#961  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:45 PM
The plot holes don't bother me about the film. I never felt there were any glaring ones to take me out of the film. The thing that made me feel disappointed in this film was the fact that Nolan stacked too much on his plate story-wise, making revelations and certain character beats feel less than what Nolan seemed to intend. TDK and BB had more focus in my opinion, while this one just had a solid epic feel, but meandered on a story level.
Reply With Quote
  #962  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HyDe807 View Post
The plot holes don't bother me about the film. I never felt there were any glaring ones to take me out of the film. The thing that made me feel disappointed in this film was the fact that Nolan stacked too much on his plate story-wise, making revelations and certain character beats feel less than what Nolan seemed to intend. TDK and BB had more focus in my opinion, while this one just had a solid epic feel, but meandered on a story level.
I agree, the editing is the biggest flaw in TDKR. Certain elements just aren't fleshed out enough. But the first two films have equally disappointing elements. TDK peaks during the second act and it just kind of sputters along for another 40 minutes with an underwhelming finale in the skyscraper. Batman Begins has too many cliche blockbuster beats "nice coat," "I need to get me one of those," and an extremely weak performance from Katie Holmes in a pivotal role. I think the internet feedback on both TDK(best movie ever!) and TDKR(worst movie ever!) suffer from too much hyperbole. I think at the end of the day they're all really great movies with their own unique strengths and weaknesses.
Reply With Quote
  #963  
Old 12-12-2012, 02:07 AM
I feel like this thread serves as some kind of example for a rant about how people today are spoiled.
Reply With Quote
  #964  
Old 12-12-2012, 03:03 AM
Batman Begins -7.5/10
The Dark Knight -6/10
The Dark Knight Rises -4/10

The first one has a couple of the problems of the next two, but is considerably more focused and well-crafted. It's one of the strongest superhero origin story pictures that have been so popular this last decade. TDK has an incredible performance from Ledger that carries much of the film, but can't mask that the script is half-baked, most of the rest of the acting mediocre, and direction and editing a mess. TDKR has all the problems of the second film (though slightly better action direction), no remarkable performance or engaging character to save it, and is ultimately an overlong bore.
Reply With Quote
  #965  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I feel like this thread serves as some kind of example for a rant about how people today are spoiled.
It is interesting that you point this out because it really is amazing how far we've come from the Batman movies of the 90s. They were simply awful, just 2 hour toy commercials with little-to-no artistic merit. I think it shows just how important expectations are.

People can bitch about TDKR because Nolan set the bar so high with TDK. Whereas Batman Begins was almost my most surprising and impressive film-viewing of the trilogy because after Batman and Robin I didn't know what to expect... but I certainly wasn't expecting something as good as what we got. With TDK I knew that the crew took the material seriously and were capable of making a great movie, I was still pretty impressed though. With TDKR I knew that Nolan was 2 for 2 so I had to really struggle to keep my expectations in check.

Like I mentioned earlier, I also think that the internet tends to be the realm of hyperbole. It seems like movies are either brilliant or complete shit. People on IMDB are only capable of voting for movies with a 10 or a 1. A couple of plot holes or minor flaws mean the movie is awful.

What's interesting is that watching Batman and Robin in the theater when it came out was a turning point for me as a young film fan. I was 9 when Batman Forever came out and 11 when Batman and Robin came out. Growing up I was a big fan of Batman(and still am) and loved the movies and the animated series, and all of the toys. I left Batman Forever thinking it was the greatest movie of all time(again, I was 9)... but I left Batman and Robin feeling profoundly confused and disappointed. I was astonished to admit to myself that it wasn't a very good movie, and I just didn't like it. It was my first experience as a discerning, perhaps even jaded audience member; and the first time I saw firsthand how much high expectations can influence your initial perception of a movie.
Reply With Quote
  #966  
Old 12-12-2012, 05:14 PM
The Dark Knight Rises Trailer: IN LEGO

http://youtu.be/dEwUwslyaEQ
Reply With Quote
  #967  
Old 12-13-2012, 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos View Post
And communicating without an earpiece ....I could bring up some many fucking flaws the The Avenger had, but I won't because it's a waste of time and the movie was solid fun.
I was referring to The Bat in DKR... not Avengers.
Reply With Quote
  #968  
Old 12-13-2012, 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos View Post
And communicating without an earpiece.
That's one of the most laughable complaints that I've ever heard of. The Avengers has some plot holes, but tiny two way radios that hide inside the ear is not one of them. The military, CIA, and DEA has used them for years. Hollywood even sometimes uses them to feed lines to an actor. Versions of these "invisible" ear pieces are even available to the public, so if you want to talk on your cellphone without a visible earpiece, you too can be like the Avengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO0_CmhMF9k

