lol. i think you're looking for that last definition. I like "an enthusiastic devotee". I may start using that as a self-descriptor.
But of Superman, comic books, movies, or comic book movies? Which group(a) of fans were 'a lot' that didn't feel Man of Steel?
M
I thought I was pretty clear, but I'm talking comic book fans in general. And by that I mean people who buy comics on a regular basis.
I'm just basing this on what I’ve seen and heard in comic book fandom circles. As you've pointed out yourself, this message board seems to be split about 50/50 on Man of Steel, and that's generally what I've seen on Facebook (actually, I've seen probably more like 70/30 against MoS on Facebook, but that may be due more to my age and the ages of my friends) and the other message boards I visit now and then. Even if it’s only a third of comic fans didn’t think Man of Steel felt right, that’s still “a lot.”
Fair enough. I was questioning because your other 2 examples were mostly accepted by everyone, though I know a couple people who had issues with Nolan's Batman series. The biggest criticisms were League of Shadows (instead of Assassins) & Blake's name not being something else (trying to avoid spoilers for the handful who haven't seen TDKR) There's even an endangered species number of comic book fans who criticize the trilogy for not having Batman in (unrealistic, impractical, & laughable) tights!
I loved the trilogy's ending...I just wouldn't want to see it in the comic books.
M
:D
Although truth be told. I don't criticize Nolan's Batman for not having unrealistic, impractical and laughable tights. I criticize Nolan's Batman because:
a) I dont care for Christian Bale as Bruce or Bats and b) the plot of the 3rd film had some weak spots.
I just don't want a reboot to be another kevlar wearing version of Batman. We've seen that. I'd like this new version to be different. I've said before I'd be happy with Ninja Sherlock Holmes for a reboot.
Is this a bad time to mention my distain for Morrison's run on Batman, or distain for the 60s Batman series? How about my thoughts of the Beatles being overrated?
lol. i think you're looking for that last definition. I like "an enthusiastic devotee". I may start using that as a self-descriptor.
But of Superman, comic books, movies, or comic book movies? Which group(a) of fans were 'a lot' that didn't feel Man of Steel?
M
I thought I was pretty clear, but I'm talking comic book fans in general. And by that I mean people who buy comics on a regular basis.
I'm just basing this on what I’ve seen and heard in comic book fandom circles. As you've pointed out yourself, this message board seems to be split about 50/50 on Man of Steel, and that's generally what I've seen on Facebook (actually, I've seen probably more like 70/30 against MoS on Facebook, but that may be due more to my age and the ages of my friends) and the other message boards I visit now and then. Even if it’s only a third of comic fans didn’t think Man of Steel felt right, that’s still “a lot.”
Fair enough. I was questioning because your other 2 examples were mostly accepted by everyone, though I know a couple people who had issues with Nolan's Batman series. The biggest criticisms were League of Shadows (instead of Assassins) & Blake's name not being something else (trying to avoid spoilers for the handful who haven't seen TDKR) There's even an endangered species number of comic book fans who criticize the trilogy for not having Batman in (unrealistic, impractical, & laughable) tights!
I loved the trilogy's ending...I just wouldn't want to see it in the comic books.
M
:D
Although truth be told. I don't criticize Nolan's Batman for not having unrealistic, impractical and laughable tights. I criticize Nolan's Batman because:
a) I dont care for Christian Bale as Bruce or Bats and b) the plot of the 3rd film had some weak spots.
I just don't want a reboot to be another kevlar wearing version of Batman. We've seen that. I'd like this new version to be different. I've said before I'd be happy with Ninja Sherlock Holmes for a reboot.
Should Batman be more cheery? If something works, run with it. Remember the disaster of Batman & Robin?
Is this a bad time to mention my distain for Morrison's run on Batman, or distain for the 60s Batman series? How about my thoughts of the Beatles being overrated?
M
I hate Morrison's run on virtually everything so i'm with you on that! And No i don't have to read everything the man has written to know I don't enjoy it.
60's Batman is what it is. *Shrugs* take it or leave it.
Beatles being overrated...I don't dislike the Beatles but I don't own a single album either.
lol. i think you're looking for that last definition. I like "an enthusiastic devotee". I may start using that as a self-descriptor.
