Messages

I think we all knew well before seeing the film that Nolan fans would hedge their bets on MOS; If it were well received they'd attribute it to Nolan, if not, they'd downplay his involvement. Because it ended up with mixed reception, you have a bit of both camps.

We all know Bale's bat couldn't follow his own rules; create a symbol for good, don't let copycats help but trust known theives and backstabbers. And of course his no guns, no killing rule. As mentioned supes never made such promises.

That being said I think we all saw Nolans fingerprints on MOS. It felt like a pseudo-Nolan film. For instance completely illogical morals including Jonathan not letting Clark save people for inexplicable reasons. My goodness is the collateral damage in all these films brutal. I watched Batman Begins for the first time in years today. Who did batman think he was helping pancaking all those cop cars and causing property damage? For someone trained to be invisible he did a poor job at it; and throughout the entire trilogy his presence created a diversion for the bad guys since the cops were chasing him and investigating him. You could make the argument about whether Bruce Wayne becoming Batman ended up being a positive or a negative for gotham; Ras al ghul attacks Gotham and helps Crane in begins because of Bruce 'killing' him. As gordon predicts at the end of Begins, the mob ups their game to combat batman by empowering the Joker thus turning gothams white knight into two face. Bane then comes along to fulfill Ras al ghuls destiny.

Ra's was already going to attack Gotham before Bruce "killed" him. Batman's only a diversion in Rises. But that's the point there. He doesn't cause a diversion in Begins. He was trying to save Rachel pancaking those cop cars. Which is selfish. But that's the point. He trusted Selina because it was a desperate situation, otherwise all of Gotham would be nuked.

For instance, I actually laughed at how dumb it was for Superman punching Zod in anger on route to plowing through the petrol station. The first thought I had in my head was "typical Goyer/Nolan nonsense" (I include Nolan because he co-wrote the script).

He didn't co-write the script. He co-wrote the story.

This is a pretty mean post title.

The tumbler's fine. But this insult is new level.

[That being said, I do recall The New Batman Adventures episode, Joker's Millions, where the Joker took delight when he inherited a crime boss's fortune, only to find out the money was fake. That was actually based on a comic by Dick Sprang too.]

In fairness, Nicholson's Joker doesn't really see the value in money either. He dumps it all at the street parade, luring people out to kill them. I think the Joker could see beauty in having such items like jewellery, but money? I have to agree with TDK's take. What use or value does such a character have for it? Does he take out his wallet and buy something at a store? No. He's a brazen thief who does what he wants. He's a complete rogue.

Point taken, but I was only referring to the burning of the money because it was the closest thing that TDK's Joker had access to anything that was remotely luxurious. It's not like he was an actual thief in the movie. And to be honest, I don't think Nicholson's take matches the psychological profile of the GA Joker either.

That being said, I do recall The New Batman Adventures episode, Joker's Millions, where the Joker took delight when he inherited a crime boss's fortune, only to find out the money was fake. That was actually based on a comic by Dick Sprang too.   

Furthermore, the original 1952 Joker's Millions comic showed the Clown Prince of Crime cherishing the wealth he believed he had inherited.



So there you go, there is a precedent that the Joker did exhibit in financial greed like everybody else after all.

Well, that's really boring. I prefer it the other way.

What do people think of how the League of Shadows were portrayed? I got a lot of problems with how they're portrayed in this movie, and how they changed drastically in the third film.

Despite all the talk about how the League were responsible for "sacking Rome" and spending many centuries restoring civilisations through terrorism, I was unimpressed with how they were easily beaten in the end. It never felt like they ever lived up to the hype. I honestly found the ending to be incredibly underwhelming and anticlimactic because it was rushed. And this is despite the film being over two hours long by that point. It was supposed to mean that Batman was so awesome for single-handedly taking down an entire secret society. But the League is re-introduced in the last twenty minutes of the film, and they are quickly defeated, despite being in hundreds in numbers as they attacked Gotham. I honestly didn't not find them that threatening because they return for a short period of time. And what's even worse is it didn't really look like the League put up that much of a fight against Batman, because the action scenes involving them and Ra's al Ghul were so short and incredibly poorly directed. You couldn't tell what the hell was going on because of how badly edited and choreographed the fights were. 

There were quite a few things about the League that left me scratching my head in confusion. For example, I thought it was awkward that the chaos happening all over Gotham immediately ended as soon as Ra's dies. What happened to the League's remaining survivors? Did they just escape or get arrested? Speaking of which, what about all those Arkham Asylum escapees scattered everywhere in Gotham, who were devouring each other? I never got the sense of a satisfying conclusion to what happened to them. And I never understood why Ra's even needed a decoy to begin with. Who is he hiding his true identity from, and why? Was anyone really surprised that he was the "secret" villain at all? I never understood the purpose of this plot twist.

For that matter, I'm disappointed how the League changes in TDKR too. Despite being centuries old, the League gets so depleted following their loss to Batman that they radically reimagine their goals and identity altogether. In BB, the League operated in secrecy and their goal was to rebuild cities by destroying corrupt civilisations that inhabit them. But in TDKR, they got rid of all their martial arts expertise and became a regular terrorist cult; announcing themselves to the world as they take control of Gotham. But their return was pointless because Gotham was no longer "corrupt" thanks to the Dent Act. So that means that their return was only used as a ploy for Talia to get revenge over Bruce for murdering her father...despite the fact that Ra's abandoned her and her mother to rot in the Pit, and kicked her and Bane out of the League shortly after they reunited. It's too ridiculous.

So far in live-action, Ra's al Ghul and the League have been portrayed in this trilogy and were the main antagonists in Arrow's third season, and I didn't like either interpretations. I'm not convinced that Hollywood knows how to portray the League or Ra's al Ghul properly.

Ra's didn't leave them to rot in the pit. He didn't know she'd taken his place in the pit. They say this in the movie. He also didn't kick her out of the League either. Talia doesn't imply that in her story. She says that she couldn't forgive her Father for rejecting Bane.

Really, I believe he was supposed to be hiding it from Bruce. Because he wasn't fully sure if he could trust him.

The Joker has asylum patients working for him in The Dark Knight.

Really the League wasn't doing anything in the final battle, but protecting Ra's.

Personally, I don't see it as them changing, so much as the differences being reflected by the leaders.

There are similarities in how Bane and Ra's act to be sure, but Bane shows tremendous disrespect to his men. He's very deceptive and manipulative to them. He more controls them and how they think, than Ra's, who seemed to offer free will to his men. He was their leader because he respected them and they him. Bane took on people who were easily manipulated and weak willed. People he could control. Because that's real difference between Bane and Ra's, Bane wants control, he wants to prove something to himself and everyone else. Ra's wasn't like that really.

[Rachel Dawes 36.7 (28%)]

minutes on screen per major character (percentage of screen time in brackets)
Bruce Wayne 76.7 (58.5%)
Rachel Dawes 36.7 (28%)
Batman 33.6 (25.6%)
Ras Al Ghul 30.8 (23.5%)
James Gordon 21.2 (16.2%)
Alfred Pennyworth 19 (14.5%)
Jonathan Crane 13.2 (10.1%)
Lucious Fox 9.6 (7.33%)

Rachel Dawes having more screen-time than Alfred and Gordon - who are in my opinion the only truly good characters in this movie - is criminal.

Eh.

Yep I had the exact problem. The irritating helicopter section of the Two-Face stage. Now fans rave about this dreadful game. It's quite clear it's simply because of it being an animated series spin-off and they tend to regard anything from that show much more favorably than a Batman Forever project. Wrongly in that games case though. You had thugs constantly leaping, running and shooting at you from every conceivable angle. It really was a complete bitch. Good graphics but highly unenjoyable to play.

I think the reason Robin looked so brightly lit is because they simply wanted him to read better on the dark levels and next to the other characters. I don't know if using the actual movie costume if it would have worked for their game.

My only real personal criticism of the game was the portrayal of Two-Face's girlfriends. Spice turned out excellent. You can bet it's Debi Mazar's likeness as close as you could expect. What the hell happened to Sugar? Where's Drew Barrymore??? Was it too extreme to punch a blond Marilyn Monroe/Madonna lady in white lace? I mean they even had a lady playing (very very briefly) Chase Meridian. There's a mystery there. 

I'm surprised the SNES version had no sound effects for voices. I always remember Two-Face's laugh and the Riddler's giggles. The Riddler Thugs were quite an interesting invention as a game foe with all their fancy special moves and abilities. I quite wished we had gotten them in the film but the closest the Riddler had to his own thugs were his frogmen. It always frustrated me you couldn't ever play as the Riddler in the training level where you could fight against a friend. Choosing his character was totally absent. Another slight flaw.

I disagree that it being hard makes it bad.

I did admit that he broke his when he killed Harvey. But it was accidental. It doesn't negate his rule by any means though. I do this with all Batman movies.

I'm going by what the movie has explicitly shown us, and what both the Nolan brothers have acknowledged themselves. What you're doing, is trying your hardest to conform your own ideas of what you think/hope was in the movie, but was never there. Basically, you're filling in the blanks to try and fit your false narrative.

I'm sorry, but all evidence is contradictory to your claims.

I have no idea what they really say. But it doesn't matter. If they say that, then they're wrong. I'm saying what happens in the films.

The jacket is a cameo and nothing more. A throwback to the previous film, providing connective tissue. Nobody survives a plunge into a watery grave full of rocks. The look on Robin's face said it all. And the cue name on the score is Two-Face's Demise.

So? The director himself said that it was left ambiguous purposefully. If his costume is there, he's alive. People survive ridiculous falls all the time. But it's likely he's in a coma. The look on Robin's face gives us very little clue about whether or not he's alive.

When did Joel Schumacher say that Two-Face's fate was left ambiguous? Was it in a DVD commentary?

I preferred that he did die because it would only undermine Batman's sacrifice to relieve Robin's desire for revenge.

Besides, I thought the scene more than heavily implies that Two-Face died from that height. Even for comic book fiction, a fall from that height is not survivable.

I believe it was in the commentary.