But I guess a technologically advanced secret military organization like S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't allowed to have access to common technology.
Reply With Quote
  #969  
Old 12-13-2012, 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
That's one of the most laughable complaints that I've ever heard of. The Avengers has some plot holes, but tiny two way radios that hide inside the ear is not one of them. The military, CIA, and DEA has used them for years. Hollywood even sometimes uses them to feed lines to an actor. Versions of these "invisible" ear pieces are even available to the public, so if you want to talk on your cellphone without a visible earpiece, you too can be like the Avengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO0_CmhMF9k

But I guess a technologically advanced secret military organization like S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't allowed to have access to common technology.

You mean I no longer have to leave my window up while driving down the freeway?! That's awesome. I gotsta get one!
Reply With Quote
  #970  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u843KNE-exo#ws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQJuGeqdbn4#ws

TDKR...so very true.
Reply With Quote
  #971  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:01 PM
That DKR trailer had my sides splitting. So very true in every aspect. It only took about 6 months for ppl to start realizing how poorly concieved this Batman Film was, how THE FUCK did this get an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes???? I really really am concerned that some of those death threat comments to other critics made them slide their review to the positive side. How do professional critics miss TDKR's flaws and slapdash sensibility? A pretty damn dissapointing film, one that I didnt even think to buy for XMAS on blu ray just cuz of how shitty a movie it is. Upon my rewatches I only hate it more.
Reply With Quote
  #972  
Old 01-01-2013, 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMan50 View Post
That DKR trailer had my sides splitting. So very true in every aspect. It only took about 6 months for ppl to start realizing how poorly concieved this Batman Film was, how THE FUCK did this get an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes???? I really really am concerned that some of those death threat comments to other critics made them slide their review to the positive side. How do professional critics miss TDKR's flaws and slapdash sensibility? A pretty damn dissapointing film, one that I didnt even think to buy for XMAS on blu ray just cuz of how shitty a movie it is. Upon my rewatches I only hate it more.
lol, why don't you tell us how you really felt?

Hope you're not sending Nolan and Warner Bros death threats, jesus...
Reply With Quote
  #973  
Old 01-01-2013, 08:53 PM
The best part is, he rewatched it. Multiple times.
Reply With Quote
  #974  
Old 01-01-2013, 10:00 PM
Yet more proof that 'TDKR' was in fact...a badly constructed anti climatic piece of crap.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=81349

Yeah I firmly believe that most folk did just jump on the bandwagon with this film, because it was a Nolan film and the third in this ridiculously over hyped trilogy.
Reply With Quote
  #975  
Old 01-02-2013, 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubbs View Post
Yet more proof that 'TDKR' was in fact...a badly constructed anti climatic piece of crap.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=81349

Yeah I firmly believe that most folk did just jump on the bandwagon with this film, because it was a Nolan film and the third in this ridiculously over hyped trilogy.
I've been a fan of every movie in the trilogy, starting with Begins, so if that means I jumped on the dark knight bandwagon, so be it. Each installment in the trilogy is awesome in its own right.
Reply With Quote
  #976  
Old 01-02-2013, 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubbs View Post
Yet more proof that 'TDKR' was in fact...a badly constructed anti climatic piece of crap.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=81349

Yeah I firmly believe that most folk did just jump on the bandwagon with this film, because it was a Nolan film and the third in this ridiculously over hyped trilogy.
While I still really enjoy TDKR, this is a hilarious video.

"Who the fuck is this bitch!?"
Reply With Quote
  #977  
Old 01-02-2013, 04:14 PM
I do apologize if my ranting gets too personally insulting to those who are fans of Rises, its wrong to say that everyone who enjoyed the film is on the "Nolan Bandwagon." Nolan certainly is no jopke as a director. Hes made some GREAT films that have had a huge impact on current cinema culture. BUT

I am still on the side of the argument that Rises is rushed, anti-climactic, and void of any actual depth to its substance/story. If McG wouldve made Rises, we all wouldve been somewhat impressed, but NOT Christopher Nolan, who also had a hand in writing the script.

Nolan is so much better than what TDKR showcases. I was so dissapointed at the "route" that Nolan took. Everything about this third film had something off about it. I know that I can say these things forever and ppl will argue that Rises is "the best of the three" and that its "the best of the year", but myself and supposedly a TON of movie goers were dissapointed by DKR. Those faux trailers ae hilariously correct, its a very very very lazy movie, especially compared to Nolans past work. This was obviously a rushed production and Nolan had very little time to augment the story to a smoother pace, instead I felt like the film was a 2 hr 40 min trailer. Only grazing the top of the surface in each scene, never indulging in any set pieces or emotion or much of anything.

OF COURSE, these complaints are of my own. To anyone who thinks that TDKR was out and out the best movie it could be, I would love to hear you exclaim your points, but those trailers are epic and dish so much shit that is actually plausible and accurate about the films flaws. No "thats just your opinion" stuff anymore, any arguments for the film positively should be as evident as what the trailers suggest.

Just for discussions sake, i do not mean to offend anyones opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #978  
Old 01-02-2013, 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMan50 View Post
I do apologize if my ranting gets too personally insulting to those who are fans of Rises, its wrong to say that everyone who enjoyed the film is on the "Nolan Bandwagon." Nolan certainly is no jopke as a director. Hes made some GREAT films that have had a huge impact on current cinema culture. BUT

I am still on the side of the argument that Rises is rushed, anti-climactic, and void of any actual depth to its substance/story. If McG wouldve made Rises, we all wouldve been somewhat impressed, but NOT Christopher Nolan, who also had a hand in writing the script.

Nolan is so much better than what TDKR showcases. I was so dissapointed at the "route" that Nolan took. Everything about this third film had something off about it. I know that I can say these things forever and ppl will argue that Rises is "the best of the three" and that its "the best of the year", but myself and supposedly a TON of movie goers were dissapointed by DKR. Those faux trailers ae hilariously correct, its a very very very lazy movie, especially compared to Nolans past work. This was obviously a rushed production and Nolan had very little time to augment the story to a smoother pace, instead I felt like the film was a 2 hr 40 min trailer. Only grazing the top of the surface in each scene, never indulging in any set pieces or emotion or much of anything.

OF COURSE, these complaints are of my own. To anyone who thinks that TDKR was out and out the best movie it could be, I would love to hear you exclaim your points, but those trailers are epic and dish so much shit that is actually plausible and accurate about the films flaws. No "thats just your opinion" stuff anymore, any arguments for the film positively should be as evident as what the trailers suggest.

Just for discussions sake, i do not mean to offend anyones opinion.
I can only speak for myself as a fan of the film, but I think what it mainly comes down to is your agreement or disagreement with the amount of emphasis some people place on the plot holes of this film. Honestly, the plot holes in TDKR really don't bother me because, 1) (IMO) they didn't take away from the story or characters, and 2) explaining them probably would of killed the flow of the film, and it was already 165 min long. The story and themes of this movie are just as strong as the other installments. I find it curious that this movie is under such attack for including certain plot elements that are no more absurd than some of the things we saw in Begins and TDK.

Nolan wanted to achieve a heightened sense of realism with these films, but somehow I feel people started to misconstrue his intentions after TDK. People started saying things like, "TDKR is too comic-booky, it doesn't fit into Nolan's realistic Batman universe." It's like they forgot that Nolan's Bat films were only realistic to an extent. TDK played very much like a gritty crime saga, and I think because of the type of genre it was trying to incorporate in its tone and plot it somehow felt even more grounded to people than Begins.
Thus, when the TDKR came along and departed from the crime film formula, some people felt that it was out of place or hyper unrealistic even though it honored the general heightened realism feel of the other films.