But of Superman, comic books, movies, or comic book movies? Which group(a) of fans were 'a lot' that didn't feel Man of Steel?
M
I thought I was pretty clear, but I'm talking comic book fans in general. And by that I mean people who buy comics on a regular basis.
I'm just basing this on what I’ve seen and heard in comic book fandom circles. As you've pointed out yourself, this message board seems to be split about 50/50 on Man of Steel, and that's generally what I've seen on Facebook (actually, I've seen probably more like 70/30 against MoS on Facebook, but that may be due more to my age and the ages of my friends) and the other message boards I visit now and then. Even if it’s only a third of comic fans didn’t think Man of Steel felt right, that’s still “a lot.”
Fair enough. I was questioning because your other 2 examples were mostly accepted by everyone, though I know a couple people who had issues with Nolan's Batman series. The biggest criticisms were League of Shadows (instead of Assassins) & Blake's name not being something else (trying to avoid spoilers for the handful who haven't seen TDKR) There's even an endangered species number of comic book fans who criticize the trilogy for not having Batman in (unrealistic, impractical, & laughable) tights!
I loved the trilogy's ending...I just wouldn't want to see it in the comic books.
M
:D
Although truth be told. I don't criticize Nolan's Batman for not having unrealistic, impractical and laughable tights. I criticize Nolan's Batman because:
a) I dont care for Christian Bale as Bruce or Bats and b) the plot of the 3rd film had some weak spots.
I just don't want a reboot to be another kevlar wearing version of Batman. We've seen that. I'd like this new version to be different. I've said before I'd be happy with Ninja Sherlock Holmes for a reboot.
Should Batman be more cheery? If something works, run with it. Remember the disaster of Batman & Robin?
M
Should Batman be more cheery? hell no! How do you get cheery out of Ninja Sherlock Holmes? I want stealthy, arrogant and smarter than everybody else in the room. I want a sneaking in the shadows Batman rather than a machine gun strapped to a tank Batman. I want a stilletto not a club.
no i do not remenmber that steaming pile of fecal matter that is Batman and Robin because it does not exist in my reality.
Is this a bad time to mention my distain for Morrison's run on Batman, or distain for the 60s Batman series? How about my thoughts of the Beatles being overrated?
M
I hate Morrison's run on virtually everything so i'm with you on that! And No i don't have to read everything the man has written to know I don't enjoy it.
60's Batman is what it is. *Shrugs* take it or leave it.
Beatles being overrated...I don't dislike the Beatles but I don't own a single album either.
lol. i think you're looking for that last definition. I like "an enthusiastic devotee". I may start using that as a self-descriptor.
But of Superman, comic books, movies, or comic book movies? Which group(a) of fans were 'a lot' that didn't feel Man of Steel?
M
I thought I was pretty clear, but I'm talking comic book fans in general. And by that I mean people who buy comics on a regular basis.
I'm just basing this on what I’ve seen and heard in comic book fandom circles. As you've pointed out yourself, this message board seems to be split about 50/50 on Man of Steel, and that's generally what I've seen on Facebook (actually, I've seen probably more like 70/30 against MoS on Facebook, but that may be due more to my age and the ages of my friends) and the other message boards I visit now and then. Even if it’s only a third of comic fans didn’t think Man of Steel felt right, that’s still “a lot.”
Fair enough. I was questioning because your other 2 examples were mostly accepted by everyone, though I know a couple people who had issues with Nolan's Batman series. The biggest criticisms were League of Shadows (instead of Assassins) & Blake's name not being something else (trying to avoid spoilers for the handful who haven't seen TDKR) There's even an endangered species number of comic book fans who criticize the trilogy for not having Batman in (unrealistic, impractical, & laughable) tights!
I loved the trilogy's ending...I just wouldn't want to see it in the comic books.
M
:D
Although truth be told. I don't criticize Nolan's Batman for not having unrealistic, impractical and laughable tights. I criticize Nolan's Batman because:
a) I dont care for Christian Bale as Bruce or Bats and b) the plot of the 3rd film had some weak spots.
I just don't want a reboot to be another kevlar wearing version of Batman. We've seen that. I'd like this new version to be different. I've said before I'd be happy with Ninja Sherlock Holmes for a reboot.
Should Batman be more cheery? If something works, run with it. Remember the disaster of Batman & Robin?
M
Should Batman be more cheery? hell no! How do you get cheery out of Ninja Sherlock Holmes? I want stealthy, arrogant and smarter than everybody else in the room. I want a sneaking in the shadows Batman rather than a machine gun strapped to a tank Batman. I want a stilletto not a club.
no i do not remenmber that steaming pile of fecal matter that is Batman and Robin because it does not exist in my reality.
I only threw the cheery bit out there because its always been 1 of the complaints I've heard about the Batman movies since 1989. Some people want to see a less brooding, serious, depressing Batman.
I am totally fine with brooding, serious depressed or even self-obsessed Batman. What gets me a little with the last Nolan movie is that it ends with a freakin punching contest. THATS the best super-genius-brilliant-tactician Batman can come up with?! Ya got no pepper spray in the utility belt? nothing? just going to stand there and trade punches with the 'roided-out assassin doing a Darth Vader impression. okay.
I am totally fine with brooding, serious depressed or even self-obsessed Batman. What gets me a little with the last Nolan movie is that it ends with a freakin punching contest. THATS the best super-genius-brilliant-tactician Batman can come up with?! Ya got no pepper spray in the utility belt? nothing? just going to stand there and trade punches with the 'roided-out assassin doing a Darth Vader impression. okay.
IN the middle of the DAY no less! stupid "dark knight". not exactly stealthy are you? I've heard quieter troop transporters.
I am totally fine with brooding, serious depressed or even self-obsessed Batman. What gets me a little with the last Nolan movie is that it ends with a freakin punching contest. THATS the best super-genius-brilliant-tactician Batman can come up with?! Ya got no pepper spray in the utility belt? nothing? just going to stand there and trade punches with the 'roided-out assassin doing a Darth Vader impression. okay.
IN the middle of the DAY no less! stupid "dark knight". not exactly stealthy are you? I've heard quieter troop transporters.
That's not how I interpreted the ending. When Bruce returned to Gotham, he intended to die there (which was actually the original ending.) The punch out a la Rocky/Clubber Lang was to keep Bane occupied. In the comics, didn't Batman try to punch it out with Bane in Knightfall, then again in Legacy?
The moment Bruce changed his mind about his fate was when the camera zoomed to his face as he was flying out over the bay.
Fighting during the day didn't matter at that point. Hiding in the shadows initially didn't work, so his symbolism was to replace the truth about Gotham's white knight; Dent.
It's also not out the ordinary for Batman to do that. During No Man's Land, Batman operated during the day in plain sight. In War Games, he was out during the day, even carrying an injured kid in plain view of news cameras.
I am totally fine with brooding, serious depressed or even self-obsessed Batman. What gets me a little with the last Nolan movie is that it ends with a freakin punching contest. THATS the best super-genius-brilliant-tactician Batman can come up with?! Ya got no pepper spray in the utility belt? nothing? just going to stand there and trade punches with the 'roided-out assassin doing a Darth Vader impression. okay.
IN the middle of the DAY no less! stupid "dark knight". not exactly stealthy are you? I've heard quieter troop transporters.
That's not how I interpreted the ending. When Bruce returned to Gotham, he intended to die there (which was actually the original ending.) The punch out a la Rocky/Clubber Lang was to keep Bane occupied. In the comics, didn't Batman try to punch it out with Bane in Knightfall, then again in Legacy?
The moment Bruce changed his mind about his fate was when the camera zoomed to his face as he was flying out over the bay.
Fighting during the day didn't matter at that point. Hiding in the shadows initially didn't work, so his symbolism was to replace the truth about Gotham's white knight; Dent.
It's also not out the ordinary for Batman to do that. During No Man's Land, Batman operated during the day in plain sight. In War Games, he was out during the day, even carrying an injured kid in plain view of news cameras.
M
I may have to watch it again but i seem to remember already thinking his "death" was going to be a red herring when he was saying goodbye to...Gordon? I think. It was obvious then he didn't intend to kill himself. the ole autopilot switcharoo was already in place right from the start.
Symbolism shimbolism.
I'm not saying there is never a circumstance where Bats can't appear in daylight or engage in a toe to toe brawl but this wasn't it. I can't believe you think this movie had a strong ending that ended the series setisfactorily. The whole Batman in retirement living in the dark at wayne manor WTF? so this jackass spends years training for a role he only actually fills for a couple years then pouts in a corner. his parents have already been murderede and his brain is broken the guy doesn't have a heartbreak button anymore. if nothing else he should be out there kicking even more ass. Batman doesn't mope he takes action. that is who Batman IS. the guy who pours his personal torture into a crusade.
I am totally fine with brooding, serious depressed or even self-obsessed Batman. What gets me a little with the last Nolan movie is that it ends with a freakin punching contest. THATS the best super-genius-brilliant-tactician Batman can come up with?! Ya got no pepper spray in the utility belt? nothing? just going to stand there and trade punches with the 'roided-out assassin doing a Darth Vader impression. okay.
IN the middle of the DAY no less! stupid "dark knight". not exactly stealthy are you? I've heard quieter troop transporters.
That's not how I interpreted the ending. When Bruce returned to Gotham, he intended to die there (which was actually the original ending.) The punch out a la Rocky/Clubber Lang was to keep Bane occupied. In the comics, didn't Batman try to punch it out with Bane in Knightfall, then again in Legacy?
The moment Bruce changed his mind about his fate was when the camera zoomed to his face as he was flying out over the bay.
Fighting during the day didn't matter at that point. Hiding in the shadows initially didn't work, so his symbolism was to replace the truth about Gotham's white knight; Dent.
It's also not out the ordinary for Batman to do that. During No Man's Land, Batman operated during the day in plain sight. In War Games, he was out during the day, even carrying an injured kid in plain view of news cameras.
M
I may have to watch it again but i seem to remember already thinking his "death" was going to be a red herring when he was saying goodbye to...Gordon? I think. It was obvious then he didn't intend to kill himself. the ole autopilot switcharoo was already in place right from the start.
Symbolism shimbolism.
I'm not saying there is never a circumstance where Bats can't appear in daylight or engage in a toe to toe brawl but this wasn't it. I can't believe you think this movie had a strong ending that ended the series setisfactorily. The whole Batman in retirement living in the dark at wayne manor WTF? so this jackass spends years training for a role he only actually fills for a couple years then pouts in a corner. his parents have already been murderede and his brain is broken the guy doesn't have a heartbreak button anymore. if nothing else he should be out there kicking even more ass. Batman doesn't mope he takes action. that is who Batman IS. the guy who pours his personal torture into a crusade.
Wow, a lot of stuff for me to address here:
1.) I mentioned above that I wouldn't want to see this in the comics.
2.) 'symbolism shimbolism'? Weren't you one of the people who complained Man of Steel's Superman lacked that (see, still incorporating the thread's topic)
3.) we obviously approached this trilogy from different angles. The disappearance was because Batman had to be the villain so Dent could be 'the symbol of hope I (Batman) can never be.' Was it a lie? Yes, but the city turned around & Bruce never had to don the cape & cowl again. He spent about 18 months as Batman. It broke down his body, just like any professional athlete. Mid-30s for an NFL player I setting close to the end of his career. The speed, power, stamina all are reducing. Same happened to Bruce.
In his final fight with Joker & Dent, Bruce was shot, stabbed, sustained a concussion, & crippled his knee.
He became a recluse because the light at the end of the tunnel (Rachel) died & he was able to inspire people, turning Gotham around. He went into retirement because his body was broken & he wasn't needed anymore. Blake even stated how Gordon cleaned up Gotham. Even the copycats didn't need to be apprehended anymore. Plus, didn't the Dark Knight Returns have a retired Batman? Didn't he also fake his death at the end?
This realistic take couldn't have a guy taking the physical abuse into his 60s. This version wasn't avenging his parents, but trying to inspire people. He was finally able to move on at the end having inspired others.
Why did I find the ending satisfactory? It was satisfactory because he saved the day, inspired people, could finally move on to be happy...and still let those he consider friends (except Blake) get a hint that he survived.
My neighbor complains about this trilogy because its not a comic book movie...and he's right. I like this direction DC is taking with a more realism/grounded interpretation of its characters. Marvel is doing a great job making comic book movies, so this is a nice alternative to the medium.
Nope, not me. I'm not looking for symbolism from my superman. I get that Supes is a Moses analog but that's enough for me. I don't need (and would prefer to avoid) any heavy handed Christ figure metaphors. I would have preferred Supes not resort to killing Zod but I get that the movie was set up that way from the start.
The light at the end of the trouble (Rachel). Oh come on! Batman hangs up his cowl for a girl? What is this a Nicholas Sparks book?
18 months? Nope. No prefessional athlete works his whole life to hang it up after less than two seasons. And even accepting that he "wore out his body" badly enough that he had to retire. He got back into fighting trim, what? 7 years later? It's a colossal waste. He could have been functional that entire time. He failed in his commitment to himself, his promise to his parents and mopes like a broken hearted schoolboy.
Your neighbor is right it isn't a comic book movie. I myself don't see the "realism" as at all "realistic". I'd rather a little more fantasy.
Nope, not me. I'm not looking for symbolism from my superman. I get that Supes is a Moses analog but that's enough for me. I don't need (and would prefer to avoid) any heavy handed Christ figure metaphors. I would have preferred Supes not resort to killing Zod but I get that the movie was set up that way from the start.
The light at the end of the trouble (Rachel). Oh come on! Batman hangs up his cowl for a girl? What is this a Nicholas Sparks book?
18 months? Nope. No prefessional athlete works his whole life to hang it up after less than two seasons. And even accepting that he "wore out his body" badly enough that he had to retire. He got back into fighting trim, what? 7 years later? It's a colossal waste. He could have been functional that entire time. He failed in his commitment to himself, his promise to his parents and mopes like a broken hearted schoolboy.
Your neighbor is right it isn't a comic book movie. I myself don't see the "realism" as at all "realistic". I'd rather a little more fantasy.
So an athlete that has zero cartilage in his knees, shoulders, & elbows, head trauma, & a knee injury that requires him to need a cane won't give up playing the sport?!
And who is he fighting? The police were able to clean up Gotham without him. The copycats have stopped because Batman is no longer seen as a hero, and Bruce talked about 'the day Gotham would no longer need a Batman.' So yes, Rachel was the light at the end of the tunnel for him. It's why Alfred burned her note stating she was going to marry Dent. Alfred wanted him to have hope.
There was no vow, no promise, no moment in any of the 3 movies where Bruce swore to avenge his parents' death. The comics, yes, but not this trilogy, the 4 prior movies, or even the 60s series.
Again, Nolan's vision was brilliant, but I don't want to see it in the comics. You don't have to like it, but the last movie & ending were all deprived from things set up earlier. Plus, it sounds like some of the issues you had were actually taken from The Dark Knight Returns.
Uh. Yeah ok. I didn't like it. No, that's not true. I liked it. I didn't love it. I don't think it's perfect. It may be the best screen portrayal of Batman to date but it is not the best possible version. Brilliant is absolutely an overstatement. The first one was revolutionary ot it's time. The second one was the apex but was in danger of becoming The Joker show because Heath Ledger was more interesting on screen than Christian Bale will ever be. (and that's a problem because in a batman movie Batman MUST be the most interesting character on screen) and three was going out on a wimper. You talk about this movie like @neweathington talks about the Beatles. It's good. But that's all. Just good.
Uh. Yeah ok. I didn't like it. No, that's not true. I liked it. I didn't love it. I don't think it's perfect. It may be the best screen portrayal of Batman to date but it is not the best possible version. Brilliant is absolutely an overstatement. The first one was revolutionary ot it's time. The second one was the apex but was in danger of becoming The Joker show because Heath Ledger was more interesting on screen than Christian Bale will ever be. (and that's a problem because in a batman movie Batman MUST be the most interesting character on screen) and three was going out on a wimper. You talk about this movie like @neweathington talks about the Beatles. It's good. But that's all. Just good.
It was brilliant because of how everything wrapped up. The Dark Knight Returns & Watchmen are brilliant for the same reason. Perfect? No (how did Rameriz call the 2 cops guarding Barbara & the kids if Dent knocked her out right after she spoke with Barbara? Who are the 5 people Dent killed? And I only counted 1 cop, so who was the other Gordon refered to?), but a complete story.
I wouldn't say its the best movie I ever saw. It's certainly not the best comic book series of movies I have ever seen (I don't really see it as comic book movies). I still prefer Nolan's Prestige over his Batman movies. I still like Bale's performance in The Fighter & the Prestige over Batman.
I think both TDK & TDKR were designed to feature more of his supporting cast then Batman. Bale's portrayal nailed the live-action version of the character. I found the character's portrayal in the films very interesting, mostly because its not what I want to see in the comic books.
Which movie do I seem to be talking up too much? TDK was the best in the trilogy. I just really enjoyed the last 5 minutes of TDKR. If I seem to overrate it, its only because I'm illustrating how things were in the movie. Like I tell my wife, "there's a difference between not liking/agreeing with something & it being incorrect. Sometimes things are correct (or in this case layed out), but you can still disagree with it."
M
And Ledger wasn't even a blimp on the radar until his death combined with his Joker. Bale has out performed people more talented then Ledger.
@Matt - Ledger may not have been a blip on your radar before Dark Knight, but he was an established star, proven dramatic actor, and Academy Award nominee years before he even started work on TDK. I am not going to argue who is the better actor between he and Bale, as I think they are very different actors and therefore comparing them is pointless. But lets not pretend that Ledger was some sort of nobody before his the Joker. He was already made. He was a star that could open a movie, and with Brokeback Mountain, he had made the successful transition from heartthrob and pretty face to serious actor.
Bale is a good actor but was never a good batman choice for me and i only ever thought he was ok as batman in begins. TDK was a good movie which i like alit but I think it (and Nolan himself) are quite overrated. TDR is the most entertaining and enjoyable bad movie in years. It really is a mess IMO and hard to watch without rolling the eyes repeatedly. The one and only reason for Bruce's 8 year absence was to allow Blake to age as needed for the story.
And Ledger wasn't even a blimp on the radar until his death combined with his Joker. Bale has out performed people more talented then Ledger.
A Knight's Tale Brokeback Mountain Monster's Ball
Those are three roles that he was more than a blip, much more.
A blip on the radar? I pretty much agree with much of your argument about The Dark Knight but minimizing Ledger as an actor to make your point makes you sound as reactionary as some of the posters believe to you to be.
And Ledger wasn't even a blimp on the radar until his death combined with his Joker. Bale has out performed people more talented then Ledger.
A Knight's Tale Brokeback Mountain Monster's Ball
Those are three roles that he was more than a blip, much more.
A blip on the radar? I pretty much agree with much of your argument about The Dark Knight but minimizing Ledger as an actor to make your point makes you sound as reactionary as some of the posters believe to you to be.
You & @David_D are correct, I completely forgot about those movies; especially having only seen Monster's Ball. When it came out I heard about Halle's boobs, so I rented it. I wouldn't have watched it otherwise. Ledger played BBT's son, right?
When I think of Ledger, I've only ever recalled that movie with Julia Stiles & Joseph Gordon Levitt & TDK.
Bale is a good actor but was never a good batman choice for me and i only ever thought he was ok as batman in begins. TDK was a good movie which i like alit but I think it (and Nolan himself) are quite overrated. TDR is the most entertaining and enjoyable bad movie in years. It really is a mess IMO and hard to watch without rolling the eyes repeatedly. The one and only reason for Bruce's 8 year absence was to allow Blake to age as needed for the story.
I don't think the 8 year gap was just to age Blake. Why couldn't they just have shorten his 'adjustment' time as an orphan & set it 2 years after TDK?
@Matt - Ledger may not have been a blip on your radar before Dark Knight, but he was an established star, proven dramatic actor, and Academy Award nominee years before he even started work on TDK. I am not going to argue who is the better actor between he and Bale, as I think they are very different actors and therefore comparing them is pointless. But lets not pretend that Ledger was some sort of nobody before his the Joker. He was already made. He was a star that could open a movie, and with Brokeback Mountain, he had made the successful transition from heartthrob and pretty face to serious actor.
Now that I recall it, I remember the talk of his two (presumably) biggest roles starring along side the Gyllenhals.
Interesting how you can find the mistakes of a movie you ridicule. More then 1/2 of those are nitpicks. "Did Bruce teleport to Gotham?" Where was there a timeline to indicate how long it took Bruce to return? It could've been a couple days. "Bad investments hold up after a robbery?" Fox said they could straighten it out, but it'd take some time. If it were me, I would've done multiple transactions to cover what I was really targeting. Depending on the damage, it'd take time to straighten out everything Bane's crew messed with. 'The scene with Bruce's reveal' again, whose to say it was a week later? It was a montage. Figure until Gotham gets up & running, Bruce's estate is divided, it could be months. I could go on & on, but you get the point...even if you don't agree with it.
Its hard to use this when a couple of the 'what's wrongs' include The Rogues getting less home game fans then the Jaguars & the ending revealed 17 minutes into the movie (like that's groundbreaking.) I found better flaws then that in the movie!
There's hardly a movie without flaws. It's always easier to zero in on them when you dislike the movie. I mean, how many complaints are there about how Indy got from ontop of a U-boat to that Nazi island?!
And really funny. I didn't post it as part of an argument I was trying to make you laugh.
Yeah, I don't find those guys funny regardless of the movie reviewed. I think they try too hard to be funny by nitpicking. I would've gone with this one; it at least has some animation:
The biggest flaw with DKR stems from what many regard as the series greatest appeal. The trilogy's conceit of realism. There are nitpicks in Begins and TDK but you can forgive and overlook them. DKR however just seems to throw it out the window. Too many serious holes and flaws beyond the nitpicks. DKR tries to be too much and do too much and expects us to just accept too much.
Comments
Although truth be told. I don't criticize Nolan's Batman for not having unrealistic, impractical and laughable tights. I criticize Nolan's Batman because:
a) I dont care for Christian Bale as Bruce or Bats and
b) the plot of the 3rd film had some weak spots.
I just don't want a reboot to be another kevlar wearing version of Batman. We've seen that. I'd like this new version to be different. I've said before I'd be happy with Ninja Sherlock Holmes for a reboot.
M
If something works, run with it. Remember the disaster of Batman & Robin?
M
60's Batman is what it is. *Shrugs* take it or leave it.
Beatles being overrated...I don't dislike the Beatles but I don't own a single album either. Should Batman be more cheery? hell no! How do you get cheery out of Ninja Sherlock Holmes? I want stealthy, arrogant and smarter than everybody else in the room. I want a sneaking in the shadows Batman rather than a machine gun strapped to a tank Batman. I want a stilletto not a club.
no i do not remenmber that steaming pile of fecal matter that is Batman and Robin because it does not exist in my reality.
M
The moment Bruce changed his mind about his fate was when the camera zoomed to his face as he was flying out over the bay.
Fighting during the day didn't matter at that point. Hiding in the shadows initially didn't work, so his symbolism was to replace the truth about Gotham's white knight; Dent.
It's also not out the ordinary for Batman to do that. During No Man's Land, Batman operated during the day in plain sight. In War Games, he was out during the day, even carrying an injured kid in plain view of news cameras.
M
Symbolism shimbolism.
I'm not saying there is never a circumstance where Bats can't appear in daylight or engage in a toe to toe brawl but this wasn't it. I can't believe you think this movie had a strong ending that ended the series setisfactorily. The whole Batman in retirement living in the dark at wayne manor WTF? so this jackass spends years training for a role he only actually fills for a couple years then pouts in a corner. his parents have already been murderede and his brain is broken the guy doesn't have a heartbreak button anymore. if nothing else he should be out there kicking even more ass. Batman doesn't mope he takes action. that is who Batman IS. the guy who pours his personal torture into a crusade.
1.) I mentioned above that I wouldn't want to see this in the comics.
2.) 'symbolism shimbolism'? Weren't you one of the people who complained Man of Steel's Superman lacked that (see, still incorporating the thread's topic)
3.) we obviously approached this trilogy from different angles. The disappearance was because Batman had to be the villain so Dent could be 'the symbol of hope I (Batman) can never be.' Was it a lie? Yes, but the city turned around & Bruce never had to don the cape & cowl again.
He spent about 18 months as Batman. It broke down his body, just like any professional athlete. Mid-30s for an NFL player I setting close to the end of his career. The speed, power, stamina all are reducing. Same happened to Bruce.
In his final fight with Joker & Dent, Bruce was shot, stabbed, sustained a concussion, & crippled his knee.
He became a recluse because the light at the end of the tunnel (Rachel) died & he was able to inspire people, turning Gotham around. He went into retirement because his body was broken & he wasn't needed anymore. Blake even stated how Gordon cleaned up Gotham. Even the copycats didn't need to be apprehended anymore. Plus, didn't the Dark Knight Returns have a retired Batman? Didn't he also fake his death at the end?
This realistic take couldn't have a guy taking the physical abuse into his 60s. This version wasn't avenging his parents, but trying to inspire people. He was finally able to move on at the end having inspired others.
Why did I find the ending satisfactory? It was satisfactory because he saved the day, inspired people, could finally move on to be happy...and still let those he consider friends (except Blake) get a hint that he survived.
My neighbor complains about this trilogy because its not a comic book movie...and he's right. I like this direction DC is taking with a more realism/grounded interpretation of its characters. Marvel is doing a great job making comic book movies, so this is a nice alternative to the medium.
M
The light at the end of the trouble (Rachel). Oh come on! Batman hangs up his cowl for a girl? What is this a Nicholas Sparks book?
18 months? Nope. No prefessional athlete works his whole life to hang it up after less than two seasons. And even accepting that he "wore out his body" badly enough that he had to retire. He got back into fighting trim, what? 7 years later? It's a colossal waste. He could have been functional that entire time. He failed in his commitment to himself, his promise to his parents and mopes like a broken hearted schoolboy.
Your neighbor is right it isn't a comic book movie. I myself don't see the "realism" as at all "realistic". I'd rather a little more fantasy.
And who is he fighting? The police were able to clean up Gotham without him. The copycats have stopped because Batman is no longer seen as a hero, and Bruce talked about 'the day Gotham would no longer need a Batman.' So yes, Rachel was the light at the end of the tunnel for him. It's why Alfred burned her note stating she was going to marry Dent. Alfred wanted him to have hope.
There was no vow, no promise, no moment in any of the 3 movies where Bruce swore to avenge his parents' death. The comics, yes, but not this trilogy, the 4 prior movies, or even the 60s series.
Again, Nolan's vision was brilliant, but I don't want to see it in the comics. You don't have to like it, but the last movie & ending were all deprived from things set up earlier. Plus, it sounds like some of the issues you had were actually taken from The Dark Knight Returns.
M
I wouldn't say its the best movie I ever saw. It's certainly not the best comic book series of movies I have ever seen (I don't really see it as comic book movies). I still prefer Nolan's Prestige over his Batman movies. I still like Bale's performance in The Fighter & the Prestige over Batman.
I think both TDK & TDKR were designed to feature more of his supporting cast then Batman. Bale's portrayal nailed the live-action version of the character. I found the character's portrayal in the films very interesting, mostly because its not what I want to see in the comic books.
Which movie do I seem to be talking up too much? TDK was the best in the trilogy. I just really enjoyed the last 5 minutes of TDKR. If I seem to overrate it, its only because I'm illustrating how things were in the movie. Like I tell my wife, "there's a difference between not liking/agreeing with something & it being incorrect. Sometimes things are correct (or in this case layed out), but you can still disagree with it."
M
And Ledger wasn't even a blimp on the radar until his death combined with his Joker. Bale has out performed people more talented then Ledger.
M
M
Its hard to use this when a couple of the 'what's wrongs' include The Rogues getting less home game fans then the Jaguars & the ending revealed 17 minutes into the movie (like that's groundbreaking.) I found better flaws then that in the movie!
There's hardly a movie without flaws. It's always easier to zero in on them when you dislike the movie. I mean, how many complaints are there about how Indy got from ontop of a U-boat to that Nazi island?!
M
M