Where does most of TDK's critisism come from?

[GothamAlleys]

Rusty, I disagree with plenty of your points (Ccheck when the car pulls over, not when Joker comes in, and Joker had just few goons in the beginning of the movie etc etc), but theres no point in dwelling it. I didnt even name half of the problems with the movie, but theres no need to. The point is, the movie has plenty of factual errors, plotholes , questionable moves and inconsistencies, some of them listed in the thread. No biggie, all of the movies has, and few of them were mentioned from older movies in the previous page. Like I said, they can be refuted with fanon, but theyre still what they are. Still, for most people, including myself, it has no difference on how I enjoy Burton and Nolan's movies at all. Love em and those things never get in the way of my enjoyment. The whole thing started when someone in this thread whose name I dont remember and I dont want to point fingers, said that he doestn like older movies than TDK because they have plotholes. Well, thats a very unfair assesment because its no secret all of themn do, probably the same amount, just some movies mask them well with one element or another. I think BB and BR are more free of them than the others

[Fudgie]

It mainly comes from jealous fanboys who can't handle it's extreme popularity. It raised the bar for comic book movies.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

(Ccheck when the car pulls over, not when Joker comes in, and Joker had just few goons in the beginning of the movie etc etc)

... I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you rephrase? Sorry.

But theres no point in dwelling it.

Well, I quite enjoy analyzing these things and figuring out just how inconsistent they are, or if the inconsistency is even there at all. Sometimes it even helps me appreciate messages of the films I'm investigating - like the element of trust in TDK. That was the point for me, but I understand if you'd rather not blubber back and forth about it, it gets quite extensive.

I had actually typed up a bunch of replies to your other points, even agreeing that some things were simply inconsistent, although I feel like you misunderstood Lucius toward the end, but oh well. I'm going to respect your feelings and not bombard you with it.

I am curious about what you were saying above though.

Still, for most people, including myself, it has no difference on how I enjoy Burton and Nolan's movies at all. Love em and those things never get in the way of my enjoyment.

Nice. That's all that matters really.

The whole thing started when someone in this thread whose name I dont remember and I dont want to point fingers, said that he doestn like older movies than TDK because they have plotholes. Well, thats a very unfair assesment because its no secret all of themn do, probably the same amount, just some movies mask them well with one element or another. I think BB and BR are more free of them than the others

Ohhhh, I see. Well, that puts me on your side.

[returntovoid]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

criticism off the hype = people who want to feel special

Eh, no one feels special by bashing TDK or Nolan.

People are much happier and full of pleasure when they bash Schumacher.

However, Schumacher deserves to be bashed, because Nolan and Burton are obviously 100x better than that hack.

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

criticism on the hype = purists and Burton fans

Huh???

You don't always have to be a purist or Burton fan to bash TDK or Nolan.

I have had it with this whole Nolanite Vs. Burtonite debate.

Half of the fanbase are Nolanites.

Half of the fanbase are Burtonites.

Nolan's Batman films are dark.

Burton's Batman films are dark.

Burton and Nolan are both brilliant visionary directors, just different vision.

Burton was faithful and unfaithful to the comics.

Nolan was faithful and unfaithful to the comics.

Both Nolan and Burton have made two Batman films with quality.

Both Nolan and Burton's Batman films have their share of plot-holes/flaws.

The question is who's better??? Well, it's all up to you to decide your preference but you can't say one is better than the other like it's fact because both are great, it's a matter of your own preference.

"I'm f'ing done with this Nolanite/Burtonite war, professionally" -- my own take on the Christian Bale rant quote

[RustyCage]

^ Unfortunately, there are people who bash either side so they can feel 'special'. Just as with anything else that's popular in the world.

I agree with your Nolan VS Burton feelings.

[JAK®]

Heh, I forgot about this thread. The poll is still hilarious.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Well, I quite enjoy analyzing these things and figuring out just how inconsistent they are, or if the inconsistency is even there at all. Sometimes it even helps me appreciate messages of the films I'm investigating - like the element of trust in TDK. That was the point for me, but I understand if you'd rather not blubber back and forth about it, it gets quite extensive.

Well I just never like to discuss the plothole of the movies I like because Im more inclined to see them/think about them the next time I watch the movie. Im always trying to ignore them and Im usually sucessfull, but when I dwell on it Im just afraid it may ruin my future viewings

And I also fully agree with returntovoid about this competition

[returntovoid]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

It mainly comes from jealous fanboys who can't handle it's extreme popularity.

Nope, not preferring it or liking it has nothing to do with insecurity. It's not like those fans are directors of other comic book films themselves, why should they get insecure when they're just the fanboy viewers???

Originally Posted by Fudgie

It raised the bar for comic book movies.

That's debatable because there are many other comics book films that have already raised the bar before it, it's just that now everyone is aware of the bar being raised for these films because of TDK's popularity.

[JAK®]

It did raise the bar, or at least it should have. But only in the sense that comic book movies should be made to the standards of other, more 'serious' movies. There are a lot of things about it that make it 'lacking' as a comic book movie, but that's another thread.

I love this thread because it really highlights the superiority some Nolan fanboys feel over others.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by returntovoid

That's debatable because there are many other comics book films that have already raised the bar before it

I only really count two comic book movies pre TDK that the majority of fans really held in the kind of raised the bar high esteem and that's X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man 2 in particular, most fans still didn't think it's crown had been stolen when Batman Begins came out.

It's only now with TDK have people stopped referring to it as the best comic book movie ever. It also did manage to top SM-2 critically and financially.

it's just that now everyone is aware of the bar being raised for these films because of TDK's popularity.

Well yeah, how else do you know if the bar has been raised if there's not a big positive response from people?

[GothamAlleys]

Then theres of course Batman 89 which was the first one that depicted prostitutes, visible violence with bloody open wounds (Napier's cheeks, Alicia's face), serious approach to the character whose parents are shown murdered, the hero as a psychopath and on and on. It showed that comic book movies dont have to be low budget spandex movies for kiddies. Heres a good read about that - http://www.emanuellevy.com/search/details.cfm?id=256

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

Then theres of course Batman 89 which was the first one that depicted prostitutes, visible violence with bloody open wounds (Napier's cheeks, Alicia's face), serious approach to the character whose parents are shown murdered, the hero as a psychopath and on and on. It showed that comic book movies dont have to be low budget spandex movies for kiddies. Heres a good read about that - http://www.emanuellevy.com/search/details.cfm?id=256

Exactly, it's a shame that even Batman fans don't recognise this film for what it did for comic book movies. There would be no TDK today, I can tell you that.

[The Joker]

I thought Donner's Superman was the first serious approach to a superhero. After Batman '89 no superhero really got any kind of serious treatment until X-Men in 2000.

[kedrell]

I'd say the Rocketeer was fairly serious(of course he didn't get a franchise). As did Spawn and Blade before the X-dudes showed up.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by kedrell

As did Spawn and Blade before the X-dudes showed up.

Oh yeah, I forgot about them. Probably because they come across more as horror flicks, and were released like 8 years later after Batman '89.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I'd say the Rocketeer was fairly serious(of course he didn't get a franchise). As did Spawn and Blade before the X-dudes showed up.

You also forgot The Crow. And while I'll agree that Spawn was a fairly serious movie, it really was a disappointment, and didn't really raise any bars. But Rocketeer and Blade are good ones.

[kedrell]

I agree, I was just correcting about the' no serious treatment until X-men' comment.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by Joker

I thought Donner's Superman was the first serious approach to a superhero. After Batman '89 no superhero really got any kind of serious treatment until X-Men in 2000.

It is, and it's the reason Batman was able to be made.

[JAK®]

Yeah, Donner's Superman did it first but then Batman '89 took it to another level.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by JAK®

Yeah, Donner's Superman did it first but then Batman '89 took it to another level.

Absolutely.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I'd say the Rocketeer was fairly serious(of course he didn't get a franchise). As did Spawn and Blade before the X-dudes showed up.

And also Punisher with Dolph Lundgren

[returntovoid]

Originally Posted by Joker

I thought Donner's Superman was the first serious approach to a superhero.

Donner's Superman, I think raised more of quality, budget, story/origin and that it's not some joke that adults believe comics to be. After all, Batman is a darker/serious and expressive character than Superman.

So it's not hard to believe that Batman 1989/Batman Returns raised the seriousness/darkness, maturity, expressive artistic visuals and told story from visuals along with dialogue etc.

[returntovoid]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

Then theres of course Batman 89 which was the first one that depicted prostitutes, visible violence with bloody open wounds (Napier's cheeks, Alicia's face), serious approach to the character whose parents are shown murdered, the hero as a psychopath and on and on. It showed that comic book movies dont have to be low budget spandex movies for kiddies. Heres a good read about that - http://www.emanuellevy.com/search/details.cfm?id=256

Thanks for posting that brilliant article, I have never read it before.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by returntovoid

Thanks for posting that brilliant article, I have never read it before.

Written by a New York Times writer, good stuff

[Fudgie]

Superman '78 is the trend setter. Batman '89 was just riding on its coat tails.