For TDKR, Nolan wanted to emulate the feel of a disaster film, so that's very much how it plays. Each film in the trilogy mimics a different genre and has a different feel. Begins deals with fear and parallels self-discovery films like Lawrence of Arabia, TDK deals with chaos and parallels crime films, TDKR deals with pain and parallels disaster films. What I really enjoyed about the TDKR was that it felt fresh and distinguishable from the other two movies, had double the popcorn moments, and it still had just as much depth and story as the other installments. I think that maybe some people just wanted another Batman crime film, like TDK, but personally I'm glad they didn't just repeat what they had already done.
Reply With Quote
  #979  
Old 01-02-2013, 07:00 PM
I said it before and Ill say it again: There are just as many plotholes, conveniences what have you in The Dark Knight. Fact.
Reply With Quote
  #980  
Old 01-02-2013, 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
People started saying things like, "TDKR is too comic-booky, it doesn't fit into Nolan's realistic Batman universe."
There are people who say this? TDKR is still a crime movie to me, with a cameo by Batman. The guy is barely in it. Like in many Batman movies, the villain upstages the hero. Tom Hardy is fantastic as Bane. His physique, his voice. I love how he places his hand on Dagget's shoulder and asks "do you feel in charge?"

But I don't like the endgame of the villains. The first time I watched TDKR I didn't understood what would be happening. Bane was talking about a revolution but that never happened. Bane talked about a triggerman but that didn't go anywhere either because in the end it was just about letting the bomb go off after three months of holding Gotham hostage. It doesn't make any sense to me. At least upon the second viewing I knew the whole revolution/triggerman/hostage plot didn't mean anything but that it was just about a timebomb.

I think many people dislike the importance of Rachel. She's the reason he quits as Batman and the reason why he has a fight with Alfred. It's not how we know Batman from the comics. By having Bane as the villain we expect he's going to break Batman's back. That's what Bane is famous for. We know that Catwoman will do the right thing at the end of the movie. But having a woman be the reason for Batman to retire or firing Alfred is just against character. The whole fight with Alfred feels forced to me. I don't know why Alfred was so convinced Batman couldn't beat Bane. He was right of course, but for all the wrong reasons.

I enjoyed the comic-booky moments. Who cares how Bane knew the exact place where the Tumbler was. Wasn't it just to show how clever they are. They know everything about Bruce Wayne. The ending with John Blake was great. I love shit like that, with a hint it's not over (for Gotham). The Robin reference could've been more subtle though, like that his real name was Grayson instead of Blake. That Bruce Wayne popped up in a bar in Italy and isn't recognized is only a nuisance for Americans. Because trust me, if you're not from America you don't know all the billionaires from the US. The unguarded prison in the middle of nowhere is just a bit too comic booky. The climbing of the well makes a nice metaphor, but I can't help myself wondering who is running that prison.

I don't think this movie deserves all the nitpicking it gets, but on a whole I'm not a big fan of Nolan's trilogy. I liked Batman Begins the best because it was a pretty straightforward comic book movie.
Reply With Quote
  #981  
Old 01-02-2013, 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herald View Post
I think many people dislike the importance of Rachel. She's the reason he quits as Batman and the reason why he has a fight with Alfred. It's not how we know Batman from the comics.
This is incorrect, we discussed it earlier. Bruce quit being Batman because they eliminated organized crime in Gotham city with the Dent act. I don't know why so many people assume he retires because of Rachel's death; remember that in TDK, it was Bruce's intention to retire as Batman because he thinks Rachel will be with him. He was planning on hanging up the cowl and cape before Rachel died.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herald View Post
The unguarded prison in the middle of nowhere is just a bit too comic booky. The climbing of the well makes a nice metaphor, but I can't help myself wondering who is running that prison.
The League of Shadows took control of the prison under Ras Al Ghul. The one guy calls it "Bane's prison" at one point.
Reply With Quote
  #982  
Old 01-03-2013, 04:23 PM
I liked the movie better when i watched it for a second time ( like 3 months after first viewing ). Plot holes ? yes but not as much as we think. I think Nolan did a goob job ( not a super job ).
Reply With Quote
  #983  
Old 01-04-2013, 12:52 AM
Nah sorry i can't agree, I pick up on plot holes or anything out of the ordinary very easily, sticks out like a sore thumb to me. The sequence where 'Wayne' crawls out of the pit prison and appears to be in a desert some where in the Middle East (one can only presume). Then the following scene he's well dressed and back in Gotham talking to 'Kyle'!, a complete joke, ridiculous and badly constructed. This is merely one example and its a huge gaping example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W_PoL-dXf0

I understand people like the film which is fine but why can't people admit its a badly made film and Nolan simply didn't achieve what was expected!.
Reply With Quote
  #984  
Old 01-04-2013, 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubbs View Post
Nah sorry i can't agree, I pick up on plot holes or anything out of the ordinary very easily, sticks out like a sore thumb to me. The sequence where 'Wayne' crawls out of the pit prison and appears to be in a desert some where in the Middle East (one can only presume). Then the following scene he's well dressed and back in Gotham talking to 'Kyle'!, a complete joke, ridiculous and badly constructed. This is merely one example and its a huge gaping example.
Oh, a new topic of discussion, I don't believe this has come up yet. Seriously though, in the movie it's said that during the sequence where Bruce climbs out of the pit, there are 18-20 days before the bomb explodes in the final act. That's plenty of time for Bruce to find his way back to Gotham with little-to-no funds; we are shown in Batman Begins that Bruce has skills to get by without his riches.

As far as how he gets back into Gotham while under Bane's control... there is a scene as Bane is taking over the city where his second-in-command is talking to a military officer on a bridge. The military dude(Bunny from the Wire!) says that Bane doesn't have enough men to cover all the access points of Gotham city, to which Barsad replies "No, but you do." The military is helping them quarantine the city, as seen in the final act when JGL tries to exit the city with the orphans but the military stops them. While the military is helping keep people from escaping, why wouldn't they let somebody like Bruce Wayne in to help stop the bad guys? They had already been sneaking in special forces operatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubbs View Post
This video is about as long as The Dark Knight Rises, I'm going to have to pass on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubbs View Post
I understand people like the film which is fine but why can't people admit its a badly made film and Nolan simply didn't achieve what was expected!.
Because this is completely subjective. I bolded expected because I think that's an important factor of criticism for this movie. Expectations. The Dark Knight is a great film but it's not without its flaws, same with Batman Begins, and same with The Dark Knight Rises. But because the internet has driven us into the age of hyperbole The Dark Knight becomes a perfect movie while The Dark Knight Rises is a crap film. It doesn't make sense, they're on par with each other. Why can't people admit that it's a good movie on par with the others in the trilogy, but they let the hype and their own expectations get the best of them?
Reply With Quote
  #985  
Old 01-04-2013, 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubbs View Post
Hahaha, yeah you know I loved the shit out of TDKR but that video is hilarious. His Avengers one is also pretty good

It's all for shits and giggles of course, more than half of those sins are just meant to be funny and nothing else so I wouldn't take it as any kind of "proof" Hubbs. That's just about as funny as the video itself.

Like others have said it over and over, TDKR is just as flawed as every other movie in the trilogy is, it's just that expectations after TDK came out and delivered like it did were skyrise-high.

I confess that I've been a fan of Batman since my diaper days, the superhero has been a huge part of my growing up so there's lots of things I'll forgive Nolan for (plot holes, jump cuts that come out of nowhere, underused villains, emphasis on action over character, convenience etc.) but when you figure that it's a hyper-reality and not everything has to make perfect sense you enjoy what he's done: a cinematic interpretation of an adored comic-book universe that can't get much better. Just be happy with what you have bro.
Reply With Quote
  #986  
Old 01-04-2013, 11:51 AM
I think Postmaster General said it best that the nitpicking over this movie just shows us how spoiled we are with Nolan's Batman films. I grew up with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin so I just can't understand the level of criticism that this film has gotten.

Last edited by DaveyJoeG; 01-04-2013 at 01:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #987  
Old 01-04-2013, 01:09 PM
How come nobody questions Bruce being able to travel without money and resources in Batman Begins, but in Rises it's enough to ruin the whole film?
Reply With Quote
  #988  
Old 01-04-2013, 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopontheshoes7 View Post
How come nobody questions Bruce being able to travel without money and resources in Batman Begins, but in Rises it's enough to ruin the whole film?
Because this movie doesn't have Heath Ledger. In BB, we didn't know what we were missing, but with TDKR... movie sucks!
Reply With Quote
  #989  
Old 01-06-2013, 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
Because this movie doesn't have Heath Ledger. In BB, we didn't know what we were missing, but with TDKR... movie sucks!
I think people wanted TDK part 2 instead of a movie with a new story/themes. They just wanted a rehash because they couldn't get enough of what TDK brought to the table. I think that going that route would of yielded pretty redundant and boring results. Before anyone knew anything about the story or premise of TDKR, people were speculating online and elsewhere about possible story ideas that didn't really cover any new ground. For awhile, I heard people talking about Two-Face coming back, or the Joker making an appearance, or the police just chasing him around for the better part of two hours. Looking back on it now, I just don't see how any of that would of made for satisfying third part of the trilogy.

Even if you disagree with the amount of screen time Nolan gave certain villains in his trilogy, (two-face, scarecrow) the truth is that they didn't need to emerge as major villains in his stories. They served their purpose within the story he wanted to tell and expanding their screen time would of only served to satisfy comic book fans.

I honestly appreciated Nolan's decision to deviate from the comics a bit and make the story, to an extent, more about the characters behind the alter egos than the alter egos themselves. It's like Nolan said, the goal was to have the audience care just as much about Bruce as they did Batman, which is something that previous Batman films pretty much failed to do. I loved Bruce's journey in TDKR, and having said that, why does it matter that Batman only showed up in the film for 40 min or so?
Reply With Quote
  #990  
Old 01-07-2013, 04:22 AM
Re

I'll admit I just don't like the new Batman movies. Nor the political messages they try to convey or the controversy, such as aforementioned public shootings in the news. The new Batman movies do not turn me on as much as the old Michael Keaton movies do, as those were classics and stuck closest to source material.


For me this receives a passable 5.9 out of 10.
Reply With Quote
  #991  
Old 01-07-2013, 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentWakeVille View Post
I'll admit I just don't like the new Batman movies. Nor the political messages they try to convey or the controversy, such as aforementioned public shootings in the news. The new Batman movies do not turn me on as much as the old Michael Keaton movies do, as those were classics and stuck closest to source material.


For me this receives a passable 5.9 out of 10.
Actually, the Tim Burton films are not as faithful to the source material as you may think. In the comics, an ordinary criminal murdered Bruce's parents, not the Joker.

And what do the shootings have to do with the actual film itself? It's not like the movie caused controversy that, in turn, caused the shootings.
Reply With Quote
  #992  
Old 01-07-2013, 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
I loved Bruce's journey in TDKR, and having said that, why does it matter that Batman only showed up in the film for 40 min or so?
Because it is a Batman movie?

Though Nolan never saw Batman as an actual character, and this became most apparent in TDKR. I guess Nolan felt it was too silly to treat Batman as a real character, and instead Nolan turned him into a symbol. That's part of the reason I disliked the movie. Batman is one of the most interesting comic book characters out there, and it sucks to see Batman treated like a flag. Batman was never about inspiring the good in people. He was all about vengeance and dedicating his life fighting criminals. Batman Begins was on the right path (mostly), but TDKR destroyed all of the potential Begins promised.
Reply With Quote
  #993  
Old 01-07-2013, 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentWakeVille View Post
I'll admit I just don't like the new Batman movies. Nor the political messages they try to convey or the controversy, such as aforementioned public shootings in the news. The new Batman movies do not turn me on as much as the old Michael Keaton movies do, as those were classics and stuck closest to source material.


For me this receives a passable 5.9 out of 10.
Wrong. The burton movies were fuckin toy commercials and were about as loose as houston*was around guy #414 outta 500 in terms of being faithful to the comics.
Reply With Quote
  #994  
Old 01-08-2013, 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentWakeVille View Post
I'll admit I just don't like the new Batman movies. Nor the political messages they try to convey or the controversy, such as aforementioned public shootings in the news. The new Batman movies do not turn me on as much as the old Michael Keaton movies do, as those were classics and stuck closest to source material.
How exactly did the Burton movies stick closest to the source material? In the first movie, Jack Napier kills Bruce Wayne's parents. I'm not that familiar with the comics, but I don't think that's how they went. And in Batman Returns, Catwoman was born because Selina Kyle was pushed out of a window by her corrupt boss and basically went crazy. Don't think that's how DC Comics originally wrote her - though there have been several incarnations of the character, so who knows how accurate the movie got the character.

