries to kills himself or maybe does.
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Fri, 3 Nov 2017, 14:23
But another thing that really bugs me about the final confrontation is everyone ignores the elephant in the room. Two Face is blaming Gordon and Batman for Rachel's death. These are the people who tried to save her. No one addresses that.
From what I can remember, Two-Face blamed Gordon for ignoring him about the corrupt cops working in his task force, like Ramirez, earlier on in the film. Gordon continued to have blind faith, which backfired because they were apparently instrumental in Rachel's demise. Which paints Gordon in an even worse light in addition to his involvement in the cover-up.
The only reason why Two-Face would blame Batman is because his ineffectiveness and willingness to turn himself over to the police till Dent intervened, paved the way for the tragedy that unfolded afterwards. Beyond that, I can't think of a reason why.
This is only goes to show that all of the "good" guys in this movie were tainted by their own incompetent buffoonery. Of course, we can blame the writing for that.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 3 Nov 2017, 23:42From what I can remember, Two-Face blamed Gordon for ignoring him about the corrupt cops working in his task force, like Ramirez, earlier on in the film. Gordon continued to have blind faith, which backfired because they were apparently instrumental in Rachel's demise. Which paints Gordon in an even worse light in addition to his involvement in the cover-up.
The only reason why Two-Face would blame Batman is because his ineffectiveness and willingness to turn himself over to the police till Dent intervened, paved the way for the tragedy that unfolded afterwards. Beyond that, I can't think of a reason why.
This is only goes to show that all of the "good" guys in this movie were tainted by their own incompetent buffoonery. Of course, we can blame the writing for that.
The writing in constructing flawed characters capable of making big mistakes that the movie calls out as legitimate mistakes. Good guys are just as capable of making the wrong choices, as bad guys are at making the right choices. We, as normal humans, are fallible. Harvey actually never shows anger towards Batman for the situation in trying to kill him. He only shoots him because Batman takes responsibility and Harvey accepts that. But if there would be a reason, Harvey would likely be angry that Batman saved him and not Rachel. When Batman enters the warehouse, Harvey yells at him, "No! Not me! Why are you coming for me?!" Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Characters make decisions that nobody would and that's okay. It happens all the time. A lot of times, it works because while we're watching the movie, it makes sense emotionally. The problem with The Dark Knight's ending is that their decision didn't feel right and that what it did feel like was a movie forcing its point.
Characters make decisions that no one would in real life and that's okay. It happens all the time in movies. A lot of times, it works because it makes sense emotionally. The problem with The Dark Knight's ending is that their decision didn't feel right and that what it did feel like was a movie forcing its point.
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue, 7 Nov 2017, 02:31Characters make decisions that nobody would and that's okay. It happens all the time. A lot of times, it works because while we're watching the movie, it makes sense emotionally. The problem with The Dark Knight's ending is that their decision didn't feel right and that what it did feel like was a movie forcing its point.
Emotionally, for Bruce, it makes perfect sense. Bruce throughout the movie expresses guilt for the actions of the Joker and a self-loathing for his identity of Batman in the belief he has in Harvey Dent's approach, along with his belief that Harvey is the key to the city's hope and positive change. The end is him reinforcing the ideas that he's developed throughout the whole movie. Bruce sees Batman as a negative thing, so he literally makes Batman seem like the villain, sees Harvey as the pure hero and key to the city's hope and tries to make him a martyr for the city to rally around, along with him seeing himself as the cause of the Joker's mayhem, so he puts himself as the literal cause of Harvey's death in the mind of the people. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
It's about making emotional sense to us, not the characters. A character's illogical decisions, rationalizations, that's the only way they work. It's not enough to put in themes, ideas, motivations, you have to make them resonate. This scene didn't do that.
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue, 7 Nov 2017, 15:22It's about making emotional sense to us, not the characters. A character's illogical decisions, rationalizations, that's the only way they work. It's not enough to put in themes, ideas, motivations, you have to make them resonate. This scene didn't do that.
That's an opinion. Emotional resonance is an opinion. We can't base it off of what we feel in the structure of those things, because emotionally our perception can shift and it's not a reliable indicator of it's or quality.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 7 Nov 2017, 21:38
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue, 7 Nov 2017, 15:22It's about making emotional sense to us, not the characters. A character's illogical decisions, rationalizations, that's the only way they work. It's not enough to put in themes, ideas, motivations, you have to make them resonate. This scene didn't do that.
That's an opinion. Emotional resonance is an opinion. We can't base it off of what we feel in the structure of those things, because emotionally our perception can shift and it's not a reliable indicator of it's or quality.
I don't think I agree with that. Like, at all. A movie's structure, conflicts and resolutions need to grab the audience on a visceral level. If it fails to do that, it may be otherwise well-constructed on a technical level but it failed in its mission.
Plus, your thesis doesn't allow for changing perceptions. Take me, for example. I'll never be confused with being a fan of the movie Superman Returns. There's just too much water under that particular bridge as far as I'm concerned.
But I caught some scenes from it a few months ago and certain elements made a bigger impact on me than they did ten'ish years ago when the movie came out. The movie itself obviously hasn't changed. But I have. I'm in a different phase of life and have been shaped by different experiences. Specifically, fatherhood.
That gives me a perspective that I lacked previously. The movie itself is no different now than before. But I am different on a personal level and connect better with some of Superman's issues in that movie.
I should say that I'm also the same guy who took his jolly sweet time to accept Nolan's Batman. And it was TDKRises and the prospect of giving Batman a The End which he'd never had before that really turned me around about those films. They're the same now as they've always been. But my perspective has shifted and that's made a difference (a bigger difference for Nolan than for Superman Returns, obviously, but still).
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 7 Nov 2017, 21:38
We can't base it off of what we feel in the structure of those things..
The point of art is to illicit an emotional response. So, yes we can.
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Wed, 8 Nov 2017, 04:21The point of art is to illicit an emotional response. So, yes we can.
Then now we're just arguing our emotional opinion. Which is pointless, because they're different. If we're not discussing facts, then this conversation means nothing. If we're gonna discuss a movie, then our feelings about it can't be relevant, because then we have nothing to discuss, just talking about how we feel about it, which means nothing to the development of the story or the characters, just our feelings about it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 7 Nov 2017, 22:48I don't think I agree with that. Like, at all. A movie's structure, conflicts and resolutions need to grab the audience on a visceral level. If it fails to do that, it may be otherwise well-constructed on a technical level but it failed in its mission.
Who decides what grabs an audience? What if it grabs one group, but doesn't grab another? There's no meaning to visceral-ness, because it's just another emotional reaction to something. And that doesn't equal anything. Some people think the ending of TDKR is garbage for the reasons you say you came around to it. Whose right? If the answer is both, then there's no point in having a discussion about any of these things.
QuotePlus, your thesis doesn't allow for changing perceptions. Take me, for example. I'll never be confused with being a fan of the movie Superman Returns. There's just too much water under that particular bridge as far as I'm concerned.
I said that perceptions change. That's why it's a very flawed way for humans to view fiction. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
The point is discussing how art makes us feel. That's not child's play. It's real and it's honest and you probably wouldn't be arguing if the movie didn't make you feel something. (And, for the record, I am not talking that forced soap opera-esque stuff, but the genuine and powerful thoughts and feelings a movie/book/graphic novel can inspire.)
What a filmmaker does to illicit emotions, finding relatable imagery, subtle little things to jumpstart something in our brains, that can be very fascinating.
I think the Star Wars films are a good example. There's a powerful moment in Return of the Jedi, where anger takes hold and Luke attacks Vader, only to cut off Vader's hand and see the wiring of Vader's severed mechanical hand, and comparing it to his own. For us, it feels great. Yeah, get him Luke! Take that Vader! And then, you see in his eyes, Luke's self-reflection, he sees his father in him. The movie takes simple, but relatable thoughts ("What have I become?" "I don't want to be like my father?") and uses them to its advantage. In comparison, on paper, the prequels have a lot more story, a lot more character motivations and political commentary, but the way it's handled is rather lifeless and dull at times and the pivotal moments are nowhere near as powerful or meaningful. They are just things that happen.
It's not just the story, it's how it is told. One movie can have a lot of story and flounder while another movie can have less story, but be more potent and effective, or it can be vice versa. It really does vary from film to film, from filmmaker to filmmaker, and from person to person. That's art. It's subjective.
The film might have been better and more interesting, although I'm sure some viewers would initially think it was blasphemous, if the Joker had died in TDK and Two-Face had killed him (although in/right after the ferry climax rather than the hospital scene, not have the hospital scene and instead somehow else Harvey becomes more devoted to the role of chance).
I think what a lot of the critics of Two Face's depiction in TDK mostly forget is that ultimately TDK is a story about Batman and the Joker. The narrative serves those two characters. That means other characters might occasionally get short-changed but that's cinema. The definitive live action Two Face eludes us, which isn't a bad thing. It gives us something to look forward to.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Nov 2017, 21:10
I think what a lot of the critics of Two Face's depiction in TDK mostly forget is that ultimately TDK is a story about Batman and the Joker.
Come on man, you know that's not particularly true. The story was also a rise and fall of Harvey Dent (in fact, I'd argue more so), which was shoehorned horribly into this movie. If the story remained only about Batman and the Joker, it would've made TDK a much better film.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Nov 2017, 21:10
That means other characters might occasionally get short-changed but that's cinema. The definitive live action Two Face eludes us, which isn't a bad thing. It gives us something to look forward to.
I can only speak for myself, but the criticism has nothing to do with this movie's version of Two-Face fails to live up to being the definitive yet. I criticise this version of Two-Face because it's an incredibly badly written character arc that insults the intelligence. Put it this way, the thought that people would actually feel sympathy for Two-Face after getting manipulated by the man he knows was directly responsible for ruining his life AND then he threatened to murder a child afterwards out of a retarded desire for vengeance, is perhaps the most depraved thing I've ever heard in film discourse. It's disgusting.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 09:21Come on man, you know that's not particularly true.
With respect, I know no such thing.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 09:21The story was also a rise and fall of Harvey Dent (in fact, I'd argue more so), which was shoehorned horribly into this movie.
The rise element was an organic development which happened in-universe. The fall related to the character's own feet of clay combined with the machinations of the Joker. Ultimately that part of the story is supposed to speak to the Joker's true nature rather than be an awesome Two Face story. I understand if that's frustrating to some people but I think Nolan's creative decisions in this matter are perfectly valid.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 09:21If the story remained only about Batman and the Joker, it would've made TDK a much better film.
Maybe. Maybe not. We can't really know for sure about what didn't happen. All we can do is talk about what did happen.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 09:21I criticise this version of Two-Face because it's an incredibly badly written character arc that insults the intelligence. Put it this way, the thought that people would actually feel sympathy for Two-Face after getting manipulated by the man he knows was directly responsible for ruining his life AND then he threatened to murder a child afterwards out of a retarded desire for vengeance, is perhaps the most depraved thing I've ever heard in film discourse. It's disgusting.
Understandable. The way I see it, Two Face was lashing out at the people he held responsible for the tragedies he'd suffered. Whether or not he picked the right targets is open to debate.
From Two Face's point of view, Gordon still associated with dirty cops even though Dent had warned him about them. If Gordon had acted upon the information he'd been given, Dent and Rachel couldn't have been sold out to Maroni and the Joker like they were. His thinking on that adds up for me.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 14:34
With respect, I know no such thing.
I find it hard that you truly believe that, but moving on...
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 14:34
Maybe. Maybe not. We can't really know for sure about what didn't happen. All we can do is talk about what did happen.
And what did happen was utter garbage. I can't imagine the alternative to be worse.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 14:34
The rise element was an organic development which happened in-universe. The fall related to the character's own feet of clay combined with the machinations of the Joker. Ultimately that part of the story is supposed to speak to the Joker's true nature rather than be an awesome Two Face story. I understand if that's frustrating to some people but I think Nolan's creative decisions in this matter are perfectly valid.
Again, I wasn't asking for a perfect Two-Face story, but I was expecting one that actually made sense, and made me feel a bit of sympathy for him. This certainly doesn't come anywhere near in reaching that criteria. It's bad enough that the film tells you he's the best thing to happen to the city in a long time despite he doesn't do anything to justify this reputation. But to have him then become a foil for the hero to make a terrible decision in the end? No. I can't accept that garbage excuse for storytelling.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 14:34
Understandable. The way I see it, Two Face was lashing out at the people he held responsible for the tragedies he'd suffered. Whether or not he picked the right targets is open to debate.
From Two Face's point of view, Gordon still associated with dirty cops even though Dent had warned him about them. If Gordon had acted upon the information he'd been given, Dent and Rachel couldn't have been sold out to Maroni and the Joker like they were. His thinking on that adds up for me.
I actually said the same thing about Gordon elsewhere, if he hadn't shown such blind faith to those corrupt cops, maybe Dent and Rachel might've survived. But that still doesn't justify Two-Face's rationale for sparing the Joker. He knows very well that Joker was a conniving psychopath who made numerous attempts at his life and Rachel before eventually succeeding in destroying their lives. His justification that "Joker was a mad dog, I'm going after the ones who let him off his leash" still doesn't wash given the fact he knew Joker was manipulating him, and he just lets him do it. And by the time Two-Face threatened to murder Gordon's innocent family, I couldn't believe nobody would feel contempt for him. How could anybody feel sorry for him after that, is just beyond my comprehension.
In any case, it goes to show none of the supposed good guys in this film, particularly the ones who had fallen, are particularly likable, competent or deserve any sympathy.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 10 Dec 2017, 01:44I find it hard that you truly believe that, but moving on...
And what did happen was utter garbage. I can't imagine the alternative to be worse.
You stating things that aren't facts like they are here is something I don't understand.
QuoteAgain, I wasn't asking for a perfect Two-Face story, but I was expecting one that actually made sense, and made me feel a bit of sympathy for him. This certainly doesn't come anywhere near in reaching that criteria. It's bad enough that the film tells you he's the best thing to happen to the city in a long time despite he doesn't do anything to justify this reputation. But to have him then become a foil for the hero to make a terrible decision in the end? No. I can't accept that garbage excuse for storytelling.
The whole point is that he hasn't done anything to justify it, just like the only real effect of Dent's death is political, I think. Dent's a false martyr from back to front. Of course also, Dent's viewed by the city the way he is because of his idealism, which is said in the movie. The thing is that his idealism is only half of the story. He's not only that. He's a human being capable of choosing to do the wrong thing. Also, in Gordon's own words, he doesn't have blind faith, as he says, "I don't get points for idealism. I have to do the best I can with what I've got." He may not believe his cops are dirty, but that doesn't mean he has blind faith. You haven't given reasons why the story didn't make sense.
QuoteI actually said the same thing about Gordon elsewhere, if he hadn't shown such blind faith to those corrupt cops, maybe Dent and Rachel might've survived. But that still doesn't justify Two-Face's rationale for sparing the Joker. He knows very well that Joker was a conniving psychopath who made numerous attempts at his life and Rachel before eventually succeeding in destroying their lives. His justification that "Joker was a mad dog, I'm going after the ones who let him off his leash" still doesn't wash given the fact he knew Joker was manipulating him, and he just lets him do it. And by the time Two-Face threatened to murder Gordon's innocent family, I couldn't believe nobody would feel contempt for him. How could anybody feel sorry for him after that, is just beyond my comprehension.
In any case, it goes to show none of the supposed good guys in this film, particularly the ones who had fallen, are particularly likable, competent or deserve any sympathy.
Harvey gives Joker the same chance he gives anyone else. He flips the coin. The good guys in the movie are viewed by you as not particularly likable, competent or deserve any sympathy, but batfleck, who tried to murder Superman because he existed, is those things to you?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 09:21
Put it this way, the thought that people would actually feel sympathy for Two-Face after getting manipulated by the man he knows was directly responsible for ruining his life AND then he threatened to murder a child afterwards out of a retarded desire for vengeance, is perhaps the most depraved thing I've ever heard in film discourse.
Well most versions of Two-Face feel bitterness toward their past, including to some extent specifically Batman, even though they also believe that good and evil are meaningless, only chance really decides actions and outcomes.
I think TDK also holds that Two-Face's background was tragic but his current actions make him not sympathetic.
Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 10 Dec 2017, 16:40Well most versions of Two-Face feel bitterness toward their past, including to some extent specifically Batman, even though they also believe that good and evil are meaningless, only chance really decides actions and outcomes.
I think TDK also holds that Two-Face's background was tragic but his current actions make him not sympathetic.
I agree. TDKRises even has Jim call him a madman.
Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 10 Dec 2017, 16:40
Well most versions of Two-Face feel bitterness toward their past, including to some extent specifically Batman, even though they also believe that good and evil are meaningless, only chance really decides actions and outcomes.
I think TDK also holds that Two-Face's background was tragic but his current actions make him not sympathetic.
A lot of the Two-Face stories I've experienced, whether it may be the two-part BTAS episode or the comics such as The Eye of the Beholder tend focus more on a backstory that was linked in the present time; gradually showing Dent going through downward spiral that leads to his insanity. For my money, they made sense and made him sympathetic.
Mind you, I'm not saying Two-Face must always be a sympathetic character. All I'm saying is, the better interpretations tend to be the ones where his downfall took time, which made insanity believable. The way TDK handled it not only was far too quick for its own good, it was too much of a leap to believe his actions. Still, you'd be surprised by how many people described how much sympathy they had for him.
I would probably have more sympathy for Dent, if he was an integral part of BB, but he just appeared out of nowhere in TDK, and then died. Which is why I don't buy the notion that he was this beacon of hope that was more powerful than Batman himself. If he was a more powerful symbol than Batman, why wasn't Gotham in better shape before Batman came about? One of the main points in BB, was that Bruce needed a symbol that wasn't "flesh and blood", but was a symbol, a symbol to shake people out of apathy. Of course, he chose a bat, and became Batman. Why did he have to do that? Why not prop up Gordon, get cops that weren't corrupt, then fund Dent and the GCPD. The entire notion of becoming Batman seems irrelevant with the way TDK played into Dent and Batman's character.
lol, sorry, I kinda went down a rabbit hole there. It's just one thing that bugs me about this trilogy, it's just so inconsistent for me. In BB, Gotham needs a symbol/masked vigilante to help fight against corruption. Then, in TDK, Bruce says Gotham needs a "hero with a face". Then, in TDKR, he flips again, and says, "nah, nah, nah, Gotham needs a protector who wears a mask. Make sure you wear a mask if you fight crime in Gotham, Robin John Blake".
I think that speaks to an ongoing realization Bruce experiences through the movies. In BB, Bruce realized the immediate problems facing the city require a symbol to counter them and shake the people out of their apathy. The people of Gotham City needed to see that AN IDEA could dismantle the corrupt elements of the city, that the crooked cops, judges, bankers, etc, weren't invincible.
In TDK, Bruce realized that there are limitations to what Batman can do. If the city is to be redeemed, this movement Batman has unintentionally started needs a public face. Harvey was qualified to be the front man to fill that role. The Joker destroyed Harvey in TDK and then he also destroyed Batman.
In TDKRises, Bruce realized that, yeah, the Dent Act got passed through after TDK, which allowed honest and pure public servants to move in and take over. But his and Gordon's silent little coup d'etat was premised upon a lie. And when the League struck back, Gordon and Batman were unable to maintain moral authority in the face of the League's ferocity as well as their disclosures of certain ugly truths.
The takeaway lesson from TDKRises is that Gotham City might always need Batman and (generically) the commissioner. But Batman and the commissioner don't always have to literally be Bruce and Gordon respectively. Others can fill those roles. Their successors can and will improve the world around them, while also fighting to keep the darkness at bay.
People can enjoy those character arcs or not. But I don't seem them as contradicting one another so much as completing one another.
Quote from: Travesty on Mon, 11 Dec 2017, 16:44
I would probably have more sympathy for Dent, if he was an integral part of BB, but he just appeared out of nowhere in TDK, and then died. Which is why I don't buy the notion that he was this beacon of hope that was more powerful than Batman himself. If he was a more powerful symbol than Batman, why wasn't Gotham in better shape before Batman came about? One of the main points in BB, was that Bruce needed a symbol that wasn't "flesh and blood", but was a symbol, a symbol to shake people out of apathy. Of course, he chose a bat, and became Batman. Why did he have to do that? Why not prop up Gordon, get cops that weren't corrupt, then fund Dent and the GCPD. The entire notion of becoming Batman seems irrelevant with the way TDK played into Dent and Batman's character.
Sometimes I think these films would've been better if Batman was removed altogether, and have Gordon become the main character fighting corruption. I say this because I see some people say that these films were expressing how vigilantism is harmful to society, and Batman's retirement would signal social reform.
Well, in that case, that should tell you that Blake inheriting the cowl from Bruce is bad news because the city still hasn't made any progress.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Dec 2017, 22:58
I think that speaks to an ongoing realization Bruce experiences through the movies. In BB, Bruce realized the immediate problems facing the city require a symbol to counter them and shake the people out of their apathy. The people of Gotham City needed to see that AN IDEA could dismantle the corrupt elements of the city, that the crooked cops, judges, bankers, etc, weren't invincible.
In TDK, Bruce realized that there are limitations to what Batman can do. If the city is to be redeemed, this movement Batman has unintentionally started needs a public face. Harvey was qualified to be the front man to fill that role. The Joker destroyed Harvey in TDK and then he also destroyed Batman.
In TDKRises, Bruce realized that, yeah, the Dent Act got passed through after TDK, which allowed honest and pure public servants to move in and take over. But his and Gordon's silent little coup d'etat was premised upon a lie. And when the League struck back, Gordon and Batman were unable to maintain moral authority in the face of the League's ferocity as well as their disclosures of certain ugly truths.
The takeaway lesson from TDKRises is that Gotham City might always need Batman and (generically) the commissioner. But Batman and the commissioner don't always have to literally be Bruce and Gordon respectively. Others can fill those roles. Their successors can and will improve the world around them, while also fighting to keep the darkness at bay.
People can enjoy those character arcs or not. But I don't seem them as contradicting one another so much as completing one another.
The biggest problem with this rationale is it's full of holes. Batman wants to inspire people, but deep down, he knows his crusade actually does more harm than good in the long run if he inspires copycats and psychos like the Joker, which is why he counts on Harvey Dent as a legal face for people to be inspired by. And yet, the end of the entire trilogy shows that vigilantism,
NOT law and order, is the solution to the city's woes. It was bad enough that his decision to frame himself to cover for Harvey in TDK was a terrible idea to begin with, the rationale behind that Batman had to do it because the truth would've inspired more copycats and freaks like the Joker is further undone if a new Batman takes over at the end of the series.
Sorry, but the whole thing remains a muddled load of nonsense to me. All this talk about "ideas", and it goes absolutely nowhere.
Quote from: Travesty on Mon, 11 Dec 2017, 16:44
I would probably have more sympathy for Dent, if he was an integral part of BB, but he just appeared out of nowhere in TDK, and then died. Which is why I don't buy the notion that he was this beacon of hope that was more powerful than Batman himself. If he was a more powerful symbol than Batman, why wasn't Gotham in better shape before Batman came about? One of the main points in BB, was that Bruce needed a symbol that wasn't "flesh and blood", but was a symbol, a symbol to shake people out of apathy. Of course, he chose a bat, and became Batman. Why did he have to do that? Why not prop up Gordon, get cops that weren't corrupt, then fund Dent and the GCPD. The entire notion of becoming Batman seems irrelevant with the way TDK played into Dent and Batman's character.
lol, sorry, I kinda went down a rabbit hole there. It's just one thing that bugs me about this trilogy, it's just so inconsistent for me. In BB, Gotham needs a symbol/masked vigilante to help fight against corruption. Then, in TDK, Bruce says Gotham needs a "hero with a face". Then, in TDKR, he flips again, and says, "nah, nah, nah, Gotham needs a protector who wears a mask. Make sure you wear a mask if you fight crime in Gotham, Robin John Blake".
A symbol doesn't need to be without a face. Bruce in BB states that people need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and uses Batman to do that. Out of that comes Harvey Dent and Bruce thinks that that's all that's needed. The whole arc Bruce goes through in TDK is about him thinking Batman is a negative influence. And he thinks Dent is a better influence than him, a hero with a face. The whole point is that that's not true. The hero with a face gets half of it blown off. There's no contradiction. It's Bruce doubting his impact on the city, doubting whether or not he's even a positive influence.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 12 Dec 2017, 12:17The biggest problem with this rationale is it's full of holes. Batman wants to inspire people, but deep down, he knows his crusade actually does more harm than good in the long run if he inspires copycats and psychos like the Joker, which is why he counts on Harvey Dent as a legal face for people to be inspired by. And yet, the end of the entire trilogy shows that vigilantism, NOT law and order, is the solution to the city's woes. It was bad enough that his decision to frame himself to cover for Harvey in TDK was a terrible idea to begin with, the rationale behind that Batman had to do it because the truth would've inspired more copycats and freaks like the Joker is further undone if a new Batman takes over at the end of the series.
Rectifying your objection would've required Batman to be psychic. He had no way of knowing that the Batmen would follow his example a bit too closely.
Nevertheless, he was on the right track. The rise of Batman inspired (or at least enabled) the rise of Harvey Dent.
Batman's plan was working.
There are problems with Nolan's trilogy. Goofy dialogue, inconsistent moral worldviews, poorly developed subplots and so forth. But in the big picture, the trilogy is pretty strong. Not definitive for me but not bad.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Dec 2017, 22:58
I think that speaks to an ongoing realization Bruce experiences through the movies.
And that's part of the problem: we don't see or experience that. In fact, we are told the complete opposite at the endings of both BB and TDK, and every time the sequels to those movies comes out, the character is already running counter to what we we're just told at the end of those movies. So, I'll give you two examples from BB and TDK.
-BB: at the end of that movie, we are told that Bruce's face is the mask, and that Batman is now his true self. Batman is the one who needs to keep Gotham safe. Bruce Wayne never truly came back(again, he's the mask now), so Rachel decides it's best to be friends. But she gives him hope. She says one day, maybe when Gotham doesn't need Batman....
maybe they can be together again. She basically dumped him, but she did it in a nice way, and the movie told us that Batman is still needed. So much so, that he's also adding a Batcave to the Southeast Corner of the manor. Then, we have a rooftop meeting with Gordon, talking about escalation. Again, alluding to Batman needing to be around. Now, fast forward to TDK, and not even half way through the movie, he tells Rachel that he wants to be with her, that Batman can now retire, because Harvey is the real hero. And this is before The Joker is even apprehended. The friggin Joker is still running around, and Bruce is talking about retirement. Where was the realization? I get your explanations, but the movies are telling the audience a completely different story. And there isn't any natural progression from movie to movie. At the end of BB, we're told Bruce is the mask, and that Batman is needed. In TDK, we're told that Bruce wants to retire immediately, and this new character that we don't even know(Harvey Dent), is the true hero that Gotham deserves....all while The Joker is still on the loose.
-TDK: at the end of TDK, Batman kills Two-Face, but needs to cover up his murders. Apparently, Harvey Dent is the true symbol Gotham needs. Ok, whatever, I'll go with it. Batman takes the wrap for Harvey's crimes and murders. So then, we get this monologue from Gordon, telling us that the police will hunt and chase him, but it's ok, cause he can take it, because he's Gotham's watchful protector, he's....The Dark Knight. Again, the ending of this movie told us one thing, and then you proceed to TDKR, and nope, Batman retired for 8 years, even if Selina Kyle was running loose, with a MASSIVE police record. So he wasn't hunted, he didn't endure any chasing from the cops, and he didn't watch over Gotham. Then, Robin John Blake tells him he needs to come back because of Bane, and he just does.
And I get your explanations, but it doesn't cover up the constant flip-flopping going on. It's just forced on the audience, when the endings of these movies tell us something completely different. But by the time the sequels start up, we just have to roll with it. It's overly contrived for no good reason.
You see those as contradictions. But the narrative shows that Bruce's original idea was, at a minimum, incomplete. Then, as you say, other characters remark on that. That is not a contradiction; it is progression.
There are contradictions in the films. Fish mentions them every couple of minutes so I'd never say otherwise. But the items I mentioned above are supported in the narratives of the films and remarked upon by the characters.
Just because they're remarked upon by the charterers, doesn't mean they're not contradictory within their actions. That, to me, is a copout that you're making. We've talked about this at length with Batman's killing in this trilogy. One second he says he's no executioner, and 2 seconds later, he kills everyone in the monastery. That's a perfect example of that: a character telling us one thing, but his actions are contradictory to his words. Sure, the "narrative" is that Batman doesn't kill, but his actions within the movie tell us differently. Same thing applies with my point.
Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, 07:43Just because they're remarked upon by the charterers, doesn't mean they're not contradictory within their actions.
Um, yeah, it kinda does.
Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, 07:43That, to me, is a copout that you're making.
It's character growth. Characters, particularly Bruce, grow and their awareness and understanding expand.
Fiction is fiction and obviously fiction isn't life. But this is true to life (and of fiction) that people "grow in office". I hold views now that my 21 year old self would lose his s**t over. I've grown. My awareness and understanding have expanded. Therefore I have viewpoints now that I once would've held anathema. This is contradictory, to be sure, but it isn't paradoxical.
Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, 07:43We've talked about this at length with Batman's killing in this trilogy.
Which has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not arguing and haven't argued that aren't paradoxes at work in the Nolan trilogy. As I've said, Fish would be the first to point out that there are and I don't disagree with him.
I'm merely saying that the specific examples you cite are not paradoxical; they are, instead, arcs. Which isn't the same thing.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, 22:47Which has nothing to do with this discussion.
I was just further illustrates the "narrative vs actions" examples I'm making, which goes back to the arc of the character. It was just another example to back up my claims. Nothing more, nothing less.
You keep talking about character growth. I fail to see why Bruce says retirement is the optimal path to take, when The Joker is still on the loose and wrecking havoc, and it's somehow the natural progression for himself. I would imagine most Batman fans wouldn't expect Batman to be contemplating retirement, while one of his biggest adversaries is on the run. You say it's a "proper realization within the character arc", and I disagree entirely. I do see it as contradictory within a contrived story arc, and you just write it off, and say that's natural progression of the character. I don't see it, at least, not the way it's presented to us in this particular film.
Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 00:21
I fail to see why Bruce says retirement is the optimal path to take, when The Joker is still on the loose and wrecking havoc, as somehow being the natural progression for himself. I would imagine most Batman fans wouldn't expect Batman to be contemplating retirement, while one of his biggest adversaries is on the run.
Another problem with this plot point is it undermines what he trained for in BB. He traveled around the globe and even got involved in petty crime in a bid to learn how the criminal mind works, and survives in jail long enough until he meets Ra's al Ghul. And then he begins his training soon after.
Well, it goes to show he learned absolutely nothing from the experience because, as you say, he foolishly believes he can retire while the Joker is still at large. Not to mention the fact that he was about to turn himself over to the police until Dent stopped him, and always remained one step behind of the villains for the rest of the series.
I guess Falcone was right when he told Bruce "this is a world you'll never understand". All of that was passed aside so we can get some rubbish about "Some men just want to watch the world burn". Give me a break.
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 00:21You keep talking about character growth. I fail to see why Bruce says retirement is the optimal path to take, when The Joker is still on the loose and wrecking havoc, as somehow being the natural progression for himself.
You're essentially faulting the character for being unable to predict the future. It took quite a while for Batman to really get the Joker's number in TDK. The interrogation room scene is probably the moment Batman finally understand what he was up against... after which time, he doesn't really mention retirement again.
We see at the beginning of TDKRises that Batman was basically forced into retirement. Thus, with the Joker safely locked up, he'd gotten what he wanted... but not the way he wanted it.
If anybody is looking for someone who will defend the Nolan trilogy about everything no matter what no exceptions, I'm not that guy. But there are some things that were really done well with his trilogy and I don't see the harm in pointing those things out.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 03:09
You're essentially faulting the character for being unable to predict the future.
lolwut? "The future"? You mean when The Joker is killing people and wrecking havoc on Gotham, and somehow you're trying to act like Bruce "can't see what's happening"? Haha. We're talking about the clash of titans here: The Batman vs The Joker. And you're making excuses for Batman's incompetents. lol, ok....
QuoteIt took quite a while for Batman to really get the Joker's number in TDK. The interrogation room scene is probably the moment Batman finally understand what he was up against... after which time, he doesn't really mention retirement again.
Oh, convenient...now that supposed "character arc" makes so much sense. He didn't mention retirement, after Rachel was killed. (even though he did retire)
Great explanation.
QuoteIf anybody is looking for someone who will defend the Nolan trilogy about everything no matter what no exceptions, I'm not that guy. But there are some things that were really done well with his trilogy and I don't see the harm in pointing those things out.
I get it, you're not a "Nolan fan", but you're making excuses far more than any Nolan fan I've come across. Gotcha. You're above it, but you're not. Cool. I honestly don't give a sh*t where you stand, as I rather talk about the materiel at hand, rather than know where your allegiance is.
Wow. Somebody is cranky. I think I'll leave this thread until you've had a chance to chill a little bit.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 03:09You're essentially faulting the character for being unable to predict the future. It took quite a while for Batman to really get the Joker's number in TDK. The interrogation room scene is probably the moment Batman finally understand what he was up against... after which time, he doesn't really mention retirement again.
We see at the beginning of TDKRises that Batman was basically forced into retirement. Thus, with the Joker safely locked up, he'd gotten what he wanted... but not the way he wanted it.
If anybody is looking for someone who will defend the Nolan trilogy about everything no matter what no exceptions, I'm not that guy. But there are some things that were really done well with his trilogy and I don't see the harm in pointing those things out.
You're correct. Batman thinks the Joker is just a hired mob thug and thinks he can be halted by just turning himself in. He doesn't understand until after Rachel's death that Joker is what Alfred described.
There are certainly problems with the TDKT, but the issues being said here aren't them. This makes sense for his character in the 1st movie and within TDK.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 14:21
Wow. Somebody is cranky. I think I'll leave this thread until you've had a chance to chill a little bit.
lol
That's convenient, but ok.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 12 Dec 2017, 21:17
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 12 Dec 2017, 12:17The biggest problem with this rationale is it's full of holes. Batman wants to inspire people, but deep down, he knows his crusade actually does more harm than good in the long run if he inspires copycats and psychos like the Joker, which is why he counts on Harvey Dent as a legal face for people to be inspired by. And yet, the end of the entire trilogy shows that vigilantism, NOT law and order, is the solution to the city's woes. It was bad enough that his decision to frame himself to cover for Harvey in TDK was a terrible idea to begin with, the rationale behind that Batman had to do it because the truth would've inspired more copycats and freaks like the Joker is further undone if a new Batman takes over at the end of the series.
Rectifying your objection would've required Batman to be psychic. He had no way of knowing that the Batmen would follow his example a bit too closely.
That wasn't my point.
Yeah, I know my reply is late, but I just saw your post.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 12 Dec 2017, 21:17
Nevertheless, he was on the right track. The rise of Batman inspired (or at least enabled) the rise of Harvey Dent. Batman's plan was working.
Unfortunately, no, it didn't work in the end. And certainly not in the end of the trilogy.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, 22:47
It's character growth. Characters, particularly Bruce, grow and their awareness and understanding expand.
Fiction is fiction and obviously fiction isn't life. But this is true to life (and of fiction) that people "grow in office". I hold views now that my 21 year old self would lose his s**t over. I've grown. My awareness and understanding have expanded. Therefore I have viewpoints now that I once would've held anathema. This is contradictory, to be sure, but it isn't paradoxical.
The thing that perplexes me about your insistence over this supposed character growth is you're not really addressing the conflicting logic here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As we've discussed before, it was established in TDK that Bruce was seriously reconsidering his whole crusade because he realised Batman was creating negative side effects, and wanted the city to look up to a legal figure like Dent instead. If anything, TDK was telling us that having a vigilante running around was a toxic influence on Gotham City when he's attracting copycats and freaks, and many fans argued that the cover-up in the end was necessary to put an end to that disorder. People assumed that Batman was a temporary phase until Gotham could be reformed for good.
But instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again, and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 8 Feb 2018, 12:01The thing that perplexes me about your insistence over this supposed character growth is you're not really addressing the conflicting logic here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As we've discussed before, it was established in TDK that Bruce was seriously reconsidering his whole crusade because he realised Batman was creating negative side effects, and wanted the city to look up to a legal figure like Dent instead. If anything, TDK was telling us that having a vigilante running around was a toxic influence on Gotham City when he's attracting copycats and freaks, and many fans argued that the cover-up in the end was necessary to put an end to that disorder. People assumed that Batman was a temporary phase until Gotham could be reformed for good.
The movie showcases Bruce's feelings, but that doesn't mean his feelings reflect what the movie is trying to tell us. I'd say Bruce's character arc is about Bruce giving up his desire for a normal life, while still holding on to Batman. If anything I'd say the movie trying to say that Batman is necessary. Hence the whole dark knight speech by Gordon and Alfred making a point of saying that Bruce has inspired good, but there would be casualties from it and that things were always going to get worse before it got better. I don't think the movie provides a cut and dry structure of perception necessarily on whether Batman is all good or all bad for Gotham. I think that, like I think about a lot of things in the movie, it shows both sides of it.
QuoteBut instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again, and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.
Like I said, I'd see his character development in TDK more as him making Batman all he has, so I think that when he has the opportunity to jump right back into it in TDKR, he goes for it. In TDK Rachel says that she doesn't think a time will come when Bruce will no longer needs Batman, I think essentially saying that Bruce's obsession with Batman will always dominate him she thinks, whether in a relationship with her or not. TDKR is saying that Bruce now has nothing to live for but being Batman, I think, with Alfred saying that Bruce sees only one end to his journey. I'd say that Rachel was his fantasy, a false hope that he could have a life beyond Batman as he was and TDKR was him getting past the idea of that false hope.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 8 Feb 2018, 12:01But instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again,
We should add a nuance here that Bruce pretty much has a death wish at the beginning of TDKRises. Alfred even remarks that he's not afraid of Bruce becoming Batman again and failing (eg, dying). What he's worried about is that Bruce
wants to die. And Bruce doesn't really dispute that.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 8 Feb 2018, 12:01and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.
This is a pretty fair point and it's something the movie doesn't do much to address. If we're meant to believe that Batman is ultimately unhealthy for Gotham City (and Bruce), it doesn't make much sense to hand the keys to the Batcave over to Blake.
Then again, we don't necessarily know that Blake will become "Batman" as such. We also don't know that he won't follow the same or a similar character arc as Bruce. The two are very similar to one another, after all, so maybe Bruce sees this as an opportunity to teach Blake some things too. It's quite possible that Blake will experience the same insight that Bruce eventually did.
Another thing is that Blake will most likely go up against conventional street thugs rather than out-and-out supervillains like the Joker or Bane. So whatever damage Blake As Vigilante will inflict upon Gotham City's collective psyche in battling ordinary street crime is bound to be far less than what Bruce did in battling terrorism and supervillainy.
Ultimately, TDKRises concerns itself with wrapping up Bruce Wayne's story. You rightly point out that Blake's character arc is nowhere remotely close to being resolved. But I would argue that such isn't Nolan's self-assigned mandate in TDKRises.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 17 Mar 2018, 20:21
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 8 Feb 2018, 12:01But instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again,
We should add a nuance here that Bruce pretty much has a death wish at the beginning of TDKRises. Alfred even remarks that he's not afraid of Bruce becoming Batman again and failing (eg, dying). What he's worried about is that Bruce wants to die. And Bruce doesn't really dispute that.
That's true, but it still doesn't justify passing the mantle to somebody else when it's already established the role itself is toxic.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 17 Mar 2018, 20:21
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 8 Feb 2018, 12:01and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.
This is a pretty fair point and it's something the movie doesn't do much to address. If we're meant to believe that Batman is ultimately unhealthy for Gotham City (and Bruce), it doesn't make much sense to hand the keys to the Batcave over to Blake.
Then again, we don't necessarily know that Blake will become "Batman" as such. We also don't know that he won't follow the same or a similar character arc as Bruce. The two are very similar to one another, after all, so maybe Bruce sees this as an opportunity to teach Blake some things too. It's quite possible that Blake will experience the same insight that Bruce eventually did.
Another thing is that Blake will most likely go up against conventional street thugs rather than out-and-out supervillains like the Joker or Bane. So whatever damage Blake As Vigilante will inflict upon Gotham City's collective psyche in battling ordinary street crime is bound to be far less than what Bruce did in battling terrorism and supervillainy.
Ultimately, TDKRises concerns itself with wrapping up Bruce Wayne's story. You rightly point out that Blake's character arc is nowhere remotely close to being resolved. But I would argue that such isn't Nolan's self-assigned mandate in TDKRises.
Even if Blake adopts a completely different moniker instead of Batman, I don't think it changes the point at all. Let's face it, when you're a vigilante, you don't get the luxury to pick your battles. Bruce Wayne didn't exactly seek out supervillains when he was Batman, they were drawn to him. He thought he would only fight mobsters and street thugs, but then he found himself in a constant mess dealing with psychopaths and terrorists. It's only natural for these types of criminals to challenge the so-called hero, because his existence is the equivalent of waving a red flag at a bull. If there's a message to be found in this, it's this line of work always gravitates towards this cycle of violence. This is why Nolan should've just ended this crusade once and for all because it's established how harmful it is to the wider community. Passing the mantle over to somebody else only makes Bruce Wayne look immature and irresponsible.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 18 Mar 2018, 01:51Even if Blake adopts a completely different moniker instead of Batman, I don't think it changes the point at all.
Considering the amount of time spent in the trilogy on the nature of Batman as a symbol and a legend in the city, I don't see how that argument is tenable. The city erected a statue in Batman's honor. The name "Batman" is anything but meaningless in Gotham City.
So if Blake's strategy is to simply be an anonymous masked vigilante with no symbol (eg, no bat motif or anything else) or even a real alter ego (eg, no alias of any kind) who strikes at street thugs, he might have different results.
But even if he embraces the Batman identity... well, we'll circle back to that.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 18 Mar 2018, 01:51If there's a message to be found in this, it's this line of work always gravitates towards this cycle of violence. This is why Nolan should've just ended this crusade once and for all because it's established how harmful it is to the wider community. Passing the mantle over to somebody else only makes Bruce Wayne look immature and irresponsible.
And maybe that's the point. Bruce might have seen it as a lesson for Blake to learn rather than a legacy for Blake to inherit.
It's also fair to question just how much action Blake would ever see as his alter ego. To all outward appearances, the Dent Act remains in effect. Gotham City remains largely free of widespread corruption. The League Of Assassins is smithereens. All Gotham City really has left by the time credits roll for TDKRises is low level street crime, petty thievery and the usual. I think it's safe to say that Blake's alter ego won't be as busy as Bruce's alter ego was.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 18 Mar 2018, 16:59
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 18 Mar 2018, 01:51Even if Blake adopts a completely different moniker instead of Batman, I don't think it changes the point at all.
Considering the amount of time spent in the trilogy on the nature of Batman as a symbol and a legend in the city, I don't see how that argument is tenable. The city erected a statue in Batman's honor. The name "Batman" is anything but meaningless in Gotham City.
Again, I feel like we're going back in circles. Yes, I'm well aware of the so-called "honoring" of Batman because of the supposed "sacrifices" he made, even though he was responsible for making things worse in the first place. Sorry, but that ending rings so hollow to me that I didn't buy it. If people want to talk about Batman's status as a "symbol" and a "legend" was so important, fine, but they don't get to turn around and justify his desire to rely on a public figure because he saw his very status was having a corrupting effect on Gotham City. It can't be both ways.
Regardless, I'm debating against having a vigilante run around the city when it was cemented how it was a bad influence for society. That was the point the second movie loved to make in favour of championing Harvey Dent. Having another guy running around in costume defeats the purpose of Gotham achieving social reform.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 18 Mar 2018, 16:59
It's also fair to question just how much action Blake would ever see as his alter ego. To all outward appearances, the Dent Act remains in effect.
Are you sure about that? There have been fan sites that claimed the Dent Act got abolished as soon as the truth about Two-Face came out. And yes, I know it wasn't exactly specified in the film that it got repealed, but I have a hard time believing it would still be active after it was revealed it was based on false pretenses, and finally bring people's attention that maybe it was rather unethical. But even if it was still around and still doing its job, there would be no need for Blake to fight crime. You even once admitted this didn't make much sense. After all, the Dent Act prevented a crimefighter from being needed ever again, right?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 18 Mar 2018, 16:59
Gotham City remains largely free of widespread corruption.
Is it, really? The fact that the ending hints Blake will take over the mantle shows the city still has a long way to go towards normality. What is the GCPD and the entire legal system so incompetent that it still needs some vigilante for help? That's not a ringing endorsement for reform to me.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 18 Mar 2018, 16:59
The League Of Assassins is smithereens.
So? There's no guarantee that another threat wouldn't emerge in the future.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 18 Mar 2018, 16:59
All Gotham City really has left by the time credits roll for TDKRises is low level street crime, petty thievery and the usual. I think it's safe to say that Blake's alter ego won't be as busy as Bruce's alter ego was.
Sorry, but I find this rationale to be just as ludicrous as establishing a huge city like Gotham being 100% crime-free for nearly a decade because of the Dent Act. I repeat again, being a crimefighter would eventually incite unwanted influences and more threats, as we saw in the second film.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 17 Mar 2018, 20:21
Ultimately, TDKRises concerns itself with wrapping up Bruce Wayne's story. You rightly point out that Blake's character arc is nowhere remotely close to being resolved. But I would argue that such isn't Nolan's self-assigned mandate in TDKRises.
I remember this 2010 quote from Nolan about TDK Rises:
"Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story, and in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story."
The ending of the film blew up the balloon. There's no way around that because we're left to wonder what happened with Blake. In that sense I've always been miffed about the ending because it's not clean, especially with that 2010 quote at the forefront of my mind. I didn't expect what we received.
I've never liked the character of Blake that much. Apart from being incompetent and boring, the main reason I've had is that he's a new character who sucked up valuable screen time that could've been used on Bruce or Selina.
It can be argued Bruce had an ending (he retired), but even that leads itself to more questions, such as how does he remain hidden for so long, especially because he's brazenly appearing in public? A bold ending like Arkham Knight would've been much better and something like that is what I originally envisioned.
I still have no clue how Batman survived the nuke, when it clearly showed him in the Batwing(I forgot the Nolan name for it) with 5 seconds left. Even the auto-pilot explanation dosn't make sense, when we were shown he was still in the vehicle with 5 seconds to go.
I'm slowly re-watching the trilogy. I got done with BB a few nights ago. I'm about to watch TDK tonight or tomorrow, and I'll have to power through TDKR. I may need to get some beer for that one.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 10:31It can be argued Bruce had an ending (he retired), but even that leads itself to more questions, such as how does he remain hidden for so long, especially because he's brazenly appearing in public? A bold ending like Arkham Knight would've been much better and something like that is what I originally envisioned.
That's why I prefer interpreting the end of the movie in line with that infamous fan theory. Basically the movie wraps up with Gordon, Alfred and Blake all experiencing wish-fulfillment fantasies that maybe, somehow, Bruce is still alive. In Alfred's case, that means Bruce can finally have a Happily Ever After. For Gordon, it means that Batman still exists. For Blake, it means that Bruce is passing the torch to him.
Based on mostly circumstantial evidence, I suspect Nolan wanted Batman to die in TDKRises but was overruled by WB. But even if he intended for Bruce to survive, well, whatever. His interpretation isn't binding upon me. I choose not to take that ending literally.
I think the messaging of the ending was frustrating because Bruce 'dies' as a dumb party boy who never outgrew the myth of his parents. I'm usually on board with that type of emotional darkness, but in my most humble 'pinion it was a missed opportunity which confused the messaging. I think it made more thematic sense for Bruce's reputation to be radically altered from what he was consistently depicted as during the trilogy.
In BB he kicked guests out from his party and according to the public, drunkenly burnt down his own house. By the time of TDK Rises nothing has changed. If anything, he's only weirder and dumber. Locking himself away for years, losing money on apparent dumb deals and dying a hobo.
TDK Bruce states Gotham needs a hero with a face. Harvey was that hero for a brief period of time, but he went rogue. TDK Rises could've remained consistent with this theme by having Bruce take Dent's place, and for the public to realize he's always been the hero they deserved. Dent was a step in the right direction, but was ultimately a poor imitation of Bruce who risked his life for the City without any want of reward or recognition.
Another significant issue is TDK's Bruce calling out copycats. In that film, he doesn't want people suiting up and taking justice into their own hands. Hell, he doesn't want to be Batman himself for that long either. By the time of TDK Rises he's supporting Blake and giving him the keys to the cave. In my mind, Bruce's identity being revealed (ideally against his will) would've solved a lot of these issues.
1. Bruce's reputation would be instantly elevated. 2. He would become Gotham's hero with a face. 3. It would finish the myth of Batman for good, which is a clear and definite end for a trilogy. Bruce becomes the hero of the series and Blake wouldn't be needed in this outline.
It seems Gotham was a rather decent place when the Thomas and Matha were around, but it gradually went to the dogs. I can't think of any better finale than going full circle to the Wayne (through Bruce) being thought of fondly, lifting the City's morale out of the gutter. The statue of Batman doesn't ring true to me. A man of the shadows (who didn't have that long of a career) celebrated in the light of day.
The filmmakers made a mistake by focusing on the wrong persona.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 21 Mar 2018, 10:03TDK Bruce states Gotham needs a hero with a face. Harvey was that hero for a brief period of time, but he went rogue. TDK Rises could’ve remained consistent with this theme by having Bruce take Dent’s place, and for the public to realize he’s always been the hero they deserved. Dent was a step in the right direction, but was ultimately a poor imitation of Bruce who risked his life for the City without any want of reward or recognition.
TDK itself seemed to dismiss the face thing though.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 10:31It can be argued Bruce had an ending (he retired), but even that leads itself to more questions, such as how does he remain hidden for so long, especially because he's brazenly appearing in public? A bold ending like Arkham Knight would've been much better and something like that is what I originally envisioned.
The same way everyone dismisses sightings of Elvis and even if he's found out, it wouldn't hurt him. I disagree about the ending too.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi64.tinypic.com%2F107ly4l.gif&hash=2a4e7ae1997a35dc1e48518a100e2d051ee92575)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 22 Mar 2018, 05:32
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi64.tinypic.com%2F107ly4l.gif&hash=2a4e7ae1997a35dc1e48518a100e2d051ee92575)
Probably the only time he ever lost his cool in public.
Talking about TDK here, nothing political. Because I would never do that. Ever.
Honest.
That's true. I usually a politicool guy, so this outburst is pretty rare.
But I still like to have my say, because I AM PAYING FOR THIS MICROPHONE.