The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > The Dark Knight Rises

View Poll Results: Who made the better Catwoman?
Michelle Pfeiffer 70 38.89%
Anne Hathaway 110 61.11%
Voters: 180. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2013, 11:15 PM   #201
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
If you used the advanced version and not quick reply, you can get it back with backspace and/or reopening the closed tab (and using backspace if necessary) and/or pulling it up in your history.
I always use advanced reply and that never does the trick

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 12:11 AM   #202
psylockolussus
The X-Men 5 Advocator!
 
psylockolussus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: X-Mansion and the Baxter Building
Posts: 19,228
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Anne Hathaway! She has more range!

__________________
X-MEN RI5E' MUTANT OF THE MONTH | PROFESSOR X | PORTRAYED BY PATRICK STEWART
"Every few hundred millenia evolution leaps forward." - X1
"Sharing the world has never been humanity's defining attribute." - X2
"Will you control that power or let it control you?" - X3
"Is the future truly set?" - X4
www.twitter.com/xmen5movie2018
psylockolussus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 01:27 AM   #203
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 26,055
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
He is dubbed “The Joker” in the film.

The reason he dresses like a clown is clear, given the name.

What he’s supposed to be…is clear. A clown.

The reason he took the name “the joker” is also clear by the end of the film, given his thoughts on life, justice, chance, fate, etc.

They even bothered to show where he got the money for the suit, and presumably some other stuff he uses. Mob money he stole.

We are given three possible origins for the scars, enough to know that something tragic and or psych9ologically damaging happened, and we are given psychological motivation for him as a character.

He also basically tells Batman that he inspired him.

No. Their motifs are not “equally unexplained”.
Why a clown? Because he thinks life is a joke? Okay. Why a cat? Because she's a cat burglar, even the papers that have never caught her on tape call her "The Cat." It is only hard to understand when you choose to make it so.

Quote:
No. She clearly is attracted to and/or messing with him, and she thinks “the car” is cool. That’s it. I don’t know what “Fangirl” even means, unless you're referring to the Carrie Kellie type, and the movie certainly doesn’t show anything along those lines. She likes to have fun, and she likes adventure. That’s all the film shows, subtleties or otherwise.
That's why she's beaming like a 16 year old girl who just met a movie star in The Bat when HE CAN'T SEE HER?

Quote:
And no. There is nothing to suggest that her style, a skintight black latex/rubber catsuit with designer gloves and boots is in any way influenced by a man in high tech armor and a cape.

You could MAYBE argue that his use of a stylized mask influenced her…but it’s treated as a coincidence, and is nowhere to be found in the film. Half the time she doesn't even wear the thing.
As Nolan said, Hathaway had to communicate a lot about the character with no exposition dump of a backstory. It is there for those who pay attention.

Quote:
I’m talking about essentially abandoning themes the franchise developed through two films, period, and in doing so, not handling the transition of themes to the third film very well, not about how it applies to Selina. This franchise absolutely attempted to carry the themes of escalation over for all three films. You can see it in the nature of the storylines.
He didn't really abandon it. The idea of the mob escalating to freaks, your main focus, was covered in TDK. Thematically he wanted to expand it beyond freaks to that of social revolution. There's a reason TDKR is the only Batman movie with the line, "Get the president on the phone." He didn't abandon escalation, he just escalated beyond the point you prefer which is the comics' status quo.

Quote:
I don’t really see how Catwoman’s BATMAN RETURNS action scenes are any more “see, women can kick ass too” than TDKR’s are. A woman kicking ass is a woman kicking ass. Catwoman just happens to be a character who can kick ass. The movie isn’t making a statement about all women. Just Selina.
Yeah...except Burton's Catwoman is DEFINED by the gender politics in the movie. Her chauvanistic boss tosses her out a window making her become Catwoman. What line sets off her madness back home? "Your boss will be asking you to stay late for a candlelight dinner for two..." a line implying the only way working women can progress their career is by sleeping their way to the top. It infuriates the wronged Selina Kyle who then DESTROYS images of docile girlhood like stuffed animals and doll houses before making a sexy S&M outfit that lets her take control of her womanhood. What are her first four lines out on the town?

1) "I just love a big strong man who can pick on someone half his size."

2) "Be gentle, it's my first time."

3) "You make it so easy waiting for some Bat...MAN to save you. I am Cat..WOMAN. Hear me roar!"

4) "You men always confusing your pistols with your privates...You're overpaid!"

All of that is about her gender role as a woman taking control in a man's world by kicking ass. That is how Burton views the end. As an empowered independent woman, she cannot let herself be dominated or domineered by a rich man who wants to play her Prince Charming to take her away to "live in your castle forever like a fairy tale." She can't live with herself. She is entirely defined by her sexuality and the woman's role in the modern world and the independence that goes with that.

Nolan's Selina Kyle? She is a cat burglar who can handle herself. End of story, at least in terms of gender. We can go down the road of social revolutionary, but she does not define herself as a woman first and neither do any of the other characters except for Daggett who is depicted to be cartoonishly stupid and oblivious.

Quote:
Refreshing…riiight. Are we really going to pretend that seeing a woman act badass without overtly drawing attention to herself that she’s a woman is a new or rarely used approach on film?
It is still pretty rare. For every Tarantino's Bride there are five Aeon Fluxes, Elektras, Berry Catwomen, Charlie's Angels, Tomb Raiders and you get the idea. All of those films are about defining these characters by their gender in an action film. It is much nicer when like, say, Ridley Scott or James Cameron you just do not focus on that and instead stay interested in why the character is a tough protagonist first before anything else comes into play.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams
DACrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 02:31 AM   #204
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,289
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

milost, I don't think I agreed with a single thing you said on the previous page but I can tell you're a good, intelligent debater. Welcome to the Hype!

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 11:52 AM   #205
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

My only complaint is that he re-told the entire siege scene in TDK, lol.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 12:19 PM   #206
747
Fanboy rivalry? Yawn.
 
747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,068
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Both were fantastic as two different but equally awesome Catwomen. But I loved Anne's Selina more, so she gets my vote.

747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 04:23 PM   #207
MarvelKnight
Side-Kick
 
MarvelKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,583
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Pfeiffer was just classic. Hathaway definitely surprised me though.

__________________
"Well, I guess the laws of physics cease to exist on top of your stove!"
MarvelKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 05:18 PM   #208
Brain Damage
Everything Under the Sun
 
Brain Damage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,861
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Milost,

__________________
WHO APPOINTED THE BATMAN?

Free Original Music
Brain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 08:44 PM   #209
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
milost, I like your style. A very warm welcome to SHH
Quote:
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises View Post
I can tell you're a good, intelligent debater. Welcome to the Hype!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain Damage View Post
Milost,

Thanks you guys. I'm glad I finally signed up. Too bad I waited and didn't participate when things were really cooking (like in July and August). Oh well!

milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 12:17 AM   #210
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Alright, let's try this again, lol. And since it's saying I have 2,600 more words than the limit, this is going in two posts(sorry about that, lol.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
Why does the LOS need to be mentioned in TDK? Because of the destruction of the monorail? Inmates escaped Arkham which is in the Narrows. It was tampered with in the narrows. Who poisoned the water? Crane and his inmates. Again, Crane was a patsy. If accused, would Crane deny that he poisoned the water, stole the microwave emitter and let the inmates roam free. Doesn't sound as convoluted or questionable as, "BATMAN KILLED ALL THESE PEOPLE, AND DENT, LET'S NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT".

The League of Shadows is supposedly untraceable, correct? They're a secret organization. What evidence did Ra's leave behind that they were behind any of it? They went in with stealth (disguised as SWAT), just like they had done centuries before (unlike TDKR). Oh, that's right, he left Crane behind, the patsy, the one who thought they were going to hold the city ransom. They're ninjas with training remember (again, unlike the unfaithful TDKR).

Are we really comparing the events in the narrows to that of the Harvey Dent conspiracy? Really? Okay, let's see. If there was an investigation from the events in Begins, it goes all the way back to Crane, who isn't caught yet by TDK. He's SELLING the same compound that was distributed in the Narrows, he was also associated with the mob. There you go. Atleast the people involved weren't conveniently excluded like it is with TDKR.

I mean in TDK, aren't they still trying to clean it up the streets? Scarecrow still hasn't been apprehended, nor the inmates that have escaped.

Or do you think Bruce should have been going on and on about Ra's while he's trying to defeat the mob? I mean, there is even that reference to Ra's with the "criminals aren't complicated line". This lack of mention of the secret League of Shadows organization is NOTHING compared to where TDKR starts out after TDK. 8 years in the future with lame, convoluted explanations, if there are explanations at all.

Think of all the loose ends from Begins that are nicely, perfectly wrapped up in The Dark Knight. It's not convenient or convulted or unexplained. They're different films and stories, but they flow nicely. It's also about a year after Begins, not 8 year without any sense of it.
The gap between BB and TDK = nine months to a year

The gap between TDK and TDKR = eight years

I'd say it would mean much more sense that Joker isn't mentioned eight years after rather than Ra's and his League of Shadows not being mentioned at all with literally destroying the Narrows(and no mentioned of the Narrows cleanup either, I might add) or the destruction and rebuilding of the monorail. Literally, nothing at all. And that is the saddest thing continuity-wise with Nolan's trilogy, imo.


Quote:
The League of Shadows is supposedly untraceable, correct? They're a secret organization. What evidence did Ra's leave behind that they were behind any of it? They went in with stealth (disguised as SWAT), just like they had done centuries before (unlike TDKR). Oh, that's right, he left Crane behind, the patsy, the one who thought they were going to hold the city ransom. They're ninjas with training remember (again, unlike the unfaithful TDKR).
You're forgetting a few things that happened in TDKR such as the League members along with Bane getting themselves into the CIA's plane just like League members getting themselves into the Narrows as SWAT or Talia al Ghul being Miranda Tate for so many years.

And as for the League of Shadows not being ninjas in TDKR...this "League of Shadows 2.0" felt more like a real terrorist group(such as even being suicidal) and it needed to be that when they took over an entire US city. The feel had to be true terrorism, and you don't get that with ninjas, lol.

Quote:
Flass was a dirty cop, most people were well aware of it. Gotham finest weren't exactly squeaky clean, remember that. Is he involved with the grand scheme of things? Nope, only on the bottom level, not in the big League of Shadows scheme. Not even Falcone is involved despite desperately "wanting in". Gordon even knew that Flass was crooked.

So what becomes of him? Well, he breathes in the toxin and tries to kill a couple of innocent kids. Gordon sees this, knocks him out and handcuffs him to a pole. What really needs to be said? Stephens takes his place.

Now Ramirez? She ain't no Flass, is she? She's pretty damn integral to the plot in the end of TDK isn't she. Yes, she's also a "dirty cop", but is Flass as important as her in Begins? No. Ramirez is the reason that our hero's childhood friend is killed and the reason why Harvey Dent snaps. That's a pretty big role.

To top it off though, she is actually SPARED by the coin flip and lives to "fight another day". Now, had the outcome of TDK been different, I'd say that, she wasn't that important to the sequel BUT, the film ends with a COVER UP where Batman has taken the blame for the people Harvey Dent killed. Ramirez is also the reason the CLIMAX of the film even happens.

But then in the sequel, never a mention again? How did she feel? I'm sure she regretted it (and it was understandable, considering her mother), but she also got hit in the face by Dent's pistol? Was that forgivable? What's stopping her from ratting out Gordon and Batman, how does she even know what to say, we never see them converse. Would it ruin her reputation? Not really, everyone knows that she's "scum", we know this is a possibility in TDK.
The only difference between Flass and Ramirez was Ramirez was actually trying to give a reason for why she's dirty and working with the mob. They're both dirty cops and as for why Ramirez isn't even important...

Quote:
We can make up explanations, but we don't know what happens. That IS a LOOSE end. She's much bigger than Flass, wouldn't you say?
She would have lost something if she even revealed the lie at all. She would be also revealing the fact that she acted as an accomplice to Rachel's murder and that's why she would flee to not have to get herself in trouble.

BUT...Mr. Coleman Reese should have been in TDKR in some way though, because at least he doesn't have anything to lose. Although, since I'm pro the idea of the Dent lie and how Nolan evolved that storyline with the Dent Act, I feel Reese should have just been an ally for Bruce.

Quote:
Loeb returned from Begins.
Loeb returned because there had to be a Commissioner in TDK and for something to happen to make Gordon the next Commissioner unless you'd be fine of Gordon becoming the Commissioner offscreen which is a much bigger deal than bringing Ramirez back.

Quote:
The Mayor returned from TDK.
And Garcia could still be in his run of eight years as the Mayor for Gotham City.

Quote:
Friggin Fredericks who really has no bearing on the story other than making Bruce guilty is back for TDKR.
Fredericks is also a Wayne Enterprises board member. THAT'S why he's back.

Quote:
Crane? His story ends in TDK as far as I'm concerned since he's barely used for TDKR.
I agree his storyline could've ended in TDK for sure, BUT...as he was a pawn with the League's plan in BB, it suits him being a pawn for the League again.

Quote:
Stephens is easy to replace and not mention (though it would have been cool to see more of him, he reminded me of a potential Bullock), I'll give you that. But Ramirez? Not even a mention? She's one of the reasons what transpires, transpires, along with the Joker. I don't care what Gordon would do, or wouldn't do. She literally called the Gordon's, telling them where to meet and other officers heard Gordon talking to Dent about his family. That ain't no small thing in my opinion.

Again, Gordon, like the audience knew, you can't just "sweep this up". He SAYS that. Batman also says he'll be hunted (obviously). But somehow in TDKR, it is just swept up? It is neat and tidy, no questions involved? Batman is never hunted? An investigation and man hunt on Batman never comes to fruition.
Again, Ramirez had something to lose and the very minor character being just brushed off is fine as much as Flass or Victor Zsaz.

Plus, Batman wouldn't waist the GCPD's time if he were to be hunted while his whole agenda in cleaning Gotham City is already tied up: the mobs.

Quote:
I mean, we all knew their plan would never work, even though Batman went in with the best and noblest of intentions. It was going to fall apart, you can't just sweep it up. That's what was interesting about it. "How the hell are they going to manage that".
They did manage it though, lol. It might seem flimsy for you, but I found it to be fine personally.

Quote:
But TDKR makes it magical, it just magically works (like a lot of things in TDKR). They fast forward, they don't deal with the event itself, just the outcome. And how does it fall apart? Gordon, stupidly and conveniently left a letter in his pocket telling the truth. Which he kept there for days/nights and the newest, random, baddie finds it and reads it on public television. In fact, when the truth is revealed, the city that supposedly cares oh so much doesn't even react! If they do we never get to see it! Instead, we see Blake's reaction, this new character that wasn't even THOUGHT of in 2005 or 2008.
Wouldn't be the first time Nolan "magically" does something such as having no one notice Joker transport barrels of oil or explosives all over Gotham City. He didn't even do it in the sewers so out of sight like Bane either, just out in the open above surface.

And the city caring should have been explored, but time had to press on more important matters. At least you can take the piece of dialogue of the priest and Blake talking as a sign of Blake telling the priest "The less you know" when the priest asked how Gordon was doing.

Quote:
How do we know she ran. How do we know she isn't behind Stephens? How do we know she isn't in the hospital from being pistol whipped? Who found Ramirez? How does she feel about what happened the following night? Does she feel guilty?
And we could ask numerous questions for Flass too, don't you think? But that's never explained.

Quote:
I'd be inclined to say "who cares", but again, she's pretty damn important, for and against the whole "DENT CONSPIRACY" which TDKR has. It miraculously worked. How?
She wasn't important in the least sense. Reese was far more important to the conspiracy as at least part of the conspiracy targeted Batman.

Quote:
I am. But still. Just because she isn't there, we're supposed to just figure she quit? Or was was forced out?
How else would you explain it that she's the only major player in the MCU that we know of in TDK that is alive that isn't there?

Quote:
Other than being associated with the mob because of her mother, she seemed like a good cop. There's guilt in her face when she lets Dent go. She doesn't want to give the Gordon's away to Dent. Gordon seems pretty fond of having her in their group despite all the accusations against her.

So what happened to her?
If she was a good cop besides having dealings with the mob, then Flass could be given that same light because he was still a cop and still doing his job as one.

Quote:
That's another thing that would have been nice to have seen. It's implied that the lie ruined Barbara and Jim's marriage. Would have been nice to have seen it instead of a throwaway line. You know, some good tension and story telling. How did Gordon get all these people to shut the hell up?
Rather have Barbara only thinking about leaving for eight years and finally have a conversation with Gordon before taking the kids and leaving? I wouldn't.


Last edited by Anno_Domini; 03-10-2013 at 12:21 AM.
Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 12:18 AM   #211
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
TDKR retcons everything and has a random like John Blake be the scripts tool for TDK's doubts and reactions.

I'm talking about TDK. Even with Batman taking the blame, how wouldn't people doubt it at the Prewitt siege? Alright, lets start with him on the rooftop.

He's been an ally thus far, Gordon puts all of his trust in him. His men (SWAT, Stephens, Ramirez, they all see this). Most were there and saw what happened at the interrogation. Batman hasn't let them down before, even though they're weary of him/blame him since the Joker makes threats because of Batman's existence.

So they're up on the rooftop. Batman has given them the location to the Prewitt building, all of them think that Dent is with them. Now, before they go in, Batman suggests they wait and let him go in, it's never that easy with the Joker. This seems pretty reasonable, right? Batman's learned from his mistakes and let's remember, he helped catch the Joker and save Dent in the first place. He just wants 5 minutes before they barge in and converge (I know Gordon is feeling guilty, but that just doesn't seem right for him to pull his gun out on Batman, after all they've been through).

So he goes in, these guys are ready to blow away the Clown thugs. Without warning, they go in. They hear Gordon talking to Harvey Dent specifically, asking where is family is. But, Dent is in there, in the Prewitt building as far as they're concerned. Then Gordon leaves. Do you see where I'm coming from?

So, they go in, but they see Batman there still. He's clearly seen protecting the "enemy" clowns, fighting the hospital "hostages, and carefully subduing threatening SWAT members. Batman DOES save everyone from harm because the SWAT end up seeing the switch, that Mike Engel and the real hostages were disguised as enemy clowns with masks with their hands taped and that the REAL enemies, the thugs were pretending to be hospital doctors.

They REALIZE this, they even say that. To top it off, Batman leaves the Joker hanging there for them to capture, they even got the spotlight on them.

So, yeah, Batman saved everyone. Any person with a brain would understand this once they saw that the clowns were really hostages. Look how many lives Batman just saved. AND he captured the Joker, the guy that's been killing cops and innocent civilians left and right.

Oh, and Dent isn't there. And some of them heard Gordon talking to Dent asking "where his family is". So what happened? What was the story that Gordon gave? We never know.

How did the lie work? That's all I'm asking. I know it does, but it shouldn't. And this isn't The Dark Knight's problem either, because it ends there. We don't see the repercussions. But TDKR? It doesn't tell us ANYTHING. It leaves you hanging. That just isn't comparable to something as minor as Flass or the secretive League of Shadows. It just isn't. There's way too many people involved including . . . THE JOKER.

The Joker just gave up? Just took a loss and is never heard from again. He's be questioned, unless the SWAT team just blew his brains out when he got up there. But the thing is, we never know. We hear Blake talking about "that night, that night 8 years ago", but it doesn't mean anything to TDK because he wasn't involved for one, and they don't go into detail of how it worked.
TDKR retcons nothing. The conversation between Gordon and Dent was minimal and didn't reveal anything that could even be hinted as Dent having kidnapped Gordon's family and could have easily been taken as Dent and Gordon's family were together and had all been kidnapped by someone else and in this case, before the building siege to build up the "murderous thug" role that Batman took.

Quote:
Yeah, and the reason is Nolan didn't feel comfortable involving anything Joker I guess. I totally get that.

But story wise, that doesn't help TDKR, not the events that unfold. How are you going to mention Dent (numerous, numerous times), Rachel, Ra's (who gets a hallucination no less), the League of Shadows, Thomas Wayne, but never the Joker? The Joker is like the black sheep, the elephant in the room or whatever. HE EXISTED IN THE DARK KNIGHT.

I understand that Ledger had passed, I for one didn't want a recast or anything like that. But not even mention? Supposedly the events of TDK exist in TDKR, correct? We have Blake blabbing on about that "night 8 years ago", but no Joker?

Joker wouldn't be questioned? How did Dent get away when Joker was in the hospital? Who gave him the suit? Who gave him the gun (again, Gordon probably confiscated that but they could trace the 5 kills). Any investigation would show that something weird happened that before the conspiracy. Joker, Dent, Gordon, Batman, Ramirez.

Alright, Batman takes the blame. The city is upset. What then? A Commissioner doesn't run everything. What happened? How did this work with something as big AS THE JOKER?
It's a choice that while I don't agree with, the choice is made. And even with Blake bringing up the events eight years prior, it does make sense that Joker's name isn't even mentioned. Why give Batman the credit of stopping Joker when he's trying to be viewed as a killer?

Quote:
So every cop then? Every cop felt that way. What about Stephens? Ramirez? Did they like Batman? Sure, at times they doubted him (like Ramirez at the crime scene), but what about when they were on the rooftop when Gordon "died". "He doesn't want to talk with us". They wanted to chat with him. They put their trust in him as an ally. Hell, Stephens is clapping when Dent "turns himself in" while a few other cops like Wuertz is shaking his head?
Your examples are of only one decent cop and one dirty cop.

Quote:
So the only person that ever believed in Batman in TDK is a character we never see (in either Begins or TDK), but is also an orphan at the time, is familiar with Bruce because he can "feel it in his bones" and he saw him one time at an orphanage? (by the way, when in Begins or Dark Knight does Bruce show any signs of doing charities? I thought he was partying all the time? Making a fool of himself? Let Fox run everything? We never see him visiting orphanages? The public "Bruce Wayne" didn't care about that crap?)

I'm sorry, but to me, that's not only convoluted and convenient, but bad writing compared to the great stuff we see in Batman Begins and the Dark Knight.
Nothing convoluted about kids having the greatest faith in Batman throughout the trilogy since Batman Begins.

Quote:
Or the Joker for that matter? Right?

It couldn't have been the Joker. I mean, it's not like he kidnapped Dent before? He'd never take Jim Gordon's family while being in a different location. It's not like the Joker was capable of grabbing Dent and Rachel while he was caged (which they Mayor clearly saw).

Naaahhhhhhh. Had to be Batman even though everything pretty much contradicts it being him. Everything really.

It's also funny at the "Harvey Dent Day" ceremony that Gordon BLATANTLY states that he's about to tell the "truth" about Harvey Dent in a worried, negative demeanor and NOBODY at the ceremony is like "hey, what are you saying, that Dent was a bad guy? Whaaaaaaat?"

But some random, made up character played by Joseph Levitt Gordon knows the whole deal and is the only one that questions it.
Gordon didn't seem to have a worried or negative demeanor at all, just deciding to not go with his speech that could've been anything to the audience.

And yes, it could have been the Joker as well, but THAT complaint should be about TDK then. It's a choice I never understood when watching TDK even.

Quote:
Begins is wrapped up in Begins and The Dark Knight.

You're telling me, the League of Shadows and monorail (something that is easily blamed on Arkham and Crane, especially considering Crane and the inmates are on the loose and Crane planned on ransom as told by a secret organization that no one knows exists) is as big and important and unresolved as Batman taking the blame for not only the murder of Harvey Dent (which might be acceptable), but also all the people Harvey murdered? And even then, nobody would investigate and try and catch Batman? No bounty hunters? No rewards? The city wouldn't hunt down Batman and want his blood?

As the Joker would say, HA-HA-HA.

C'mon.

And besides. Not everyone thought Dent was the cleanest or greatest white night in Gotham City. What was that name everyone in the department had for him? Hmm. Initially, not even Batman and Gordon trusted him. "The less someone knows about these operations, the better". Not everyone bought into him. He even jacked an ambulance and threatened an inmate. Where would that nick name come from?

Think of that situation at 250 52nd street (where Rachel died by the way). Think of how they found Dent. Think of the people who were killed (cops at the hospital that Joker killed where Dent was), Maroni, Wuertz, etc. Think of the time frame. Batman at the Prewitt building saving everyone. The Joker. Gordon's story.

Then tell me how TDKR's explanations, or lack thereof, is anything like "oh my, what happened at the Narrows, do you think that secret organization that no one knows about is involved?" and that TDKR's story (when dealing with) Dark Knight events is any good?

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this and I really don't think something this crucial is nitpicking. Anyone else agree with me?
You're wanting to brush off something crucial such as the zero mention of the League of Shadows and the zero mention of any cleanup with the Narrows but you're not satisfied with any answers of why Nolan decided to give something good out of the Dent lie and not mentioning anything about any kind of investigations or what have you. That just confuses me.

Also, and I want to add something else to our little "debate", but...you mentioned once where there isn't some "rise of the freaks" going on after TDK's events, but I think the dialogue between Joker and Batman during their final confrontation explained it all. Joker said that Arkham will double their space after people witness Dent's turn, but that turn is falsified and he is now shown as a hero for eight years as well as Batman telling Joker that Gotham City is full of people that believe in good. That really gives me all that why there wouldn't be anymore freaks there on after.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 12:25 AM   #212
Brain Damage
Everything Under the Sun
 
Brain Damage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,861
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Sometimes fanboys astonish me with their dedication to proving their point.

And yes, I do include myself in that category.

__________________
WHO APPOINTED THE BATMAN?

Free Original Music
Brain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 12:28 AM   #213
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer


Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 03:10 AM   #214
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post

The gap between BB and TDK = nine months to a year

The gap between TDK and TDKR = eight years

I'd say it would mean much more sense that Joker isn't mentioned eight years after rather than Ra's and his League of Shadows not being mentioned at all with literally destroying the Narrows(and no mentioned of the Narrows cleanup either, I might add) or the destruction and rebuilding of the monorail. Literally, nothing at all. And that is the saddest thing continuity-wise with Nolan's trilogy, imo.

And, again, Batman Begins states that the "Narrows is lost".


You didn't even delve into any of the things I stated like Crane and the inmates being blamed. You know, since the situation at the Narrows was the Arkham breakout. Crane had his men poisoning the water, Crane in TDK is selling the same compound.

For everyone in Gotham, Crane and Arkham is the problem. Remember Gordon interrogating Crane and not getting anything out of the babble? My point is, nobody knows about the League of Shadows, nor should they given what they are.



It's clearly not as big as TDKR which, again, has the oh so important Dent cover up happen, but never explains how it actually happened. It just does. We're not just talking about 8 years, about a day after TDK? A week after TDK? A month after TDK? A year after TDK. The whole "Batman killed these people" thing would have repercussions and investigations, more than just "nobody has seen Batman since that night, we don't even look for him", "Gordon is depressed, his family left him", "Bruce Wayne is a broken hermit that doesn't do anything".

Where is the city wanting Batman's blood? Where is Batman being hunted down for the murders? Where are the criminal investigations.


Atleast with the League of Shadows thing, you have the fact that nobody knows about the League other than Batman and Alfred. You have a viral campaign that deals with it and moves into the mob and the Joker. You also have the fact that Crane is still running a muck and it can easily be pinned on him since he not only "thought he was holding the city ransom" but had the inmates poisoning the water AND wasn't caught yet until TDK where he's selling the same compound!


Again I say to you, how is this any bigger than the Dent conspiracy? It's not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
You're forgetting a few things that happened in TDKR such as the League members along with Bane getting themselves into the CIA's plane just like League members getting themselves into the Narrows as SWAT or Talia al Ghul being Miranda Tate for so many years.

Not forgetting, simply disregarding. There's a plot hole, both small and nitpicky, and large and glaring in nearly every single aspect of TDKR. Hell, that CIA plane thing is pretty awful in and of itself. So not only is all of Gotham incompetent, but the CIA is too? I can buy Ra's and his men getting SWAT uniforms and joining the GCPD across the bridge into the narrows. That's believable. But the CIA not taking off the masks before they board the plane? No way.

Bane has one of his men stay behind, along with a random guy that has Pavel's blood (guess the CIA doesn't check dental records) because the flight plan called for just those two additional passengers, yet, the CIA agent was clearly bluffing about killing them (and Bane called out his bluff). So the flight plan called for all of them then (why wouldn't they want to interrogate them elsewhere after the plane ride). So why leave one of your men behind? The agent didn't shoot anyone, nor throw them out of a plane, hence the flight plan would have all of them would it not? The CIA was using a scare tactic to get them to talk. From "calling in a flight plan that included one of you", to "shooting them and throwing them out of a plane". They wouldn't be expecting one of them in the wreckage, they'd expect all of them.

At least the SWAT thing in Begins is plausible. Atleast with the Joker and the bank heists it's crazy enough for it to work (like looking at your watch and eyeing up where the bus is supposed to drive in).



The League is nothing like the League in Batman Begins. In fact, as far as Batman Begins is concerned, Talia and Bane don't even exist to me (Ra's wouldn't tell Bruce, the man Ra's considers to be his greatest student?), they're simply written in a poorly structured "threequel", much like Spider-Man 3 where you have every convenience in the book. But that's a whole other story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And as for the League of Shadows not being ninjas in TDKR...this "League of Shadows 2.0" felt more like a real terrorist group(such as even being suicidal) and it needed to be that when they took over an entire US city. The feel had to be true terrorism, and you don't get that with ninjas, lol.

And yet, the goal of League of Shadows "2.0" is to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny and carry out his will the way he would have done it.

But what do they do? They barge in, mess with the stocks (which is also pretty implausible btw) announce themselves to the world on live television, kill innocent people, blow up football teams and a stadium, all with zero secrecy. Atleast Ra's came in unannounced. Atleast they did what they had been doing for centuries.

All these guys were were hired mercenaries ranging from low life criminals to thugs, a failed student with a breathing problem and a little girl that had daddy issues that really didn't have a clear motive from "destroying hope" to "destroying Gotham". She did accomplish sleeping with Batman though, Ra's never did that, so that's a plus.


Hardly, "League of Shadows" in my opinion. Not even 2.0. Atleast Ra's tried to get the job done instead of giving Batman numerous chances of foiling him (like sending him to a prison with a television and a doctor to heal him, or still pretending to help Bruce as Miranda Tate, er, I mean, Ducard), etc. etc.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
The only difference between Flass and Ramirez was Ramirez was actually trying to give a reason for why she's dirty and working with the mob. They're both dirty cops and as for why Ramirez isn't even important...

The difference between them is that Flass was a dirty cop because he was in it for the money for himself (taking money from poor falafel guy no less) and he wasn't integral to the end of Begins and beginning of TDK.

Ramirez on the other hand is a dirty cop because was nabbed by the mob with mother in the hospital, not only that but she WAS integral to the ending of the Dark Knight. A pretty big part actually.


Let's do a little bit of assuming here when it comes to these two and their roles at the end of the film. What would Flass do? He could be bonkers for all we know, maybe even an Arkham resident. Maybe he was gnawed on by those kids? Whatever the case, he's literally minutia in the grand scheme of things.

Ramirez? The one that got Bruce Wayne's girl killed? Harvey Dent's fiancee killed? A known "scum bag"? Called on a cellphone to deliver the Gordon's to a set up? Wasn't killed and bashed in the head to "fight another day"? How does she feel about this? Is she going to tell the truth? If not, why won't she? Did she leave town? What about her mom? Is she still apart of the force? What does Gordon and Batman do to keep her quiet? Do they make sure she's quiet.


Pretty big role if you ask me. She might not appear to be much, but man, she's pretty important.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
She would have lost something if she even revealed the lie at all. She would be also revealing the fact that she acted as an accomplice to Rachel's murder and that's why she would flee to not have to get herself in trouble.

And never see her mother again? She seemed pretty sorry for what she did, at all times, what if she wanted to repent, finally stop with the lies and come clean?

I'm sure Gotham would understand (just like they'd understand Dent's situation considering what he had done would have been "crime of passion", because, after all he only killedd "crooked people" and had his fiancee killed, his face burned off, his hospital room set a flame etc. etc.), considering she was already a known "scum bag" already.

Point is, her mom was most important. If she didn't participate, the mob would stop the funds/kill her mom. The mob didn't exist at that point, what would stop her from turning herself in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
BUT...Mr. Coleman Reese should have been in TDKR in some way though, because at least he doesn't have anything to lose. Although, since I'm pro the idea of the Dent lie and how Nolan evolved that storyline with the Dent Act, I feel Reese should have just been an ally for Bruce.

So you agree on Coleman Reese, so you must think that the whole outcome and events with TDKR is flawed. That's good enough to me. The fact that he isn't mentioned either, along with Ramirez and the Joker is just as baffling.

No investigation made huh? You're looking for Batman, but you're not going to go after the guy that claimed on television to millions that he knew the identity of Batman?


HA-HA-HA


That's even bigger than Ramirez even. Glad we agree there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Loeb returned because there had to be a Commissioner in TDK and for something to happen to make Gordon the next Commissioner unless you'd be fine of Gordon becoming the Commissioner offscreen which is a much bigger deal than bringing Ramirez back.

Had no problem with Loeb returning. Just an example I included for anyone that would claim "Ramirez is a small, unimportant side character". These movies had quite a few recurring characters with little importance.

Love that Loeb returned and was killed off in Joker fashion to not only show what Joker was capable of, but to promote Gordon. It happened.

Too bad Ramirez, Coleman Reese, etc. were done a way with. But hey, atleast we got Fredricks right! I loved seeing him in TDK too when the board was there with Lau . . . oh wait. LOL



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And Garcia could still be in his run of eight years as the Mayor for Gotham City.


Sure he could. And Ramirez could have slipped and said something. Or have been a part of the investigation. Coleman Reese could have been questioned. Joker could have had a trial.


Too bad I guess.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Fredericks is also a Wayne Enterprises board member. THAT'S why he's back.

I'd bet that nobody cares about Fredericks, I certainly didn't miss him in The Dark Knight.


Him being included solidifies my question about "Where is Ramirez, Reese, Joker, anybody?"


He needed to be apart of this story? Really? You said it yourself about the Mayor, it's been 8 years. Fredericks (where he stands in "this story as a whole") is pretty useless. He could have died by the events in TDKR and not have appeared and nobody would question it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I agree his storyline could've ended in TDK for sure, BUT...as he was a pawn with the League's plan in BB, it suits him being a pawn for the League again.

Remember, they're not the same League, lol.

How'd Bane and Talia get into contact with Crane? Did Ra's give them his number while they were excommunicated from the League?

We all know why Crane is in there, and let me tell ya, it has nothing to do with the actual story. It's a nice, cool cameo that doesn't really service the plot other than "there's that old dog Crane, up to his old tricks again". Well, that and Nolan's got a thing for his great cast popping up again and again in his movies. Not saying that's a problem, just saying Crane again, like the characters above, is not significant to what plays out after TDK.

It's almost criminal that Crane is mentioned in all three films, and yet, Joker is only in two. In fact, Ra's is only in two. In fact, Dent is only in two. Just downright strange.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Again, Ramirez had something to lose and the very minor character being just brushed off is fine as much as Flass or Victor Zsaz.
I discussed the assumptions about what Ramirez "had to lose" above.


Flass and Zsaz aren't even in the same league as Ramirez. So many assumptions can be made about the two of them, and you know what, it doesn't even play into what happens with any three films. Unless Flass and Zsaz were part of the Harvey Dent conspiracy. If that's the case, BRING THEM IN I SAY!


You're really saying that they're as important as Ramirez? Maybe if Zsaz actually succeeded in killing Rachel I guess. LOL


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Plus, Batman wouldn't waist the GCPD's time if he were to be hunted while his whole agenda in cleaning Gotham City is already tied up: the mobs.

So Batman is going to stop the GCPD from knocking down doors to stop the guy that murdered cops and Harvey Dent? He couldn't even stop them from kidnapping his girl (badum tish). There isn't going to be an investigation with every single person, witnesses, everything, involved? Yeah right.

How's Batman and Gordon going to stop the city from hunting Batman down? He's public enemy number 1 now. If Gordon tries to ignore that, he'd be fired (something TDKR refuses to get into that everyone wanted to see). They're not going to ask Coleman Reese? They're not going to interrogate the Joker? All those SWAT guys?

Imagine a great story where they (the police) take in Barbara Gordon and the kids, unbeknownst to Jim for questioning?


We see the OUTCOME of the Dent conspiracy, 8 years into the future. HOW it actually happened is just simply ignored.


Go ahead, bring up the Narrows and LoS again. I dare ya! Atleast with that, the League is completely hidden from the public and Crane and the inmates (who probably wouldn't even deny what they did) can be a patsy.


Give me any conjecture and assumptions that you can make of how this conspiracy ACTUALLY worked. Think about it. Think about it. You got it? Yeah, doesn't really fit in this world of crime and laws and internal affairs does it? LOL






Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
They did manage it though, lol. It might seem flimsy for you, but I found it to be fine personally.

Well of course, you're a hardcore TDKR fan. Nothing wrong with that.


But, it is flimsy, EXTREMELY flimsy for me. Which is why I'm making what I'm making at this exact moment.


I see it's a pretty big problem for others too. Moreso than the ever so common "omg, Bruce quit being batman cuz of Rachelz".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Wouldn't be the first time Nolan "magically" does something such as having no one notice Joker transport barrels of oil or explosives all over Gotham City. He didn't even do it in the sewers so out of sight like Bane either, just out in the open above surface.


True, but atleast with the Joker's personality, I can buy the idea that he has backup plan after back up plan for each scenario.

And the fact that he has the mob working for him at his disposal.

And all those cops.

And crazed inmates that will do anything he says.

And, and, and.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And the city caring should have been explored, but time had to press on more important matters. At least you can take the piece of dialogue of the priest and Blake talking as a sign of Blake telling the priest "The less you know" when the priest asked how Gordon was doing.
So that's their way of caring? Showing me two random characters that didn't even exist in Dark Knight?


That's just as bad as creating the whole problem Alfred has in TDKR with the "even though it never happened in Batman Begins, when you were gone for 7 years, I traveled to *insert specific location, drink and cafe here*, looking for you every day to see if you were happy and had kids, so that, when this movie ends, the writers can play this up at the end to give it some weight, even though I never did this in Batman Begins".


That my friend, is also a retcon.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And we could ask numerous questions for Flass too, don't you think? But that's never explained.

Yeah, hmm, Flass again, I think we talked about him enough. LOL



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
She wasn't important in the least sense. Reese was far more important to the conspiracy as at least part of the conspiracy targeted Batman.

At this point, I have to look and see what you're quoting of my post to know who you're talking about and let me tell ya, it's a hassle.

Ramirez? She's not important? I think I disagree with you. But hey, atleast we agree about Coleman Reese. Where is he at, huh? Pretty flimsy explanation from the writers huh?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
How else would you explain it that she's the only major player in the MCU that we know of in TDK that is alive that isn't there?
How do I explain it?


The writers didn't know where else to go for the sequel to the great, 2008 film the Dark Knight so they just said screw it, forgot about the ending except the Dent lie itself, fast forwarded to 8 years in the future so less people question it and are more surprised by the sheer fact that, "hey look, it's 8 years now and Bruce isn't Batman anymore, OMG".


So to sum it up, they wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to get themselves out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
If she was a good cop besides having dealings with the mob, then Flass could be given that same light because he was still a cop and still doing his job as one.

Please Anno, please. No more Flass! I beg of you. I promise to never mention Ramirez again if you promise to never bring up Flass again.*





*
Flass isn't as important as Ramirez, for the billionth time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Rather have Barbara only thinking about leaving for eight years and finally have a conversation with Gordon before taking the kids and leaving? I wouldn't.




Something better than what they gave us, not just Barbara either. EVERYTHING.












Alright. Gonna take on part II to slay thy beast. BRB


Last edited by milost; 03-10-2013 at 04:16 AM.
milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 03:55 AM   #215
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
And, again, Batman Begins states that the "Narrows is lost".
You feel that nothing should be mentioned in the sequel just because it's mentioned in the first film where the events occurred? Or even the idea that it shouldn't be cleaned up to actually progress the idea instead of making it seem like it's still "lost"?

Quote:
You didn't even delve into any of the things I stated like Crane and the inmates being blamed. You know, since the situation at the Narrows was the Arkham breakout. Crane had his men poisoning the water, Crane in TDK is selling the same compound.

For everyone in Gotham, Crane and Arkham is the problem. Remember Gordon interrogating Crane and not getting anything out of the babble? My point is, nobody knows about the League of Shadows, nor should they given what they are.
No need to delve into the idea when it's already mentioned. And big whoop if it is when they're not the big problem anyways in regards to the riot. Did the inmates have anything to do with the going ons with the monorail? Did Crane have anything to do with it?

A big fat nope for ya.

And even if you want to say the LoS shouldn't be mentioned by the Gothamites, it could have it be in discussion with Gordon, or Fox, or Alfred with Bruce even.

Quote:
It's clearly not as big as TDKR which, again, has the oh so important Dent cover up happen, but never explains how it actually happened. It just does. We're not just talking about 8 years, about a day after TDK? A week after TDK? A month after TDK? A year after TDK. The whole "Batman killed these people" thing would have repercussions and investigations, more than just "nobody has seen Batman since that night, we don't even look for him", "Gordon is depressed, his family left him", "Bruce Wayne is a broken hermit that doesn't do anything".

Where is the city wanting Batman's blood? Where is Batman being hunted down for the murders? Where are the criminal investigations.
Oh, and I beg to differ. It is as big of a plot hole as you see the Dent cover up not being investigated on, especially when my problem isn't touched upon when the time gap is much, much, much shorter.

And again...and I will repeat myself only one more time...Batman can't be hunted when he retires chief, lol.

Quote:
Atleast with the League of Shadows thing, you have the fact that nobody knows about the League other than Batman and Alfred. You have a viral campaign that deals with it and moves into the mob and the Joker. You also have the fact that Crane is still running a muck and it can easily be pinned on him since he not only "thought he was holding the city ransom" but had the inmates poisoning the water AND wasn't caught yet until TDK where he's selling the same compound!

Again I say to you, how is this any bigger than the Dent conspiracy? It's not.
A viral campaign that only some real hardcore fans follow, lol.

And as I said, the monorail incident raises questions when NO inmates and NO sighting of Crane were around that big event.

Quote:
Not forgetting, simply disregarding. There's a plot hole, both small and nitpicky, and large and glaring in nearly every single aspect of TDKR. Hell, that CIA plane thing is pretty awful in and of itself. So not only is all of Gotham incompetent, but the CIA is too? I can buy Ra's and his men getting SWAT uniforms and joining the GCPD across the bridge into the narrows. That's believable. But the CIA not taking off the masks before they board the plane? No way.

Bane has one of his men stay behind, along with a random guy that has Pavel's blood (guess the CIA doesn't check dental records) because the flight plan called for just those two additional passengers, yet, the CIA agent was clearly bluffing about killing them (and Bane called out his bluff). So the flight plan called for all of them then (why wouldn't they want to interrogate them elsewhere after the plane ride). So why leave one of your men behind? The agent didn't shoot anyone, nor throw them out of a plane, hence the flight plan would have all of them would it not? The CIA was using a scare tactic to get them to talk. From "calling in a flight plan that included one of you", to "shooting them and throwing them out of a plane". They wouldn't be expecting one of them in the wreckage, they'd expect all of them.

At least the SWAT thing in Begins is plausible. Atleast with the Joker and the bank heists it's crazy enough for it to work (like looking at your watch and eyeing up where the bus is supposed to drive in).
Let's just past your complaint over the scene(didn't know we're now discussing the hate/love of scenes), but you shouldn't disregard the fact that they are STILL being different people as Ra's did as Ducard at first and how League members were part of a SWAT team. Disregarding that would be foolish.

Quote:
The League is nothing like the League in Batman Begins. In fact, as far as Batman Begins is concerned, Talia and Bane don't even exist to me (Ra's wouldn't tell Bruce, the man Ra's considers to be his greatest student?), they're simply written in a poorly structured "threequel", much like Spider-Man 3 where you have every convenience in the book. But that's a whole other story.
I already said the League are vastly different between the two films, lol. And what do you mean Ra's wouldn't tell Bruce what? About Bane? About a man he ex-communicated? Why would he do that at all?

Or about Talia? The daughter that he lost as well with his wife? Oh right...he did mention that bit, now didn't he?

Quote:
And yet, the goal of League of Shadows "2.0" is to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny and carry out his will the way he would have done it.

But what do they do? They barge in, mess with the stocks (which is also pretty implausible btw) announce themselves to the world on live television, kill innocent people, blow up football teams and a stadium, all with zero secrecy. Atleast Ra's came in unannounced. Atleast they did what they had been doing for centuries.

All these guys were were hired mercenaries ranging from low life criminals to thugs, a failed student with a breathing problem and a little girl that had daddy issues that really didn't have a clear motive from "destroying hope" to "destroying Gotham". She did accomplish sleeping with Batman though, Ra's never did that, so that's a plus.

Hardly, "League of Shadows" in my opinion. Not even 2.0. Atleast Ra's tried to get the job done instead of giving Batman numerous chances of foiling him (like sending him to a prison with a television and a doctor to heal him, or still pretending to help Bruce as Miranda Tate, er, I mean, Ducard), etc. etc.
Lol, just because I say "2.0" you think they shouldn't try to have a same goal as the League of Shadows now?

And if you think about the whole idea of the stock exchange and what not...that does go back to the LoS that did use to go the financial route as well with they did once before with Gotham. They just added all of their most practical methods, that's all. And to talk about what's impossible...let's look at the microwave emitter, shall we? Lol.

Quote:
The difference between them is that Flass was a dirty cop because he was in it for the money for himself (taking money from poor falafel guy no less) and he wasn't integral to the end of Begins and beginning of TDK.

Ramirez on the other hand is a dirty cop because was nabbed by the mob with mother in the hospital, not only that but she WAS integral to the ending of the Dark Knight. A pretty big part actually.
If a duck is a duck, then a dirty cop is a dirty cop.

Quote:
Let's do a little bit of assuming here when it comes to these two and their roles at the end of the film. What would Flass do? He could be bonkers for all we know, maybe even an Arkham resident. Maybe he was gnawed on by those kids? Whatever the case, he's literally minutia in the grand scheme of things.

Ramirez? The one that got Bruce Wayne's girl killed? Harvey Dent's fiancee killed? A known "scum bag"? Called on a cellphone to deliver the Gordon's to a set up? Wasn't killed and bashed in the head to "fight another day"? How does she feel about this? Is she going to tell the truth? If not, why won't she? Did she leave town? What about her mom? Is she still apart of the force? What does Gordon and Batman do to keep her quiet? Do they make sure she's quiet.

Pretty big role if you ask me. She might not appear to be much, but man, she's pretty important.
Enough reason for her to flee. I really have nothing more to say than what I've said before, lol.

Quote:
And never see her mother again? She seemed pretty sorry for what she did, at all times, what if she wanted to repent, finally stop with the lies and come clean?

I'm sure Gotham would understand (just like they'd understand Dent's situation considering what he had done would have been "crime of passion", because, after all he only killedd "crooked people" and had his fiancee killed, his face burned off, his hospital room set a flame etc. etc.), considering she was already a known "scum bag" already.

Point is, her mom was most important. If she didn't participate, the mob would stop the funds/kill her mom. The mob didn't exist at that point, what would stop her from turning herself in?
Quote:
And never see her mother again?
^ Answer the same question on why she would turn herself in.

Quote:
So you agree on Coleman Reese, so you must think that the whole outcome and events with TDKR is flawed. That's good enough to me. The fact that he isn't mentioned either, along with Ramirez and the Joker is just as baffling.

No investigation made huh? You're looking for Batman, but you're not going to go after the guy that claimed on television to millions that he knew the identity of Batman?

HA-HA-HA
I wonder how you would feel if my replies are with 'Ha-ha-ha''s....

anywho...I don't think the outcomes and events with TDKR are flawed at all. I see Gordon doing whatever he can to make it seem that Batman was the real villain and that's enough.

Quote:
That's even bigger than Ramirez even. Glad we agree there.
At least we're agreeing on one thing.

Quote:
Had no problem with Loeb returning. Just an example I included for anyone that would claim "Ramirez is a small, unimportant side character". These movies had quite a few recurring characters with little importance.

Love that Loeb returned and was killed off in Joker fashion to not only show what Joker was capable of, but to promote Gordon. It happened.
Loeb was never a character with little importance as the Commissioner angle was important for Gordon's character.

Quote:
Too bad Ramirez, Coleman Reese, etc. were done a way with. But hey, atleast we got Fredricks right! I loved seeing him in TDK too when the board was there with Lau . . . oh wait. LOL
So just because we don't solely see Fredericks, you're calling that a mistake that Fredericks shouldn't be in TDKR?

Quote:
Sure he could. And Ramirez could have slipped and said something. Or have been a part of the investigation. Coleman Reese could have been questioned. Joker could have had a trial.

Too bad I guess.
AGAIN with bringing up Joker. Enough of mentioning a character that Nolan just didn't want to use again after Heath's passing.

Quote:
I'd bet that nobody cares about Fredericks, I certainly didn't miss him in The Dark Knight.
That explains all the random Fredericks love you read

Quote:
Him being included solidifies my question about "Where is Ramirez, Reese, Joker, anybody?"


Quote:
He needed to be apart of this story? Really? You said it yourself about the Mayor, it's been 8 years. Fredericks (where he stands in "this story as a whole") is pretty useless. He could have died by the events in TDKR and not have appeared and nobody would question it.
Of course nobody would have questioned it, but no one was pissed to see him appear again either. Well, maybe you were.

Quote:
Remember, they're not the same League, lol.

How'd Bane and Talia get into contact with Crane? Did Ra's give them his number while they were excommunicated from the League?

We all know why Crane is in there, and let me tell ya, it has nothing to do with the actual story. It's a nice, cool cameo that doesn't really service the plot other than "there's that old dog Crane, up to his old tricks again". Well, that and Nolan's got a thing for his great cast popping up again and again in his movies. Not saying that's a problem, just saying Crane again, like the characters above, is not significant to what plays out after TDK.

It's almost criminal that Crane is mentioned in all three films, and yet, Joker is only in two. In fact, Ra's is only in two. In fact, Dent is only in two. Just downright strange.


You knew exactly what I mean without trying to poke fun.

Quote:
I discussed the assumptions about what Ramirez "had to lose" above.

Flass and Zsaz aren't even in the same league as Ramirez. So many assumptions can be made about the two of them, and you know what, it doesn't even play into what happens with any three films. Unless Flass and Zsaz were part of the Harvey Dent conspiracy. If that's the case, BRING THEM IN I SAY!

You're really saying that they're as important as Ramirez? Maybe if Zsaz actually succeeded in killing Rachel I guess. LOL
For someone that wanted to make it seem like the inmates were important for the Narrows incident, I would think you'd call Zsaz important as well, lol. But I guess somethings are only important in one way but not the other, huh?

Quote:
So Batman is going to stop the GCPD from knocking down doors to stop the guy that murdered cops and Harvey Dent? He couldn't even stop them from kidnapping his girl (badum tish). There isn't going to be an investigation with every single person, witnesses, everything, involved? Yeah right.

How's Batman and Gordon going to stop the city from hunting Batman down? He's public enemy number 1 now. If Gordon tries to ignore that, he'd be fired (something TDKR refuses to get into that everyone wanted to see). They're not going to ask Coleman Reese? They're not going to interrogate the Joker? All those SWAT guys?

Imagine a great story where they (the police) take in Barbara Gordon and the kids, unbeknownst to Jim for questioning?

We see the OUTCOME of the Dent conspiracy, 8 years into the future. HOW it actually happened is just simply ignored.

Go ahead, bring up the Narrows and LoS again. I dare ya! Atleast with that, the League is completely hidden from the public and Crane and the inmates (who probably wouldn't even deny what they did) can be a patsy.

Give me any conjecture and assumptions that you can make of how this conspiracy ACTUALLY worked. Think about it. Think about it. You got it? Yeah, doesn't really fit in this world of crime and laws and internal affairs does it? LOL
Do anything FIT in the world of crime and internal affairs when Batman can easily bring a foreign back to the states without any follow-up and you're STILL calling the whole Dent thing such an inconsistency? Lol.

Quote:
Well of course, you're a hardcore TDKR fan. Nothing wrong with that.

But, it is flimsy, EXTREMELY flimsy for me. Which is why I'm making what I'm making at this exact moment.
Which is fine if you find it flimsy, but you're overlooking other mistakes as well, don't you think?

Quote:
I see it's a pretty big problem for others too. Moreso than the ever so common "omg, Bruce quit being batman cuz of Rachelz".
You're quoting people who think he actually quit because of Rachel?

Quote:
True, but atleast with the Joker's personality, I can buy the idea that he has backup plan after back up plan for each scenario.

And the fact that he has the mob working for him at his disposal.

And all those cops.

And crazed inmates that will do anything he says.

And, and, and.
And you're fine with that "idea", huh? Lovely. I certainly am not.

Quote:
So that's their way of caring? Showing me two random characters that didn't even exist in Dark Knight?
Hrm?

Quote:
That's just as bad as creating the whole problem Alfred has in TDKR with the "even though it never happened in Batman Begins, when you were gone for 7 years, I traveled to *insert specific location, drink and cafe here*, looking for you every day to see if you were happy and had kids, so that, when this movie ends, the writers can play this up at the end to give it some weight, even though I never did this in Batman Begins".

That my friend, is also a retcon.
So...you wanted it to happen in Batman Begins? Where, exactly? You wanted a scene before Alfred met up with Bruce where he went off to Italy?

Quote:
Yeah, hmm, Flass again, I think we talked about him enough. LOL
I feel the same way with Ramirez and Joker but you continue to bring those two up...

Quote:
At this point, I have to look and see what you're quoting of my post to know who you're talking about and let me tell ya, it's a hassle.

Ramirez? She's not important? I think I disagree with you. But hey, atleast we agree about Coleman Reese. Where is he at, huh? Pretty flimsy explanation from the writers huh?
You only think you disagree with me? So I can still lean you into thinking you agree with me then? Lol.

And for Reese, yes, it was a bad choice for the writers indeed. Not so much with Ramirez.

Quote:
How do I explain it?

The writers didn't know where else to go for the sequel to the great, 2008 film the Dark Knight so they just said screw it, forgot about the ending except the Dent lie itself, fast forwarded to 8 years in the future so less people question it and are more surprised by the sheer fact that, "hey look, it's 8 years now and Bruce isn't Batman anymore, OMG".

So to sum it up, they wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to get themselves out.
Lol. Ahh, I was actually liking you, but now you're coming off as someone who continues to view the writers just lost their minds now, lol. They knew exactly what to do with TDKR and Nolan knew exactly what he wanted to do after the ending of TDK. Only a few, though, question the choices.

Quote:
Please Anno, please. No more Flass! I beg of you. I promise to never mention Ramirez again if you promise to never bring up Flass again.*
You promise to never mention Ramirez again? You got it!


Quote:
Something better than what they gave us, not just Barbara either. EVERYTHING.
Lol, disagree.


Last edited by Anno_Domini; 03-10-2013 at 04:00 AM.
Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 04:14 AM   #216
Ipodman
Love Tension
 
Ipodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,235
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Why is Anne winning?

Ipodman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 04:14 AM   #217
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

CONTINUED



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
TDKR retcons nothing. The conversation between Gordon and Dent was minimal and didn't reveal anything that could even be hinted as Dent having kidnapped Gordon's family and could have easily been taken as Dent and Gordon's family were together and had all been kidnapped by someone else and in this case, before the building siege to build up the "murderous thug" role that Batman took.

TDKR retcons everything.


Supposedly, Joker doesn't even exist now for all we know.

Supposedly, there was this young boy named John Blake that saw Bruce Wayne who was visiting orphanages (despite Bruce Wayne never showing any signs of doing anything like that in Begins and Dark Knight). He saw Bruce Wayne and could feel, in his bones that he was Batman because he had the same anger and made the same faces in a mirror (creepy). Oh, and he's also an orphan and one of the few people that can put together the fact that Bruce Wayne = Batman.

Supposedly, during 2005's Batman Begins. Michael Caine was visiting Italy for the 7 years to look for Bruce. He would go to a specific cafe and buy a specific drink, each day at a certain time to see if Bruce was there. Not only Bruce, but Bruce's fictional family.

Yeah, and that's why he had him declared dead? Made funny quips about him looking "fashionable", that Bruce could borrow the Rolls if he'd like. Yeah, in Batman Begins he didn't do that Italy crap, clearly.

Supposedly there was more to Ducard's story about his wife that he forgot to fill Bruce in on (despite being his best friend and greatest student during the time). Turns out he had a daughter named Talia, who had a friend named Mister Bane that were trapped in a pit that his wife went into for Ducard's crimes.

Supposedly Sandman was really the killer of Uncle Ben, not the car jacker. Sandman was the car jacker's partner and accidentally killed Uncle Ben with a gun while the car jacker ran off.


Supposedly the Osborn's butler, Bernard, witnessed Peter Parker/Spider-Man drop a dead Norman Osborn off on the couch and cleaned his wounds from his glider. He kept this news to himself and never told Norman's son, who, very openly, wanted to kill Spider-Man (who is also his best friend).


Oh wait, oops wrong movie. But still, those damn, crazy butlers


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
It's a choice that while I don't agree with, the choice is made. And even with Blake bringing up the events eight years prior, it does make sense that Joker's name isn't even mentioned. Why give Batman the credit of stopping Joker when he's trying to be viewed as a killer?

But Blake doesn't think Batman is a killer so why not mention the Joker too?


Uh oh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Your examples are of only one decent cop and one dirty cop.

Hey man, there were more cool cops up there on the rooftop with Stephens wanting to talk to Batman.

They had beer out and everything. "Man, he doesn't want to talk to us"

Why did they want to talk to Batman there? To arrest him? C'mon. You know what I meant in my initial post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Nothing convoluted about kids having the greatest faith in Batman throughout the trilogy since Batman Begins.

Let's see,

Begins had that weird kid from Game of Thornes. All the kids thought he was a loser because he believed in a bat thing or something. Batman was cool and threw him some expensive Wayne Tech device.

The Dark Knight had Jimmy Gordon who was pretty confused when his dad started getting all preachy and saying that "Batman isn't a hero, but he is a hero, but not the one it needs right now".



But I don't think they knew that Bruce was Batman like Blake did they? Did I miss something?




Yeah, I'm going to go with what I constantly see no matter how many times it's defended. The Blake "I know who you are because . . ." is convoluted and Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are much better films, especially in the script/screenplay/writing area.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Gordon didn't seem to have a worried or negative demeanor at all, just deciding to not go with his speech that could've been anything to the audience.

Really? Alrighty then.


But the fact of the matter is, he had the "truth about Harvey Dent", was ready to read it and the audience didn't even bat an eye when he stopped dead in his tracks.

So what was he going to say? Something good about the man? In that tone? At a ceremony for Dent? He doesn't even say anything great about him, just "blah, blah, blah, Blackgate".


Pretty odd but then again, Gotham isn't very bright in TDKR. Not the police force (even Gordon is slipping), not it's citizens so maybe that is a nitpick on my part.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And yes, it could have been the Joker as well, but THAT complaint should be about TDK then. It's a choice I never understood when watching TDK even.

No, it's not TDK's problem because TDK ends where it ends. Even if the speech and choice at the end, as over the top and melodramatic as it is, doesn't explain the ramifications of it's own action, it doesn't matter, it doesn't have to.

It probably should have ended right there, with Batman riding off in the sun set. It's a great, powerful ending. Maybe more powerful than TDKR's even as far as "BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT, GOTHAM'S SILENT GUARDIAN" goes.

You can't fault the ending, it's an ending after all (and impressive one at that) you have to fault the sequel. The sequel automatically takes in that baggage, (like it or not) when you have the same writers, same cast and same crew, making a SEQUEL four years later. They could do anything they wanted but they chose to screw the pooch on the aftermath, the explanations.


It's not up to The Dark Knight, it has no bearing on it. "All we know is the situation". What do we see when it flashes ahead into the future that pertains to the conspiracy?


1. Harvey Dent ceremony

2. Gordon at a televised event, smashing the Batsignal

3. Batman riding off in the night (which might not even be that night since it's unused footage from the Joker chase)


We don't know how it works or even if it does work. We don't know if the city is doubting the lie, or buying it. We don't know if Batman's active or if he's not.

That's not the point, the point is that Batman "becomes the villain" so Dent's name isn't tarnished and the city doesn't lose hope. That's pretty much it. That's all it has to say at that point in time. It's the sequels job, after it confirms that "okay, yeah, it did work", to explain how it worked.

But it doesn't. It just creates new issues (see "retcons") to distract you from what happened the last film. New situations, a pretty big time jump, exclusions, etc.



This isn't The Dark Knight's problem. As far as it's concerned, as a separate entity from TDKR, the Joker still exists and was just caught that very night, Coleman Reese is still taking in the fact that people just tried to kill him, Ramirez is waking up from being clubbed, Barbara is in tears because of what Gordon is going to make her do.

TDKR? Not resolved, not resolved, not resolved. If anything, they put even MORE emphasis on Dent, too much even, where it crushes Dark Knight. Look at what they do. "Harvey Dent Day?", "Harvey Dent Act", Blackgate, pictures of him everywhere. Woah, woah, that just makes people want to question it more. It's not very subtle at all.

I mean, yeah, TDK had the premise that if Dent were found out to be guilty of anything, those low life guys he put away would be back on the streets and there MIGHT not be 18 months of clean streets. The worst thing is that, Dent and the Mayor would be out on the streets and would be laughing stocks at what they tried to achieve. I mean, that's not what the end of TDK was all about. It wasn't "if people find out that Dent did this, this city dies". No, it was "if people find out, people will lose hope". Gotham just proved itself, WITHOUT Harvey Dent with the ferries. Dent was big, but he wasn't "peace time, no Batman" big. Not what TDKR makes it out to be. Batman takes the blame because he owes it to Dent, and Rachel. Dent did the same for him. He does it so, at that point in time, the city doesn't lose hope or think that Dent is bad. He does it so the Joker doesn't win this battle. He does it because he can take it, it doesn't matter if he's a villain or not, he was a criminal before he took the blame. He's a Dark Knight.


That's it really. I mean, those mob guys on the streets? Uhh, those guys just proved themselves (well some of them) by not blowing up the other ferries. They're really the catalyst for "peace time"? The low level guys? Who are they going to go back to? The Joker eliminated the mob utterly. The Joker was the new threat, and he's not even dead or defeated?



TDKR not only makes the mistake of not giving explanations, but being too grandiose and too big for itself to handle.


Seeing Bruce Wayne's story unfold and taking him to new places is fine, TDKR tries to do that, but come on. We get,

Dent Days and Acts, Batman statues, unspecified prison pits, huge nuclear bombs, a city closed off from the rest of the world, class wars (we never see), the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Where's The Dark Knight's PLOT resolution? It's not important? Than don't make it seem important with


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
You're wanting to brush off something crucial such as the zero mention of the League of Shadows and the zero mention of any cleanup with the Narrows but you're not satisfied with any answers of why Nolan decided to give something good out of the Dent lie and not mentioning anything about any kind of investigations or what have you. That just confuses me.


You want to make it seem like the League of Shadows, again, a secret organization that nobody knows about that is a NARROWS/ARKHAM ASYLUM/INMATE ESCAPE/LED BY SAME DRUG SELLING CRANE situation, is as big and as important as the Harvey Dent lie? The thing that bridges the two films?

Okay, let's say the LoS is as big as you make it. Atleast TDK ignores it completely and doesn't make the audience question it.

TDKR is built off it!


Do you see what I'm saying? TDK handled Batman Begins loose ends very, very well. We saw the Joker card? We got the Joker? The Narrows is lost? Scarecrow is on the loose? We got it. Escalation, we got it?


What did you want, a scene where Batman says, "well, the Narrows isn't under investigation because nobody knows what the League of Shadows is, they think it's Crane and half the inmates HE FREED (Gordon says that)". Well gee, I guess that is as big as what happens between TDK and TDKR isn't it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Also, and I want to add something else to our little "debate", but...you mentioned once where there isn't some "rise of the freaks" going on after TDK's events, but I think the dialogue between Joker and Batman during their final confrontation explained it all. Joker said that Arkham will double their space after people witness Dent's turn, but that turn is falsified and he is now shown as a hero for eight years as well as Batman telling Joker that Gotham City is full of people that believe in good. That really gives me all that why there wouldn't be anymore freaks there on after.

But see, they were already doubling up before Joker had the "make Harvey Dent a super criminal".


Dent was Joker's ace in the hole, you don't think he had even more after everything he pulled (if his story was allowed to continued)? Hell, just days before, he was trying to kill Harvey Dent. Kill him. He wanted to kill Batman at some point too. But that all changed. Joker even wiped out all of the mob.


Joker was going to do anything he could to cause chaos. The last plan we see of his is turning Dent into a bad guy, make the city lose hope. I don't think the outcome of Joker's plan, had it "failed" (can you beat the Joker?) was "if I lose, this city is going to get much, much better". Look at his hired help. Look what happened with Coleman Reese before Dent was even let loose. Chaos, chaos, chaos. Joker just kept topping himself and topping himself, win after win. One loss and that's all over?


He also said, "I think you and I are destined to do this forever", look what became of that. Sure, Batman had that little rebuttal, but are we really supposed to believe that, THE JOKER, the guy that no cage or prison could contain, was done after his reign? The guy who actually did have complete control over the city that night?


I don't think so. If his character (which is a great one, just as great and as fantastic as Batman/Bruce Wayne) is anything to go by, he'd go again and again and again, new plan after new plan, just like he did before when it was, simply, "kill public officials, kill Dent, kill Batman, take control of the city".

milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 04:20 AM   #218
Snow Queen
Side-Kick
 
Snow Queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,501
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Dear God, milost, what do you have against Fredricks?

Snow Queen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 04:38 AM   #219
Snow Queen
Side-Kick
 
Snow Queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,501
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
TDKR retcons everything.


Supposedly, Joker doesn't even exist now for all we know.

Supposedly, there was this young boy named John Blake that saw Bruce Wayne who was visiting orphanages (despite Bruce Wayne never showing any signs of doing anything like that in Begins and Dark Knight). He saw Bruce Wayne and could feel, in his bones that he was Batman because he had the same anger and made the same faces in a mirror (creepy). Oh, and he's also an orphan and one of the few people that can put together the fact that Bruce Wayne = Batman.

Supposedly, during 2005's Batman Begins. Michael Caine was visiting Italy for the 7 years to look for Bruce. He would go to a specific cafe and buy a specific drink, each day at a certain time to see if Bruce was there. Not only Bruce, but Bruce's fictional family.

Yeah, and that's why he had him declared dead? Made funny quips about him looking "fashionable", that Bruce could borrow the Rolls if he'd like. Yeah, in Batman Begins he didn't do that Italy crap, clearly.

Supposedly there was more to Ducard's story about his wife that he forgot to fill Bruce in on (despite being his best friend and greatest student during the time). Turns out he had a daughter named Talia, who had a friend named Mister Bane that were trapped in a pit that his wife went into for Ducard's crimes.
While I disgree with your points in general. I must ask about this one. It just loses me. If Joker wasn't mentioned in The Court of Owls, does that mean he's been retconned out of existence? No, it just means they decided not to mention him.

Now, whether or not you like Blake's explanation for how he knows who Batman is (the weakest part of the movie for me), is it really hard to think that Bruce went to an orphanage? You didn't see it in the previous films because, simply speaking narratively and ignoring whether or not they thought of it earlier, it wasn't necessary. At no point did Bruce need to visit an orphanage that would add to the plot so why have it? If it had been written, it probably would have been deleted during one of the drafts of the script for being unnecessary. He didn't really need to do it and it would simply make the film longer and not add anything.

Because we didn't follow everything Alfred did while Bruce was gone, does that mean it didn't happen? Just because we didn't see him sleep doesn't mean he didn't.

And he never declared Bruce dead, that was done by Mr. Earle so he could take the company public.

Watching Begins, the speech about his wife that Ra's gives about his wife obviously sends him to a place he doesn't want to be. Now with TDKR, we understand that he feels this because he is likely thinking about how his wife took his place in the Pit and died there for him. Why not mention Bane? Because, I assume at this point he was excommunicated. Why not mention Talia? It's like if someone asks you about your dead relatives when the wound is still painful. Maybe you can say a bit about one but it sends you to a sad place that you'd rather not be in so you avoid talking about the other one.

Snow Queen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 05:23 AM   #220
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
You feel that nothing should be mentioned in the sequel just because it's mentioned in the first film where the events occurred? Or even the idea that it shouldn't be cleaned up to actually progress the idea instead of making it seem like it's still "lost"?


No need to delve into the idea when it's already mentioned. And big whoop if it is when they're not the big problem anyways in regards to the riot. Did the inmates have anything to do with the going ons with the monorail? Did Crane have anything to do with it?

A big fat nope for ya.


Where is that monorail (the part affected) Anno? Oh that's right, the Narrows.

Who is everyone questioning at Arkham Anno? Oh that's right, Crane.

What did Ra's say about Crane Anno? Oh that's right, that he wanted to HOLD THE CITY RANSOM.

Who is the blank (and "he") in Gordon's line at the end of Begins Anno? "We still haven't picked up the half the inmates he freed". I don't think that's Ra's or the League of Shadows.

Who burned down Bruce's mansion Anno? Oh that's right, Bruce did.


Did Batman say he was going to help Gordon "bring Gotham back" by apprehending Crane? While I'm not entirely sure, I'd say he does just that in TDK.


What is Crane selling in TDK before he's caught Anno? Oh, that's right, the same stuff that poisoned ALL OF THE NARROWS!




So what am I missing here? You really think with all your heart, that no mention of the LoS, is just as bad as what transpires (or doesn't transpire) between TDK and TDKR.


Come on, you must be joking.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And even if you want to say the LoS shouldn't be mentioned by the Gothamites, it could have it be in discussion with Gordon, or Fox, or Alfred with Bruce even.


Sure they could have? Should they have though? I ask again, you really feel like the lack of LoS mention (that secret organization) is as big as the jump between TDK and TDKR?

Or was that even a problem for you until people criticize TDKR's lack of follow up? Just curious.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Oh, and I beg to differ. It is as big of a plot hole as you see the Dent cover up not being investigated on, especially when my problem isn't touched upon when the time gap is much, much, much shorter.

And again...and I will repeat myself only one more time...Batman can't be hunted when he retires chief, lol.


Yes he can. They knew he was a man, that was common knowledge and they had Coleman Reese, who just days prior, clearly stated he knew the true identity of Batman (and the city clearly knew he wasn't bluffing).


To hunt Batman, you find out who he really is. To hunt Batman, you make an investigation.


Atleast Batman Begins didn't end with the characters saying, "we're going to hunt down all those responsible for the events at the Narrows, EVERYONE". It doesn't do that.


But the Dark Knight does say, "they'll hunt me, set the dogs on me" and even ends with cops chasing down Batman until he hops on the Batpod. Do we ever see or hear that he's been hunted? Nope. (And don't be funny and say, "well last night, the dogs actually were set on him", you know exactly what I mean.


Gordon also says, "because he can take it", but obviously he can't if the last confirmed sighting of Batman is that very night and he's never heard from again. Bruce most likely hanged it up that night, no matter what fan conjecture is created.



[QUOTE=Anno_Domini;25357963]A viral campaign that only some real hardcore fans follow, lol.


Hey, atleast it was mentioned in the virals. Pretty faithfully I might add.


Atleast in a viral we didn't get a wanted poster of Batman, with descriptions of his EYE color, height and weight but find out when we see the actual film that the police never pursued finding out who Batman actually was, chief.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And as I said, the monorail incident raises questions when NO inmates and NO sighting of Crane were around that big event.

Also no sightings of anyone up in there. I swear I saw the Narrows in complete chaos with everyone but Rachel, Gordon and Batman hallucinating.

Who saw who was involved with the train? Could it have been, *gasp* some of those inmates that Gordon mentions that Crane freed. OMG, why didn't I think of that before!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Let's just past your complaint over the scene(didn't know we're now discussing the hate/love of scenes), but you shouldn't disregard the fact that they are STILL being different people as Ra's did as Ducard at first and how League members were part of a SWAT team. Disregarding that would be foolish.


TDKR does some pretty crazy stuff, almost seems like a different world completely. If I don't buy into it, why would it be crazy to disregard it and see it as a "what if" story? They're just movies after all. I see the whole, "I loved Begins and Dark Knight, but don't like TDKR brought often", why not disregard it?








Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I already said the League are vastly different between the two films, lol. And what do you mean Ra's wouldn't tell Bruce what? About Bane? About a man he ex-communicated? Why would he do that at all?

Or about Talia? The daughter that he lost as well with his wife? Oh right...he did mention that bit, now didn't he?
I know you did Anno, I know you did. But I wouldn't call them 2.0.


And yeah, why wouldn't Ra's tell "his greatest student", about that guy that was too extreme and could be a potential threat to the LoS?

You said it yourself, he tells Bruce about his "wife he lost", why wouldn't he tell him about his psycho daughter (whom he was on bad terms with)? I'd say if you want somebody standing at your side to save the world, that's a pretty big thing you wouldn't want to leave out.


Nolan and Co. could have wrote that, in Begins, Bruce and Bane were brothers (which happened in the comics actually), wouldn't make it true would it?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And if you think about the whole idea of the stock exchange and what not...that does go back to the LoS that did use to go the financial route as well with they did once before with Gotham. They just added all of their most practical methods, that's all. And to talk about what's impossible...let's look at the microwave emitter, shall we? Lol.

Except nothing is done about the stock exchange despite the fact that it's an actual robbery, that everyone sees, in broad day light (unless you consider it night time with that 7 minute time change, lol)

You're missing the entire point. The, will call them "old" LoS was shrouded in mystery. Nobody knew about them. They operated in secrecy. They're a cult of ninjas.

You think when they ruined the economy before Wayne's time they went in, guns a blazin' with motorcycle? Ummm, no. Ra's makes it clear how the LoS opperates.


Talia and Bane are anything but that. They practically announce themselves to the world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
If a duck is a duck, then a dirty cop is a dirty cop. Enough reason for her to flee. I really have nothing more to say than what I've said before, lol.


Fair enough. If that's how you feel.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Answer the same question on why she would turn herself in.

Ah, but I even said that was simply a scenario I presented. Like you, I presented other scenarios as well.


My gripe isn't that it went this way, or that way, it was that such an important issue with such an important thread is simply abandoned and never even given an explanation. Not that the said explanation wasn't right or appropriate.

You say it doesn't matter, I say it does.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I wonder how you would feel if my replies are with 'Ha-ha-ha''s....

anywho...I don't think the outcomes and events with TDKR are flawed at all. I see Gordon doing whatever he can to make it seem that Batman was the real villain and that's enough.

I wouldn't mind or take offense with it. I promise you, I'm not being haughty or mad.



I think TDKR is very flawed, and while I can see Gordon attempting to do whatever he could to make it seem like Batman was really a villain (which, in and of itself would be a very, very compelling film and story), I don't buy, based on Begins and The Dark Knight, that it would just happen.

Cleveland and his family was a nice touch. That's logical, I can put that together myself. But everything else, nah, don't buy it. Can't. Won't.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
At least we're agreeing on one thing.

I'm sure we agree on a lot of things (except TDKR). I love Batman Begins and The Dark Knight for starters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Loeb was never a character with little importance as the Commissioner angle was important for Gordon's character.

When I first saw him in Begins, my thinking (and I'm going to assume others as well) was, "someday, Gordon will be Commissioner". That was pretty much it.


Oh, speaking of investigations. Even before Batman killed good old Harvey Dent, before Dent even existed, Loeb had issued a hunt against the Batman. That was before people knew he was a man and thought he was anything from a ghost to elvis though.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
So just because we don't solely see Fredericks, you're calling that a mistake that Fredericks shouldn't be in TDKR?

Never said it was a mistake, I posted it was a insignificant, especially when there are other characters out there that are more important that don't get any such appearance or even a reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
AGAIN with bringing up Joker. Enough of mentioning a character that Nolan just didn't want to use again after Heath's passing.


Alright and I've stated that I understand that.

Still doesn't mean that it doesn't put a hole in the "Trilogy" and make TDK and TDKR worlds apart. Recasting after what happened to Ledger is one thing, I totally get that, but not mentioning the character that was a living breathing entity in not only TDK, but Batman Begins as well.

Alrighty then. I don't think a mention would have disrespected Heath Ledger, but, maybe that's just me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
For someone that wanted to make it seem like the inmates were important for the Narrows incident, I would think you'd call Zsaz important as well, lol. But I guess somethings are only important in one way but not the other, huh?


Well, at this point, if you've been reading what I've been posting (thank you for keeping up with me, I've never experienced something like this before), you'll know that Zsaz was out of his mind, BEFORE the fear toxin.

I'm sure he'll be a reliable witness in the oh so important investigation of the Narrows incident. Or maybe I'm just shrugging it off to make it not seem as important as, THE BATMAN BEING BLAMED FOR DENT'S CRIMES.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Do anything FIT in the world of crime and internal affairs when Batman can easily bring a foreign back to the states without any follow-up and you're STILL calling the whole Dent thing such an inconsistency?
Well at least TDK had self contained logic and didn't break it's own rules?

TDKR is all over the place with what can and can't happen, not just with crime and law. Bruce can get a magical knee brace (but never used it for 8 years), he can just somehow get into Gotham despite no one being able to get in or out, etc. etc.


Atleast TDK distracts you with it's mumbo jumbo with it's smart writing and you aren't taken out of the film the second it happens and think, "woah, wait a second, what the heck? LOL"




Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
You're quoting people who think he actually quit because of Rachel?

Yeah, I see it brought up all the time.

I certainly don't think that. He quit because "Gotham no longer needed Batman, cuz we gots special Harvey Dent days and acts".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And you're fine with that "idea", huh? Lovely. I certainly am not.

But we know he has plan after plan, after plan and controls most of the city, from cops to the mob.

He was able to nab Rachel and Dent. How did he do it, two polar opposites. The mob and the cops.

I think he could sneak in explosives here and there, couldn't he?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
So...you wanted it to happen in Batman Begins? Where, exactly? You wanted a scene before Alfred met up with Bruce where he went off to Italy?

LOL


You think that's good writing? It's practically a rip off of Good will hunting (which is not only done in just one film, but is actually a very good scene with an excellent pay off). You just buy that Alfred goes on this long rant about this weird dream he had, despite how we see him in Begins and TDK (where he's actually supporting Batman).


Well, okay. Personally, I found it insulting to just plug that into the events of TDKR. I'd by lying if I said I didn't think it was a "tad" convoluted.


But hey, different strokes for different folks I guess.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
I feel the same way with Ramirez and Joker but you continue to bring those two up...
Q: Why isn't Flass in or mentioned in Dark Knight, was he as crucial as Ramirez and the Joker to that film's ending.

A: He wasn't mentioned because he wasn't important. Stephens replaced him.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
You only think you disagree with me? So I can still lean you into thinking you agree with me then? Lol.


No, because, unlike you, I'm not creating made up "reasons" for why she isn't mentioned or appears in TDKR.


My gripe, and my gripe with her alone is that she isn't mentioned at all. What's this based off of? Her importance. Pardon me, but I'd have to say you're pretty crazy (in a good, funny way) if you don't think she was crucial involving the whole Dent stuff.


What does TDKR use as a jumping board? The Dent stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
And for Reese, yes, it was a bad choice for the writers indeed. Not so much with Ramirez.
Your opinion, your entitled to it. I know how you feel, and you know how I feel. Can't say I agree with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Ahh, I was actually liking you, but now you're coming off as someone who continues to view the writers just lost their minds now, lol. They knew exactly what to do with TDKR and Nolan knew exactly what he wanted to do after the ending of TDK. Only a few, though, question the choices.

I don't think so. You got the Dark Knight Trilogy Screenplay book? Go check it out.

There's a reason TDKR took a little longer than usual for a bat film. There's a reason Nolan said after TDK he "wasn't sure if he wanted to make another Batman film", there's a reason his brother and Goyer had to practically to convince him to use Catwoman and Bane in a potential story (they said this, not me).


It's because they were working up a story as they went along. I'm just glad they didn't pull the old George Lucas card and say "we knew from the beginning what we wanted to do, we had it all planned". With TDKR, we see, that they actually didn't. Maybe they had in it in the back of their heads how Bruce Wayne would end up, I buy that, but the transition between TDK to TDKR, nah, I don't think they knew how to get there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
You promise to never mention Ramirez again? You got it!

Only if you don't. I promise bud.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
Lol, disagree.

Of course. I expected nothing else!



milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 05:46 AM   #221
Snow Queen
Side-Kick
 
Snow Queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,501
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
There's a reason TDKR took a little longer than usual for a bat film. There's a reason Nolan said after TDK he "wasn't sure if he wanted to make another Batman film", there's a reason his brother and Goyer had to practically to convince him to use Catwoman and Bane in a potential story (they said this, not me).
And then there's the fact that roughly half the time between TDK and TDKR was spent on Inception. When you look at production times, it didn't take a little longer than usual. The only thing that made it longer than usual was that Nolan got to do his passion project first.

Snow Queen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 05:54 AM   #222
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
While I disgree with your points in general. I must ask about this one. It just loses me. If Joker wasn't mentioned in The Court of Owls, does that mean he's been retconned out of existence? No, it just means they decided not to mention him.


Is the Court of Owls a film sequel to a film "Trilogy" that everyone claims is self contained?


I promised Anno not to mention the Joker again, seems to irritate when I post it (we know why he wasn't mentioned, Nolan).


When you're making a film that is "full circle", well, it's really not when a big piece of the pie is missing and you got almost everything else cooking BUT that piece. Know what I mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
Now, whether or not you like Blake's explanation for how he knows who Batman is (the weakest part of the movie for me), is it really hard to think that Bruce went to an orphanage? You didn't see it in the previous films because, simply speaking narratively and ignoring whether or not they thought of it earlier, it wasn't necessary. At no point did Bruce need to visit an orphanage that would add to the plot so why have it? If it had been written, it probably would have been deleted during one of the drafts of the script for being unnecessary. He didn't really need to do it and it would simply make the film longer and not add anything.

I don't like the explanation, in fact, lots of people don't (I'm not going to go the hyperbole route and say "most" but I'd say it's a good bit from what I've seen).


True, even though these are just films and not real life, I guess you could just go with "well, to fit this new story here, here's what REALLY happened", but I don't give WRITTEN stories the benefit of the doubt.


Why should other movies, prior to TDKR, such as Spider-Man 3, be criticized by those SAME exact problems, but TDKR gets a free pass? Seems hypocritical to me.

The Dark Knight never had to "tweak" Batman Begins' story and insert things into it, it just logically built off of it. Why does TDKR do this? Seems a little strange to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
Because we didn't follow everything Alfred did while Bruce was gone, does that mean it didn't happen? Just because we didn't see him sleep doesn't mean he didn't.

Pretty big thing to just insert into the story at that point, especially 8 years later (if we're looking at this as one consecutive films and not, great big real life event), don't you think.


Maybe you don't mind it, but I do, others too. We're just not going to convince each other I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
And he never declared Bruce dead, that was done by Mr. Earle so he could take the company public.

Yeah of course, but Alfred's reaction (which is pretty important in Batman Begins) doesn't make him seem like the sad pup he is in TDKR. An old man who is looking for Bruce for years and years. He quips, he jokes, Bruce obviously was able to get a hold of him for a frigging private jet to come pick him up.


I'd say Alfred was fine.


Oh, and if this is "real life" in the "movies" where, just because a character isn't shown eating or sleeping, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why would Alfred, Bruce's surrogate father, wait 8, no it'd be 9, 9 long years to finally tell Bruce such an important story. Why not tell him as soon as he starts seeing Bruce doing something as "reckless" as putting on a cape and a cowl to beat the snot out of people.

I mean Alfred says it himself in TDKR, "there's nothing for you here, just pain and death". Nice one Alfred, good looking out. I mean, one year is one thing. But he waited until Bruce finally got lively again to tell him that crap? You kidding? How about when he was wallowing in his own self pity for all those years when he wasn't being, not only Batman, but Bruce Wayne as well.


I do love Bruce's face when Alfred first mentions the "dream", Bruce's reaction was mine. "Huh, what the hell is this". It's just so left field and odd. For me, that's a sign of bad writing. When I actually think and can't accept such a contrived bit of detail.


You should be writing forward, not backward in my honest opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight View Post
Watching Begins, the speech about his wife that Ra's gives about his wife obviously sends him to a place he doesn't want to be. Now with TDKR, we understand that he feels this because he is likely thinking about how his wife took his place in the Pit and died there for him. Why not mention Bane? Because, I assume at this point he was excommunicated. Why not mention Talia? It's like if someone asks you about your dead relatives when the wound is still painful. Maybe you can say a bit about one but it sends you to a sad place that you'd rather not be in so you avoid talking about the other one.


Alright. Sure. Honestly, can't argue that.



Or it could be, when the writers were making Batman Begins, Ducard's story was simply a device (as far as story telling goes) to connect Ra's and Bruce Wayne's story. Do we need to know the details, nope. With TDKR it's almost like a contradiction as it has elements that both function as sequel and a prequel.


Isn't that one of the biggest gripes and criticisms about the Star Wars prequels? The way things are explained in convoluted ways in order to connect everything instead of making them occur naturally? Darth Vader was a slave boy? Stormtroopers were clones? Liam Neeson was Obi-Wan's instructor (see what I did here).





I'm sure I'm in the minority, but they should have left Ra's and the League of Shadows with Batman Begins. I remember the early days before Bane and Catwoman were cast, "Ra's and the gang (LoS)" was considered almost like this cliched fan story that was treated as taboo, like, "they'd never go there". But as it got closer and closer to July 20th, everyone realized that yup, that's exactly where they went, the way everyone expected it. The cliched way. I still remember the, "no, hope that's not Talia, can't be" even though it was. It's funny how things turn out. Bane couldn't just be that mercenary with his own code, ethics, etc. they had to twist him and make him part of Begins and the League Of Shadows (and even be poorly summarized with an origin by Alfred and others, half of which doesn't even end up being true for the sake of a twist).

But that's my problem with it, not every ones (that's why we're discussing what we're discussing, we don't agree). Some people might like that stuff. As a writer, I don't though. I think it's the easiest trap to fall in, a trap that so many third films take (by going back to what made it so great), TDKR is certainly no exception.

milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 06:17 AM   #223
regwec
Shakespearo
 
regwec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Herne's Oak
Posts: 23,400
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ipodman View Post
Why is Anne winning?
Because TDKR happened quite recently, so some people feel a sense of ownership to it.

She will be long forgotten by the time we get a new Catwoman in a new movie.

__________________
Better Off ----> Out
Love Freedom?
regwec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 06:22 AM   #224
Snow Queen
Side-Kick
 
Snow Queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,501
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by regwec View Post
Because TDKR happened quite recently, so some people feel a sense of ownership to it.

She will be long forgotten by the time we get a new Catwoman in a new movie.
Or, you know, more people on here just like her more and/or never liked Pfeiffer's.

Also, milost, I'll probably reply after a bit of sleep as I just realized it's almost 3:30 in the morning and replying to your points takes a while.

Snow Queen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 06:25 AM   #225
regwec
Shakespearo
 
regwec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Herne's Oak
Posts: 23,400
Default Re: Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

They might think they do, for the moment. They'll grow out of it.

__________________
Better Off ----> Out
Love Freedom?
regwec is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.