Still, I think Nolan's movies got a lot of the characters and symbolism right, better than Burton's movies anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #995  
Old 01-08-2013, 10:22 AM
Not to mention Batman KILLS repeatedly in Burtons films.
Reply With Quote
  #996  
Old 01-08-2013, 12:29 PM
Burton's version was great for imagination

Nolan's version is closer to the source material

in TDKR , the pit scene is a great WTF .... namely because it's not located. Is that some pit outside of Gotham or is this a pit halfway across the world in some Morrocan or Somalian desert ? Bruce does get back to Gotham pretty quickly in the narrative.
Reply With Quote
  #997  
Old 01-08-2013, 03:28 PM
I think Burton & Nolan are about on par when it comes to the source material. Burton certainly got the tone right.

Joker never killed Bruce's parents, though Burton's Batman pretty much did an accurate adaptation of Joker's origin from 'The Killing Joke'. Ra's Al Ghul was never Ducard, nor did he train Bruce to eventually become Batman. Though Begins was a solid adaption of Year One.

It was with the sequels that both filmmakers wonder away from the source material. Burton wondered into the more surreal gothic fairy tale world, and Nolan wondered into the more realistic crime drama world.

Burton completely understood the character of Batman, but didn't understand the other characters too well. Nolan never truly understood Batman as a character, for Nolan Batman was just a symbol, but Nolan did a great job with Bruce Wayne & the other characters (minus Catwoman & Talia).
Reply With Quote
  #998  
Old 01-08-2013, 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
I think Burton & Nolan are about on par when it comes to the source material. Burton certainly got the tone right.

Joker never killed Bruce's parents, though Burton's Batman pretty much did an accurate adaptation of Joker's origin from 'The Killing Joke'. Ra's Al Ghul was never Ducard, nor did he train Bruce to eventually become Batman. Though Begins was a solid adaption of Year One.

It was with the sequels that both filmmakers wonder away from the source material. Burton wondered into the more surreal gothic fairy tale world, and Nolan wondered into the more realistic crime drama world.

Burton completely understood the character of Batman, but didn't understand the other characters too well. Nolan never truly understood Batman as a character, for Nolan Batman was just a symbol, but Nolan did a great job with Bruce Wayne & the other characters (minus Catwoman & Talia).
I'm a big fan of symbolism in movies and I love how Nolan used the hero and villains as symbols in the overall story and how the symbols correlated with each other. I thought it was really well done.
Reply With Quote
  #999  
Old 01-09-2013, 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
Because it is a Batman movie?

Though Nolan never saw Batman as an actual character, and this became most apparent in TDKR. I guess Nolan felt it was too silly to treat Batman as a real character, and instead Nolan turned him into a symbol. That's part of the reason I disliked the movie. Batman is one of the most interesting comic book characters out there, and it sucks to see Batman treated like a flag. Batman was never about inspiring the good in people. He was all about vengeance and dedicating his life fighting criminals. Batman Begins was on the right path (mostly), but TDKR destroyed all of the potential Begins promised.
I do think Nolan put more emphasis on the character of Bruce Wayne in his films, but in doing so he actually strengthened the character of Batman. For the first time in the history of the Batman film franchise audiences were finally given a proper origin story for the character that thoroughly explained why someone would want to dress up like a bat and fight crime. Batman has always been a symbol since his inception into the comic book world, it's just that Nolan and co brought this overlooked fact to everyone's attention in the dark knight trilogy.

Vengeance has never been Batman's primary agenda. Originally, Bruce craved vengeance, but that was before he became Batman. Why would someone go through all of the theatrics that Bruce utilizes if their goal was simply to achieve vengeance or to satiate their anger? He uses something that is a symbol of his fear to strike fear into those that prey on the fearful. He does this in every single medium that the character has been brought to life in. Batman's moral code is a significant part of his character, and acts of vengeance do not fit into that code.
Reply With Quote
  #1000  
Old 01-29-2013, 05:31 PM
Upon a couple more viewings, I am captivated by Tom Hardy's Bane. He is almost every bit as good as Ledger's Joker.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump