TDK vs SM2

[Green Goblin]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

That's an awesome action scene, but then gets undermined with some mushy melodrama at the end of it.

They didn't do Peter right IMO. For most of it he felt like he was still a push over dork. Even the Era that Rami based his films had a confident Peter by the time he got into college.

[Xak-Ell]

both are highly overrated, but when it all boils down...both made an awesome superhero movie but TDK did it without doing an injustice to the main protagonist's character. and i feel as if the peter parker in spider-man 2/3 is not the peter parker from the comics.

[CyclopsWasRight]

Originally Posted by Xak-Ell

both are highly overrated, but when it all boils down...both made an awesome superhero movie but TDK did it without doing an injustice to the main protagonist's character. and i feel as if the peter parker in spider-man 2/3 is not the peter parker from the comics.

Didn't Batman want to quit to be with Rachel and hand over the defending of the City to Dent? Then quit at the end anyway.

I don't read Batman comics but from my understanding the one thing Batman never does is quit

[The Joker]

Batman quit for ten years in The Dark Knight Returns. He quit and let Azrael keep the Batman mantle after Knightfall until Azrael turned crazy and Bruce had to take it back.

[Duran Man]

The Dark Knight.

[OcStat]

It is kind of annoying how almost every sequel deals with the hero debating quitting or not.

But like RustyCage mentioned on the last page, the scene with at the end where Doc Rock gets his gift/privilege speech backwards is a huge mistake. Didn't notice it when I was younger but it's so obvious every time I watch it now, and I can't help but shake my head at it.

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Batman quit for ten years in The Dark Knight Returns. He quit and let Azrael keep the Batman mantle after Knightfall until Azrael turned crazy and Bruce had to take it back.

I'm reading that story now, and Azrael was crazy since day one as the official Bat-replacement

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Spider-Aziz

I'm reading that story now, and Azrael was crazy since day one as the official Bat-replacement

Yeah but they didn't become aware of that until after he beat Bane and went drunk on the power of it in that crazy ass new costume he made himself.

[Kahran Ramsus]

TDKR wasn't even the first adaptation that had him quit. That was the whole basis of Batman Beyond.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

TDKR wasn't even the first adaptation that had him quit. That was the whole basis of Batman Beyond.

When he quit in Beyond, he had a full career behind him and was clearly compromised by his age making him desperate enough to rely on a gun. He fought as long and hard as he possibly could.

I think that's the big difference, and I think it's most people's gripe. Nolan/Bale's Batman hardly did anything comparatively in his career before hanging it up seemingly for good - twice. He never evolved into the mature Batman we knew and loved as we had been excitedly waiting for (in fact, he de-matured for the sake of adding drama to the plot), and even though it says 8 years pass, it still feels like he's just getting started.

Not to mention, nothing Batmanny happens in that 8 years. Then he trains a whole lot, gets kinda lucky to smash Bane's mask tube, Catwoman shoots Bane, and Batman quits again, very probably for good. A little underwhelming. No ride into the sunset to continue the endless crusade, no satisfying philosophical triumph over Bane.. it was just 'WHEREZATRIGGEHUR, oh Catwoman killed you suddenly, woops... time to fake my death, I've had enough', which is all pretty un-Batman-like.

It was a huge waste of potential for a budding franchise that had a whole world of stories and characters to explore and re-interpret beautifully, and his choice both times seems barely substantiated.

This is what differentiates it from Batman Beyond. That Batman had a proper career behind him, and he behaved like Batman.

Not to mention, he didn't just dump the cave on Terry and run away as Bale's Bruce did Blake. He raised Terry hands on, guided him. He realized the importance of his involvement not only as a continuing contributor to Gotham as Bruce Wayne, but as a mentor to his successor in this never-ending mission. 'The war goes on.'

One more note - The Dark Knight Returns depicted the concept before either of the two. You can see influences from it in both! I do love that about Rises.

[Loki882]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

When he quit in Beyond, he had a full career behind him and was clearly compromised by his age making him desperate enough to rely on a gun. He fought as long and hard as he possibly could.

I think that's the big difference, and I think it's most people's gripe. Nolan/Bale's Batman hardly did anything comparatively in his career before hanging it up seemingly for good - twice. He never evolved into the mature Batman we knew and loved as we had been excitedly waiting for (in fact, he de-matured for the sake of adding drama to the plot), and even though it says 8 years pass, it still feels like he's just getting started.

Not to mention, nothing Batmanny happens in that 8 years. Then he trains a whole lot, gets kinda lucky to smash Bane's mask tube, Catwoman shoots Bane, and Batman quits again, very probably for good. A little underwhelming. No ride into the sunset to continue the endless crusade, no satisfying philosophical triumph over Bane.. it was just 'WHEREZATRIGGEHUR, oh Catwoman killed you suddenly, woops... time to fake my death, I've had enough', which is all pretty un-Batman-like.

It was a huge waste of potential for a budding franchise that had a whole world of stories and characters to explore and re-interpret beautifully, and his choice both times seems barely substantiated.

This is what differentiates it from Batman Beyond. That Batman had a proper career behind him, and he behaved like Batman.

Not to mention, he didn't just dump the cave on Terry and run away as Bale's Bruce did Blake. He raised Terry hands on, guided him. He realized the importance of his involvement not only as a continuing contributor to Gotham as Bruce Wayne, but as a mentor to his successor in this never-ending mission. 'The war goes on.'

One more note - The Dark Knight Returns depicted the concept before either of the two. You can see influences from it in both! I do love that about Rises.

Bruce quit after TDK because they was NO NEED for Batman anymore. The Joker was locked up, Dent was dead, and the Dent Act decimated organized crime. Gotham was peaceful, why would it need Batman? Also, Bruce was older and broken down physically at the beginning of TDKR (he could barely stand without using a cane).

[Squaremaster316]

Originally Posted by Loki882

Bruce quit after TDK because they was NO NEED for Batman anymore. The Joker was locked up, Dent was dead, and the Dent Act decimated organized crime. Gotham was peaceful, why would it need Batman? Also, Bruce was older and broken down physically at the beginning of TDKR (he could barely stand without using a cane).

There was also that pesky little detail of, ya know, being wanted for multiple murders, including the district attorney.

[GENERAL RAAM582]

Undoubtedly, The Dark Knight. SM2 is a damn good movie, the top tier of CBMs but TDK is an entirely different animal.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Loki882

Bruce quit after TDK because they was NO NEED for Batman anymore. The Joker was locked up, Dent was dead, and the Dent Act decimated organized crime. Gotham was peaceful, why would it need Batman? Also, Bruce was older and broken down physically at the beginning of TDKR (he could barely stand without using a cane).

There are more kinds of crime than just 'organized'. Batman isn't 'too good' to take on the smaller scale stuff. 'Urban Prowler' Batman (I may have just coined that) is a thing, and for a good reason. Getting his hands dirty with that stuff has really helped flesh him out in the comics. I recommend some of the shorts in Black & White for some perspective on that - or hell, I'm sure you've watched The Animated Series.

Unfortunately, Nolan didn't bother with Urban Prowler Batman in his trilogy. There was maybe one tiny suggestion at the beginning of The Dark Knight that he goes after gangs and drug dealers (also included in the lower scale criminals would be rapists, murderers, etc), and even that is debatable. The Bat Signal spooks a couple dudes making some kind of shady deal and they decide not to go through with it.

Are they just scared of Batman in general? Or does he go out and directly bust guys like that? Guess we'll never know. But there is always a need for Batman. In the source material, that is made crystal clear.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by droidwarrior

Didn't Batman want to quit to be with Rachel and hand over the defending of the City to Dent? Then quit at the end anyway.

I don't read Batman comics but from my understanding the one thing Batman never does is quit

Stories have to be taken in context. Batman wanting to quit in TDK was all part of his character arc. Rachel's death and Harvey's corruption is what pushed him to the realization that he can't quit; that there is a need for Batman to exist and that Batman can have no replacement. It is who he is.

In TDKR, he quits, moves on, and that's all there is to it. The difference between TDK and TDKR is each film's opinion on the idea of Batman quitting. That's why I said that you have to take each story in context. Before critiquing a story for dealing with the idea of Batman quitting, one should ask themselves what the message behind that idea is. Does the film support the idea or does it not? Both TDK and Mask of the Phantasm did not support that idea and led Bruce to the realization that he can't quit, thus staying true to what Batman is all about. Rises did no such thing and that's where the difference lies.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

TDKR wasn't even the first adaptation that had him quit. That was the whole basis of Batman Beyond.

Ah, Batman Beyond. The show, in my opinion, is the only Batman story to have achieved the impossible since Batman's first inception in 1939. It managed to turn Batman into a mantle that can be passed down to someone from a younger generation while still staying 100% true to the idea that only Bruce is the true Batman.

Again, people are taking the idea of Bruce quitting out of context. There is a world of difference between Bruce hanging up the cape & cowl in The Dark Knight Returns/Batman Beyond and him doing it in The Dark Knight Rises.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Stories have to be taken in context. Batman wanting to quit in TDK was all part of his character arc. Rachel's death and Harvey's corruption is what pushed him to the realization that he can't quit; that there is a need for Batman to exist and that Batman can have no replacement. It is who he is.

In TDKR, he quits, moves on, and that's all there is to it. The difference between TDK and TDKR is each film's opinion on the idea of Batman quitting. That's why I said that you have to take each story in context. Before critiquing a story for dealing with the idea of Batman quitting, one should ask themselves what the message behind that idea is. Does the film support the idea or does it not? Both TDK and Mask of the Phantasm did not support that idea and led Bruce to the realization that he can't quit, thus staying true to what Batman is all about. Rises did no such thing and that's where the difference lies.

I might be misinterpreting you here..

Are you saying The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises should be considered independent stories from each other? The lessons and message of The Dark Knight shouldn't be considered in context with Rises?

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Ah, Batman Beyond. The show, in my opinion, is the only Batman story to have achieved the impossible since Batman's first inception in 1939. It managed to turn Batman into a mantle that can be passed down to someone from a younger generation while still staying 100% true to the idea that only Bruce is the true Batman.

It really was impossible. And it really did work. I'm still so baffled and pleased at the same time.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I might be misinterpreting you here..

Are you saying The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises should be considered independent stories from each other? The lessons and message of The Dark Knight shouldn't be considered in context with Rises?

They should be considered in context. Which is why, in my opinion, Rises doesn't fit in with BB & TDK in context. A lot of themes and ideas carrying over from the previous films were either ignored or contradicted IMO.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

They should be considered in context. Which is why, in my opinion, Rises doesn't fit in with BB & TDK in context. A lot of themes and ideas carrying over from the previous films were either ignored or contradicted IMO.

I have to agree with that. A repeat viewing is in my near future, so I'll have this in mind for it!

[Squaremaster316]

Bruce wanted someone to pass the torch to and have someone to share a new life with, that carries over from the second film.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

There are more kinds of crime than just 'organized'. Batman isn't 'too good' to take on the smaller scale stuff. 'Urban Prowler' Batman (I may have just coined that) is a thing, and for a good reason. Getting his hands dirty with that stuff has really helped flesh him out in the comics. I recommend some of the shorts in Black & White for some perspective on that - or hell, I'm sure you've watched The Animated Series.

Unfortunately, Nolan didn't bother with Urban Prowler Batman in his trilogy. There was maybe one tiny suggestion at the beginning of The Dark Knight that he goes after gangs and drug dealers (also included in the lower scale criminals would be rapists, murderers, etc), and even that is debatable. The Bat Signal spooks a couple dudes making some kind of shady deal and they decide not to go through with it.

Are they just scared of Batman in general? Or does he go out and directly bust guys like that? Guess we'll never know. But there is always a need for Batman. In the source material, that is made crystal clear.

I think it is more in how you want to interpret Batman in a world with real-ish consequences (not so much realistic as more grounded than most comic books).

Much of crime is a symptom of larger ills facing society. Not all, but there is no denying that poverty, corruption and lack of resource breeds stronger criminal elements in any society.

Nolan wished to provide some grounded consequences to his Batman while still making him incredibly altruistic and heroic. In doing so, he made his goal about improving society. And in doing so, it cannot just be a rich man punching poor people in the face on an "average night out."

You CAN do that in Nolan's setting. Indeed, I think that is more or less Frank Miller's approach to the character. However, it is very cynical, mean-spirited and nihilistic. In essence, it says Bruce Wayne does this not to change or improve society for a fearful urban population, but that it is wholly an outlet to feed his disturbed psychology: It's his form of therapy. Miller and even Burton touched on this more cynical and selfish view of the character, but both painted Batman in near apocalyptic settings where such an unstable protagonist's true motivations did not diminish the fact that he was facing cartoonish evil and villainy.

Once you apply real consequences to it, Batman looks somewhat like a sadistic narcissist who instead of using his fortune to help improve the lives of Gothamites, instead uses it to feed his id. Granted, some would be happy with this interpretation, but Nolan sought to both ground it while maintaining the more romantic light of, say, Paul Dini or Denny O'Neal. So, for his Bruce, the bigger picture is always in mind (something rarely addressed by anyone not named Grant Morrison at DC Comics), and his goal is to improve Gotham City to the point where society can function admirably without the need for vigilante justice. And even so, the psychology and narcissism of it is still addressed in TDKR (another reason some fans hate that movie).

Another way to put it is if Gotham City is Nolan's view of Manhattan, judging by the setting in TDKR, if you go there today, you wouldn't think it needs a Batman (though if you go up to the Bronx...). If Batman can get the city to take responsibility for its problems and actually invest in improving itself, not just in law and order but also in civic duties to the inner-city (Bruce is clearly a philanthropist in TDKR like his father whose death "galvanized" the city to address rampant poverty) with an eradicated organized crime element, suddenly Batman becomes just an outlet for Bruce's own psychological trauma.

Which is then addressed in the third movie in a way that may not please some fans, but is one of the more adult readings of the character in any medium.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

I think it is more in how you want to interpret Batman in a world with real-ish consequences (not so much realistic as more grounded than most comic books).

Much of crime is a symptom of larger ills facing society. Not all, but there is no denying that poverty, corruption and lack of resource breeds stronger criminal elements in any society.

Nolan wished to provide some grounded consequences to his Batman while still making him incredibly altruistic and heroic. In doing so, he made his goal about improving society. And in doing so, it cannot just be a rich man punching poor people in the face on an "average night out."

You CAN do that in Nolan's setting. Indeed, I think that is more or less Frank Miller's approach to the character. However, it is very cynical, mean-spirited and nihilistic. In essence, it says Bruce Wayne does this not to change or improve society for a fearful urban population, but that it is wholly an outlet to feed his disturbed psychology: It's his form of therapy. Miller and even Burton touched on this more cynical and selfish view of the character, but both painted Batman in near apocalyptic settings where such an unstable protagonist's true motivations did not diminish the fact that he was facing cartoonish evil and villainy.

Once you apply real consequences to it, Batman looks somewhat like a sadistic narcissist who instead of using his fortune to help improve the lives of Gothamites, instead uses it to feed his id. Granted, some would be happy with this interpretation, but Nolan sought to both ground it while maintaining the more romantic light of, say, Paul Dini or Denny O'Neal. So, for his Bruce, the bigger picture is always in mind (something rarely addressed by anyone not named Grant Morrison at DC Comics), and his goal is to improve Gotham City to the point where society can function admirably without the need for vigilante justice. And even so, the psychology and narcissism of it is still addressed in TDKR (another reason some fans hate that movie).

Another way to put it is if Gotham City is Nolan's view of Manhattan, judging by the setting in TDKR, if you go there today, you wouldn't think it needs a Batman (though if you go up to the Bronx...). If Batman can get the city to take responsibility for its problems and actually invest in improving itself, not just in law and order but also in civic duties to the inner-city (Bruce is clearly a philanthropist in TDKR like his father whose death "galvanized" the city to address rampant poverty) with an eradicated organized crime element, suddenly Batman becomes just an outlet for Bruce's own psychological trauma.

Which is then addressed in the third movie in a way that may not please some fans, but is one of the more adult readings of the character in any medium.

Your criticisms towards Batman are a bit unfair IMO. Bruce Wayne always does something with his money to help Gotham (I'm talking about Bruce Wayne/Batman in general here, not just the Nolan version). Batman himself is responsible for taking out the trash. While Batman himself most certainly can inspire the people of Gotham in both good ways (i.e. Harvey) and bad (i.e. Joker), the main thing he specializes in is striking fear into the hearts of bad people. I forgot who said this, but I remember a DC writer saying once that "Superman is the force that guides society in the light and Batman is the force that takes out the trash in the dark" or something among those lines.

[Oscorp]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Speaking as a fan of both franchises who went to both films Day 1, this was actually an easy choice for many reasons, but this one most of all: The seat-grippingly intense and layered story for TDK is, hands down, far more compelling than Spidey 2's.

I love both stories in their own ways, but it's like comparing Mickey Mouse to Cowboy Bebop or Full Metal Alchemist. The drama of Spidey 2 feels simple and cartoonish - which is fine in it's own contextual bubble, but compared to The Dark Knight? It's a candle flame trying to outshine a full-on forest fire.

I'm sure I don't even need to go into the emotional pull of Hans Zimmer's score. Spidey 2's score is epic, don't get me wrong. I even teared up a little bit at some of it's peak moments. But Zimmer's work in The Dark Knight made me feel things I didn't even know were feelings. Zimmer made me fear the Joker perhaps more than Heath Ledger himself did. The sweeping, shadowy, loomy theme for Batman enveloped my imagination, and I never get sick of listening to it and getting all broody and motivated (really wish it was expanded upon more in Rises).

Both films have this in common for me: They have exactly one flaw above all the minor nitpicks that I have trouble overlooking.

In TDK, it's Batman's behavior. This revolves mostly around the writing, but also includes the voice quality in a couple of scenes compared to it's quality in Batman Begins.

In Spidey 2, it's Doc Ock's BIGGEST PHILOSOPHICAL POINT he is meant to make in the entire movie. He literally gets it backward when he repeats it at the end of the film as he's about to sacrifice himself, which totally throws off the emotional power of that moment. I am, to this day, utterly mindblown that they never noticed it. It isn't fixed on the DVD release, or, to my knowledge, the Blu-ray release either.

Comparatively, Spidey 2's sore thumb is much more swollen and distracting to me. So, yeah, TDK wins there too.

In terms of villains, I think Alfred Molina and Sam Raimi definitely revolutionized Doc Ock... just, not with nearly the same punch that Goyer/Nolan/Ledger revolutionized the Joker. I don't think that one needs much explanation.

Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face performance on the other hand is powerful and underrated. The character as interpreted in this film is one of the most defining, pivotal moments in Batman's character growth ever. While you could probably argue that he died too soon, the point made in the time he had was still very potent, and the delivery edgy and stellar.

So with two such villains to compete with, the odds are kind of stacked against Molina here, as cool as he was.

In short, it's really a simple matter of gravity, on all fronts. TDK has it in spades over Spidey 2. Again, I love both (even politely excusing Kirsten Dunst and the writing she was following being a terrible way to do Mary Jane and the character of Peter/Spidey being weakly interpreted too), but it's no contest.

Perfectly said, I agree with all of it!

Though, I don't remember the Ock backwards line.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

In TDKR, he quits, moves on, and that's all there is to it. The difference between TDK and TDKR is each film's opinion on the idea of Batman quitting. That's why I said that you have to take each story in context. Before critiquing a story for dealing with the idea of Batman quitting, one should ask themselves what the message behind that idea is. Does the film support the idea or does it not? Both TDK and Mask of the Phantasm did not support that idea and led Bruce to the realization that he can't quit, thus staying true to what Batman is all about. Rises did no such thing and that's where the difference lies.

Where does Batman Begins fit into this? What point of view does it present on the idea of Batman quitting? To me it seems pretty clear, Bruce intends to be Batman for a short while until the city is cleaned up and there's nothing ominous about it. That's the mission statement, that's the goal they've set for the protagonist. It's not portrayed in either a negative or positive light, it's just the way it is.

Of course, TDK flips this all on its head and nothing goes as smoothly as Bruce thinks it will, and he ends up losing a lot. He doesn't get to walk away on his own terms.

To me, the point of view presented throughout all 3 films is that being Batman forever would be insane and not the best way for Bruce to spend the rest of his life. It's more about how he can become a symbol, and how his actions can reverberate throughout history so he becomes more than just a man. Becoming a historical figure who will have made a difference and changed the course of Gotham ultimately for the better. The thing is that TDK is the only full-on tragic tale of the three. BB and TDKR are more about Bruce Wayne overcoming personal demons. And with TDKR that includes finally letting go of it all and no longer allowing tragedy to rule his life.