View Single Post
Old 11-24-2012, 08:34 AM   #722
Brain Damage
Everything Under the Sun
Brain Damage's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,861
Default Re: Characterization of the Knight - Nolan and Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 2

Originally Posted by Visceral View Post
Yes but that doesn't mean that the story didn't also demand it. The Dark Knight Trilogy is about heroism, and what that means. In this one line Batman is telling Gordon who he is, while at the same time making a statement heroism, and explaining to Gordon it still doesn't matter who he is. Its a statement that the Batman wasn't created in a bubble. He was influenced by many father figures, like Gordon. The trilogy itself starts with a conversation between Ra's and Batman, a father and son archetype. That conversation continues until the last scene of the Dark Knight Rises.
Okay, I agree with all of this. The line definitely does everything you've just mentioned - that doens't mean it's not a cheesy line. I'm not arguing that it doesn't have a lot of impact, I'm arguing that it could have been done in a more subtle way. I feel like I've made that quite clear and that we're going in circles now.

I'm saying that there are many films that are hated by the general public, that are full symbolism to me. Films that I think people are just flat out wrong about. If I think a film is ham-handed, I usually don't comment on it because why dwell on something mindless, when there are so many other fulfilling things to meditate on.
I think you and I have different defintions of ham-handed. Let's consult dictionary? Merriam-Webster defines it as: "lacking dexterity or grace". That's all I'm arguing. Not that the moment isn't meaningful or that it's mindless, I'm arguing that it was done with a lack of grace.

Jonathan Nolan is an incredible screenwriter, and the script isn't perfect but I would argue that nearly every scene and character is done with purpose. So I am attacking you because you called a clearly logical, beautiful, and powerful scene that I thought would be obvious to most posters on this board, but my anger goes beyond that. Most posters on this board have no idea why Nolan created the character of Foley, or even try to understand why Nolan believed that he is important to the story. Hopefully I'm making sense here. I am frustrated when people don't think before they post.
No, quite honestly you are not. I never once argued that the moment didn't have purpose. Also, I personally happen to like the character of Foley a lot and I think he has a good arc that mirrors the people of Gotham's. But I would never be so condescending as to say that most people don't understand what Nolan was trying to do with the character, or to suggest that they're not thinking before they post just because they happen to disagree with me.

Maybe they understand perfectly what Nolan was trying to do with the character, maybe they just don't like it. Clearly you're angered by people who in your opinion do not understand the film and I can understand that sort of anger, but you my friend are taking it too far. And saying that people don't think before they post is not only extremely condescending, it's very rude to most of the people on these boards who in fact happen to put a lot of thought into their posts.

Those were incredibly terrible reasons as to why the scene might be ham-handed. It sounded like nitpick to me.
Okay, if this is how we're going to debate this, then I see we're not going to get anywhere.

Of course, I am reading your posts. That's another common statement found on the internet. I just disagree with you. I guess that's hard to believe. I've never had emotion evoked in me by something superficial. Most college professors are going to tell you that superficial and powerful are antonyms. You need concede this one.
Um. No. I don't. You "just disagree" with me, yet you act like you're superior because apparently you have some higher understanding of the scene that I don't.

thanks I guess.
Here on Tuesday, I hope. You can rip it apart or maybe it will change your mind.
I'll give them a read

Not convinced it was done poorly, sorry.
Fair enough, and I'm not convinced it was done with grace. We can agree to disagree.

I argue quite a bit about how Batman's power will stifle Gotham in thread I posted, basically The Dent Act leads all of Gotham to revolt even though I might be doing good for Gotham.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground centers around a character who lives in a subterranean home, underneath a perfect Utopian socialist society. In the opening monologue, he explains that there is something wrong with him. "There is something wrong with my liver, I should do something about it, but I won't". The story goes on to explain that no matter how perfect the society is, it does not allow for the freedom of the human person. This underground man would rather die than take part in such a society that does not allow for him to make his own mistakes. Much like how Bane seeks vengeance on society's leaders even though technically the Dent Act is saving people from the tyranny of organized crime. Bane does this underground.
First off... ay.... drawing comparison to classic literature is not how you're going to win this argument. Not because I don't enjoy classic literature or because I don't see the merit in comparing TDKR to such works, but just because something drawls comparison to a classic work does not mean that thing works on its own.

About the bolded part. Where in the movie does it say or show that? I mean specifically, which scene, which line of dialogue. Why does Bane seek vengeance on society's leaders? Talia seeks revenge on Bruce, that much we can be sure of, and Bane seeks to help Talia gain her revenge, but where in the film is it shown that Bane seeks vengeance against society's leaders?

Vengeance for what?

And for what purpose?

Is it because the Dent Act is based on a lie? Couldn't imagine, as Bane only stumbles on that nugget of information by accident when Gordon is brought into the sewer.

This underground man is an inspiration for most of what goes on in the film TDKR. Batman, Bane, the Underground Army, and the Cops are all at one point underground and fighting for freedom. Its a statement on human nature. Human beings are far more complex than any social system they can create. So technically even if Batman truly saves the world, society will eventually not want to be saved.
I agree with everything you've said up until the bold part. I'm not quite sure what you're using to draw that conclusion.

There is a reason that Batman attaches himself to Catwoman, a common criminal, who hates the Dent Act. Sort of curious, since Joe Chill was a common criminal and was one of the reasons Batman came into being.
And what reason is that?

If the Dent Act creates such a perfect city without crime, why are kids from St. Swithins still idolizing the Batman? Why are they going underground to join the League of Shadows?
Lack of crime does not equal economic prosperity. The boy Blake talks to quite clearly states that kids are going into the sewers looking for work. So yes, the dynamic of rich vs poor is definitely there, and if Bane's plan was to exploit that and to ACTUALLY lead a revolution, that would have been incredibly interesting. And the movie teases you to believe that just may be the case, but unfortunately, all we get is one quick montage of the rich being pulled from their homes and Bane's motivations aren't actually to inspire the poor to take back their city but rather just to blow them all up.

Motivations that are far less interesting that the ones he pretends to have.

But to be honest, considering we were talking about Batman's reveal to Gordon I'm not quite sure how we ended up on this topic. Moving on.

No, you didn't nor did I intend to say that you did. I picked a fight with you because I find an incredible amount of meaning in a scene you called ham-handed. I can handle Talia's death scene being criticized among other things. I'm not done arguing with people on here there are other things I feel are inappropriately being torn apart without good reason or real analysis.
So basically if there's something in the film you think works perfectly well then people shouldn't be wasting their time criticizing it? I'm sorry but that's just bull. I don't care how educated or well informed your opinion may be, it is your opinion and it is not the only valid one. Just because you don't think there's good enough reason for real analysis does not mean others agree. I guarantee you that someone would be able to find a good reason for real analysis about practically anything. From War and Peace to The Love Guru. I may think that analyzing The Love Guru is a complete and utter waste of time but if someone chooses to do so I'm not going to pick a fight with them - that is a waste of time.

I like good strong reasons for as why you like something. When you don't like something why? Why does it go against what you think batman should be? To me this scene showed a tremendous amount of honor, respect and humility on Batman's part. I feel those virtues are important in a hero.
I agree that those virtues are important and that it demonstrates them. But it's a cheesy line of dialogue. The O'Neil/Adams era of Batman comics is often considered to beone of the best representations of the character, and I'd have to agree. But a lot of the writing very much has a cheesy and distinctly comic-y feel to it. Nothing wrong with that - they were still very effective stories - but I felt Batman's line to Gordon was cheesier than the dialogue I had come to expect from the rest of the films. Doesn't mean it's not effective, just means it could have been done with a lot more grace and subtly.

Saying batman was to much like the riddler, comes off completely WTF to me.
Actually, Kevin Smith said that and he did so jokingly (something I pointed out in my post). It was not meant to be taken literally.

I think that is a terrible way to feel. But hey its your opinion man.
Yes it is. I'd say we're about done here and we've both drawn this out long enough, eh? So lets be mature and agree to disagree.


Free Original Music

Last edited by Brain Damage; 11-24-2012 at 08:42 AM.
Brain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote