Batman: The Dark Knight Rises and other misc. Nolan's Batman Thread

[nomisofsiman]

Overall, I was pretty unhappy with this movie. A lot of people will cry out and say that Ledger's performance carried the previous film and just as many will say the only reason his performance got so much attention was because he died, but I think the real reason The Joker worked so well was that he was the perfect foil to Batman. He put Batman in situations where his sense of right and wrong failed him and he was left not knowing what to do; that's what made The Dark Knight great. And while Bane was a strong villain in the sense that he really hammered home the point that Batman's time was done (because of his crushing physical superiority), he never gave Batman the sleepless nights so to speak that the Joker did, and that's why I felt this film didn't live up to its predecessor.

Totally different villain though. I see what you're saying, but with TDKR the point was Batman doing things for the greater good. There was a lot more at stake in this film opposed to the previous film. I also would sort of disagree with Batman not having restless nights as he was put in a prison with a broken back. No, he wasn't constantly going from location to location trying to stop Bane (like he did with Joker) but he was frustrated physically, emotionally and location-wise.

 

[DuchessOfDork]

The Ending - If you're going to make the entire film about the threat of a nuclear bomb going off, don't end the movie with a shot of kids staring *directly at a nuclear explosion* 6 miles away cheering about how everything is going to be okay. In reality their skin would be caking off in a couple hours and the entire area would be uninhabitable for decades.

I think this was the worst part of the movie, for me. Nolan and his fans like to go on about how much more "realistic" his vision of Batman is, but the truth is that it's not any more realistic. It's just more "dark and gritty" for an audience that thinks "dark and gritty" somehow means "real".

At the end of the day, you're still talking about a dude who dresses like a bat. You can try and make it more "real", but come on. The best part of Batman isn't Batman, it's his VILLAINS. They're over the top, and that's what makes them interesting.

Personally, I wish this whole movie could have been shot with Two Face returning as the villain. I felt that he was the strongest villain in all 3 films (yes, including Joker) and that, while I understand that they wouldn't want to include Joker for reasons of respect, wasn't it a little strange that they never mentioned him? At all?

 

[Justin G]

I think this was the worst part of the movie, for me. Nolan and his fans like to go on about how much more "realistic" his vision of Batman is, but the truth is that it's not any more realistic. It's just more "dark and gritty" for an audience that thinks "dark and gritty" somehow means "real".

At the end of the day, you're still talking about a dude who dresses like a bat. You can try and make it more "real", but come on. The best part of Batman isn't Batman, it's his VILLAINS. They're over the top, and that's what makes them interesting.

Personally, I wish this whole movie could have been shot with Two Face returning as the villain. I felt that he was the strongest villain in all 3 films (yes, including Joker) and that, while I understand that they wouldn't want to include Joker for reasons of respect, wasn't it a little strange that they never mentioned him? At all?

They wasted Two-Face in Dark Knight. His story could have made for a really good movie by itself. Instead it took the focus off the Joker (bad) and bloated a movie that didn't need it (worse).

 

[nomisofsiman]

They wasted Two-Face in Dark Knight. His story could have made for a really good movie by itself. Instead it took the focus off the Joker (bad) and bloated a movie that didn't need it (worse).

Agreed. I think they spent too much time on the Harvey Dent part and not enough of Two-Face. Like someone else mentioned, it would've been best I think to keep him around Gotham to lead into the third film or maybe not have him in the second at all, because now if they continue the series, they can't ever do Two-Face again. I think this is a problem with a lot of superhero movies. I've noticed the longer a series goes on, the more characters the writers/filmmakers feel they need to cram into the movie. It's because of this why the third X-Men and Spiderman for example sucked.

 

[Justin G]

Agreed. I think they spent too much time on the Harvey Dent part and not enough of Two-Face. Like someone else mentioned, it would've been best I think to keep him around Gotham to lead into the third film or maybe not have him in the second at all, because now if they continue the series, they can't ever do Two-Face again. I think this is a problem with a lot of superhero movies. I've noticed the longer a series goes on, the more characters the writers/filmmakers feel they need to cram into the movie. It's because of this why the third X-Men and Spiderman for example sucked.

Not to derail the thread or anything, but I really liked the third X-Men movie.

 

[DuchessOfDork]

Agreed. I think they spent too much time on the Harvey Dent part and not enough of Two-Face. Like someone else mentioned, it would've been best I think to keep him around Gotham to lead into the third film or maybe not have him in the second at all, because now if they continue the series, they can't ever do Two-Face again. I think this is a problem with a lot of superhero movies. I've noticed the longer a series goes on, the more characters the writers/filmmakers feel they need to cram into the movie. It's because of this why the third X-Men and Spiderman for example sucked.

Yes, I agree completely. It's like all these movies have "the rule of two" and they need to cram 2 villains in, per movie. Two Face WAS wasted. They used all of the 2nd film to build up to this great character, this fantastic villain, and then he just dies?? He dies so we can have two new characters to watch in the 3rd movie, who aren't as fleshed-out as Harvey was? What a waste! It would have been amazing to see Two Face as the main villain in this last movie!

 

[monoxide_child]

i'm so totally waiting for the re-boot
i guess i'm really hoping for a director to appease the people that hated the Nolan films, instead of just having a new director try to make a clone of the Nolan films
i'll prolly get totally flamed for this but i still kinda feel like the 2 Burton films with Keaton were done better than the 3 Nolan films with Bale

 

[DuchessOfDork]

i'll prolly get totally flamed for this but i still kinda feel like the 2 Burton films with Keaton were done better than the 3 Nolan films with Bale

I don't know if they're better, but I definitely enjoy watching those 2 films more than I do the Nolan ones.

 

[nomisofsiman]

Not to derail the thread or anything, but I really liked the third X-Men movie.

uke:

 

[nomisofsiman]

i'll prolly get totally flamed for this but i still kinda feel like the 2 Burton films with Keaton were done better than the 3 Nolan films with Bale

I like the Burton films, but I do feel Begins trumps both of them...with maybe TDKR about even with those...with obviously TDK dead last.

 

[Comic Book Dude]

i guess i'm really hoping for a director to appease the people that hated the Nolan films, instead of just having a new director try to make a clone of the Nolan films

Er...considering how well the Nolan films have done, that segment of the population is not very large.
There will never be a director for any comic book movie franchise that will satisfy every nerdy fanboys wants and desires. Said director should just try to make the best movie he/she feels they can do, and be true to themselves. That's what Nolan did, and I really like the results (though I haven't seen the latest film yet)....Burton did his thing with Batman, and though I HATED what he did, more power to him for sticking to his vision of film making.

 

[nailz]

Anyway, just one Batman fanboy's nerdy opinion

This wasn't a movie based on the comic universe any more than Spectacular Spider-Man is part of the Ultimate universe. It's a complete separation and the end of this particular story. To criticize things because they weren't true to the ongoing DC Universe is kind of ... unfair, don't you think?

 

[DuchessOfDork]

This wasn't a movie based on the comic universe any more than Spectacular Spider-Man is part of the Ultimate universe. It's a complete separation and the end of this particular story. To criticize things because they weren't true to the ongoing DC Universe is kind of ... unfair, don't you think?

I totally agree with you, but I think this is both a yes and no argument.

While TDKR was a fun movie in it's own right, it could have easily have been a film that used different names. Nolan used a lot of subtle nuances to create nearly completely different characters that slightly resembled their source material (except in a few cases, like Two Face and Alfred). This is not necessarily a BAD thing. It's just different. There have been many different versions of Batman and his villains throughout time. Some I've liked, some not so much. Personally, this one wasn't my favorite, BUT, again, doesn't mean it's BAD. Just not what I enjoy about the Batman universe.

 

[nailz]

See, I found this to be quite good. Except for being very difficult to understand Bane, I thought he was treated as the villain he needed to be, following The Joker. I know it was loosely based on the comic series The Breaking of the Bat, and I was happy with the way they treated it. I suppose not caring much for the DC Universe ever because of the overall cartoony nature, I appreciate the realism Nolan brings to Batman more so than anyone who's tackled it. I think the biggest injustice he committed was Two Face. I'd have been more than satisfied with JUST Harvey Dent.

What made TDKR, IMO, was Bane's portrayal, much like The Joker made TDK. I found Bane to be more methodical and thusly more deadly and sinister than The Joker. Frankly, I'd love to have seen more of a tie in between Bane and The Joker, Joker to wear down Batman, and Bane to break him. I think that would've been cool. Also, Batman Begins was a LONG time ago. A little more info on why exactly Bane wanted Batman dead would've been nice. It was entirely too thinnly covered. I'd forgotten most of the story.

That said, I think they did an EXCELLENT job with Cat Woman being NOT Cat Woman. It would've just been hella cheesy if they refered to her like that, but the goggles making Cat Ears was fucking brilliant IMO, incredibly subtle, even if they never really explained any purr-pose (couldn't help it.) for them. I almost think Bane was a better all around Villain than The Joker.

But what I think this Batman Series did was keep a super hero movie human. The Joker was Human, Batman/Bruce Wayne was human, Bane was human. It wasn't over the top, it was never cartoony, it was never comicbooky.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Not to derail the thread or anything, but I really liked the third X-Men movie.

"Don't you know who I am? I'M THE JUGGERNAUT, BITCH!"

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I totally agree with you, but I think this is both a yes and no argument.

While TDKR was a fun movie in it's own right, it could have easily have been a film that used different names. Nolan used a lot of subtle nuances to create nearly completely different characters that slightly resembled their source material (except in a few cases, like Two Face and Alfred). This is not necessarily a BAD thing. It's just different. There have been many different versions of Batman and his villains throughout time. Some I've liked, some not so much. Personally, this one wasn't my favorite, BUT, again, doesn't mean it's BAD. Just not what I enjoy about the Batman universe.

I think the most shocking thing about this entire thread, is the lack of understanding from COMIC BOOK READERS in terms of how canon/alternate universes/etc work. If you came into this third movie and were upset due to Nolan's treatment of the film being completely different to how Batman is portrayed in the comics, that sucks - sorry. If you've seen the first two and STILL expected fidelity the source material, there's something very very wrong with you.

How a character should or shouldn't act, is CONJECTURE. It's NOLAN's screenplay, not DC's, not Tim Burton's. Nolan's.

You totally missed my whole point. I wasn't expecting Batman The Animated series (superior to Nolan's vision btw..in my opinion) or Knightfall or The Dark Knight Returns for that matter. I absolutely LOVE the first two Nolan films, that's why I was so profoundly disappointed with TDKR, and I went into TDKR with extremely lowered expectations, because no one was going to follow Ledger's performance as The Joker. In Batman Begins,and The Dark Knight I thought the characters of Alfred, Gordon, Wayne were captured perfectly that's exactly why TDKR is so disappointing. Because the characters that were defined in the first two films, specifically Wayne and Alfred, act exactly the opposite of how their characters were portrayed in the first two films. And yeah, I'm a fan of the Batman comics and the Nolan Batverse as well. Trust me, I wanted to like, hell, I wanted to LOVE the movie, it just felt like it was forced, but I'm not asking you or anyone to agree with me. I stated my criticisms and to argue back and forth is kind of silly. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has em and they all stink! But it's all good

I wouldn't call the animated series superior to Nolan's, but that's just me. The universes are far too different from one another for a comparison - but I grew up with the animated series and love that one for sure.

I'm not sure how you could love the first two and not love this. They were set in completely different universes much like TDKR. You say that I "missed" your point, but I didn't. You use the phrase "captured perfectly" when describing Alfred, Gordon, and Wayne (assuming you mean Bruce right?), but that's the thing - they're NOT "captured" from anything. They're original characters that are based off the comics in the general sense, but not in the narrative. When I saw the preview for Batman Begins back in around 2005 or so, and they showed Bruce Wayne doing ninjutsu training (in no less, what was I believe a non-Japanese pacific island nation), I thought it was the dumbest fucking thing I'd ever seen. It has nothing, NOTHING, I repeat... NOTHING to do with the comics or the animated series. And if you wanted to get conjectural, the idea of Bruce doing ninjutsu training is antithetical to Batman's character, because Ninjas were honorless, cold-blooded killers.

And of course, this is all spirited. Opinions are indeed like assholes. I guess I just don't get where those of you who are talking about expectations not being met because of characters not maintaing fidelity to something else are coming from. Alfred and Gordon are minor characters across all 3 movies, how are you supposed to know how they'd act anyways?

 

[DuchessOfDork]

I think the most shocking thing about this entire thread, is the lack of understanding from COMIC BOOK READERS in terms of how canon/alternate universes/etc work.

No, we get it. I'm just not a fan of this particular version, much like I didn't very much enjoy Batman and Robin's Batgirl...or... anyone else in that movie, really. uke:

(Except Mr. Freeze, purely because that must have been the most ridiculous character/acting I've ever seen IN MY LIFE EVER.)

 

[Justin G]

"Don't you know who I am? I'M THE JUGGERNAUT, BITCH!"

Come on, that was classic, in an internet meme that nobody remembers kind of way.

 

[monoxide_child]

I don't know if they're better, but I definitely enjoy watching those 2 films more than I do the Nolan ones.

each new nolan movie seems progressively crappier than the previous one, batman begins was definitively the best of the nolan trilogy

I like the Burton films, but I do feel Begins trumps both of them with TDK dead last.

this

Er...considering how well the Nolan films have done, that segment of the population is not very large.
There will never be a director for any comic book movie franchise that will satisfy every nerdy fanboys wants and desires. Said director should just try to make the best movie he/she feels they can do, and be true to themselves. That's what Nolan did, and I really like the results (though I haven't seen the latest film yet)....Burton did his thing with Batman, and though I HATED what he did, more power to him for sticking to his vision of film making.

or, how about the studio finding actual fans of the fucking source material to be involved in the production of the movies that are based on said source material, such as when the Ghost Rider movie was actually directed by a guy that was a huge fan of the ghost rider comics, or how Joss Whedon was already a fan of the avengers comic long before anyone even considered him as director for the movie that's totally blown away every other superhero movie ever made

This wasn't a movie based on the comic universe any more than Spectacular Spider-Man is part of the Ultimate universe. It's a complete separation and the end of this particular story. To criticize things because they weren't true to the ongoing DC Universe is kind of ... unfair, don't you think?

i get that whole "seperation of universes" thing, i love earth 616 and i read the ultimates universe up untill peter parker died, and i actually loved the 2 burton/keaton movies and Batman Begins, but just because i liked the first in a trilogy doesn't automatically mean i like the next 2, TDK and DKR both totally sucked in comparison to the awesomeness of Batman Begins

I totally agree with you, but I think this is both a yes and no argument.

While TDKR was a fun movie in it's own right, it could have easily have been a film that used different names. Nolan used a lot of subtle nuances to create nearly completely different characters that slightly resembled their source material (except in a few cases, like Two Face and Alfred). This is not necessarily a BAD thing. It's just different. There have been many different versions of Batman and his villains throughout time. Some I've liked, some not so much. Personally, this one wasn't my favorite, BUT, again, doesn't mean it's BAD. Just not what I enjoy about the Batman universe.

i understand what she's saying, this could have easily been turned into a movie that used "different names" kinda like how someone on a different site refered to the movie "deathwish" as "a well done punisher movie"
the characters shouldn't have been changed that much, there's no explanation of why Selina Kyle becomes a thief, they don't show Bane being a bony guy transforming into a muscular guy with one of those fictional drugs owned by DC, Bane even interacting with Talia Al-Gul at all whatsoever totally seems to totally come out of left field, let alone the whole "history" that they have together, Talia's dialogue could have easily mentioned Ras al-Ghul being incappable of producing male children, but she didn't, not saying to make characters 100% the same as comics, but at least try to come close

See, I found this to be quite good. Except for being very difficult to understand Bane, I thought he was treated as the villain he needed to be, following The Joker. I know it was loosely based on the comic series The Breaking of the Bat, and I was happy with the way they treated it. I suppose not caring much for the DC Universe ever because of the overall cartoony nature, I appreciate the realism Nolan brings to Batman more so than anyone who's tackled it. I think the biggest injustice he committed was Two Face. I'd have been more than satisfied with JUST Harvey Dent.

Bane's weird voice was horrendously distracting for me, Bane's character should NOT have been in any way shape or form been influenced at all by any of Batman's previous villains, the "cartoony nature" of the DC universe should not have prevented a decently made movie, and i already posted my thoughts about how harvey dent was handled

What made TDKR, IMO, was Bane's portrayal, much like The Joker made TDK. I found Bane to be more methodical and thusly more deadly and sinister than The Joker. Frankly, I'd love to have seen more of a tie in between Bane and The Joker, Joker to wear down Batman, and Bane to break him. I think that would've been cool. Also, Batman Begins was a LONG time ago. A little more info on why exactly Bane wanted Batman dead would've been nice. It was entirely too thinnly covered. I'd forgotten most of the story.

some theaters showed the 3 movies back-2-back where you could have sat through 3 movies in a row at the theater just for the purpouse of being able to see all the things DKR is referencing

That said, I think they did an EXCELLENT job with Cat Woman being NOT Cat Woman. It would've just been hella cheesy if they refered to her like that, but the goggles making Cat Ears was fucking brilliant IMO, incredibly subtle, even if they never really explained any purr-pose (couldn't help it.) for them. I almost think Bane was a better all around Villain than The Joker.

i still like Pheiffer's catwoman batter

But what I think this Batman Series did was keep a super hero movie human. The Joker was Human, Batman/Bruce Wayne was human, Bane was human. It wasn't over the top, it was never cartoony, it was never comicbooky.

Batman's always been part of the justice league, DC's wanting to release a justice league movie at the same time as Marvel releasing Avengers sequel, so why not batman doing over the top villains, i personally would have liked to see Man-Bat, Killer Croc, Clay-Face

No, we get it. I'm just not a fan of this particular version, much like I didn't very much enjoy Batman and Robin's Batgirl...or... anyone else in that movie, really. uke:

(Except Mr. Freeze, purely because that must have been the most ridiculous character/acting I've ever seen IN MY LIFE EVER.)

batgirl looked stupid in this and Mr Freeze in this movie looks hilarious when i'm stoned, but when i'm sober i'm waiting for a live-action Freeze to look like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_&_Mr._Freeze:_SubZero

 

[monoxide_child]

I think the most shocking thing about this entire thread, is the lack of understanding from COMIC BOOK READERS in terms of how canon/alternate universes/etc work. If you came into this third movie and were upset due to Nolan's treatment of the film being completely different to how Batman is portrayed in the comics, that sucks - sorry. If you've seen the first two and STILL expected fidelity the sou[SOUNDCLOUD][/SOUNDCLOUD]rce material, there's something very very wrong with you.

How a character should or shouldn't act, is CONJECTURE. It's NOLAN's screenplay, not DC's, not Tim Burton's. Nolan's.

yeah, it's not DC's screenplay, or burton's, it's Nolan's and i'm saying that Nolan's screenplay sucked

I wouldn't call the animated series superior to Nolan's, but that's just me. The universes are far too different from one another for a comparison - but I grew up with the animated series and love that one for sure.

i personally would say that the animated series was better, and there's prolly a lot of people that agree with me

I'm not sure how you could love the first two and not love this. They were set in completely different universes much like TDKR. You say that I "missed" your point, but I didn't. You use the phrase "captured perfectly" when describing Alfred, Gordon, and Wayne (assuming you mean Bruce right?), but that's the thing - they're NOT "captured" from anything. They're original characters that are based off the comics in the general sense, but not in the narrative. When I saw the preview for Batman Begins back in around 2005 or so, and they showed Bruce Wayne doing ninjutsu training (in no less, what was I believe a non-Japanese pacific island nation), I thought it was the dumbest fucking thing I'd ever seen. It has nothing, NOTHING, I repeat... NOTHING to do with the comics or the animated series. And if you wanted to get conjectural, the idea of Bruce doing ninjutsu training is antithetical to Batman's character, because Ninjas were honorless, cold-blooded killers.

i loved the first one, but just because it's the same universe doesn't mean the newest one is a good movie

And of course, this is all spirited. Opinions are indeed like assholes. I guess I just don't get where those of you who are talking about expectations not being met because of characters not maintaing fidelity to something else are coming from. Alfred and Gordon are minor characters across all 3 movies, how are you supposed to know how they'd act anyways?

it totally failed
it was like he didn't even feel the need to try any more
it was a crappy movie, if Nolan had actually been trying to make an awesome movie, instead of just a sequel to an awesome movie, Nolan could have made a batman movie that would have made as much at the box office as the avengers, but he didn't