not true. he hid on top of that train and used his shadow to scare the driver before picking him up. he did alot of that kind of thing in both burton films.
Ok, I'll give you that one. I must have forgotten it because it is such a brief scene. Lasts about 3 seconds and then ends abruptly. Stealthy stuff is when he literally appears out of nowhere and attacks. Where did he do this a lot in Returns? He literally just walked or drove into situations in it.
He didn't even do any of his disappearing acts in Returns either. Not that I find this stuff essential to be in a Batman movie, but the reason it was brought up is because someone mentioned it was dropped altogether in TDK, when there's several scenes where Batman appears and disappears including the bank vault with Gordon, the roof of Police HQ with Dent and Gordon, the party with Joker, he vanished in mid fight in the Hong Kong sequence and then appears again to attack them.
It's like some people watch these movies with their eyes closed and miss the obvious.
Schumacher's feel more like the 60's Batman and Burton's movies just feel like Burton movies with characters that have Batman character names in them.
I can understand that stance for Returns because it really did re-shape Penguin and Catwoman. But not for Batman '89, even with the liberties it took with the Batman/Joker relationship.
Let's not be kidding, you could hav taken batman out of the dark knight and it would have still worked as a great film. He was the least significant entity in it.
How do you even rationalize such a false statement as being true? If you took Batman out of the equation the movie would have fallen to pieces. He is the glue that ties all the characters.
Many of the characters can even be metaphorically viewed as Bruce's sons: the copycats, the Joker and Harvey. The copycats and the Joker are Batman's undesired sons, his rejected creations; Harvey is the good son gone bad.
The copycats are flawed yet admire and mimic Batman, trying to win his approval. The Joker is overtly established as a reaction to Batman's presence in Gotham and Bruce loathes the very idea of being the responsible of spawning such creature, thus a father-son relationship. He does not want to acknowledge that he and the Joker are the same, as the Joker says, and wants to repress him. The Joker behaves like the reckless rebel son that wants to prove something to his father and the movie pits him against some authority/father figures to underscore that, like Gordon or det. Stephens (a beating father).
The Joker, the bad son, rebels against his father, but still "loves" him in the end. "You and I are destined to do this forever." Never will the father and the son agree, nor will they ever forge some sort of bond. Although not as overt as Burton's characterization, elements of Batman "making" the Joker are subtly hinted at. "You complete me..." Like I said, Batman doesn't want to acknowledge the fact that he spawned such a creature. Interestingly, the only scene in which he finally cracks and reveals his disgust is after Rachel is killed. He spits the lines of hate at Alfred, verbally voicing his distaste for the Joker for the first time in an isolated, personal setting.
Harvey, on the other hand, is the 'good son', the one that Bruce sees as an improved version of himself, a fighter for justice that doesn't need to hide. Bruce wants to pass his legacy to Harvey, the inheritance of a better Gotham, so Harvey can continue and finish his work, while Bruce retires... which is, again, something a father does. At several points Batman scolds Dent, publicly congratulates him in admiration or saves him from trouble, like a father to a son. They also love the same woman, in an overt Oedipal fashion.
With Harvey, we get just as compelling of a story, rooted in tragedy. What I find interesting is that, as we've established, Harvey is Batman's loyal son; the only one he loves. In this regard, I look at the film as a story of a father coping with the fall of his only hope, his good son, the one who was supposed to carry on the family legacy. To be honest, one of the scenes that caught me off-guard the most in TDK was the conversation between Bruce, Rachel, Harvey and the dancer at the dinner table. It was moving along more or less in the direction I expected, and then this really stirring shot of Bruce hits the screen. Lasting for a few seconds, we watch as his eyes glisten while he listens to Harvey. I can't quite explain why, but this moment hit me on my first viewing. It's such a simple shot, but Bale completely sells the look. Some great, albeit quick, non-verbal work from him there. The look is one of admiration, hope, and pride. It is, in many ways, the look of a proud father. Bruce genuinely likes and respects Harvey, and although he sees him as an out, he knows that Gotham will be in good hands; he completely trusts Harvey, which is especially powerful, considering that Batman doesn't trust a whole lot of people.
Unfortunately, this sets him up for his biggest challenge and problem yet. As the bad son twists and turns the good son over, Bruce has to cope with losing Harvey, and watching his hopes and dreams die in the form of a shattered and broken man. Under this light, it is interesting to revisit the final scene between Batman, Gordon and Harvey. After Harvey asks why he was the only one who lost everything, Batman takes a considerable pause, and says, "It wasn't." The obvious and natural implication of this is that Batman is referring to Rachel. As I said though, let's try to look at it under the lens of the father/son dynamic. As Batman pauses, he stares for a short amount of time at his all but dead son. He looks his most prided creation right in the eye, and fully realizes what he has become. The Harvey Dent that Bruce stared at with such transfixion across the dinner table is dead, and with an equally as intense stare, he honestly tells this Harvey, "It wasn't." He lost Rachel, he lost hope, and above all, he lost his son. Perhaps that was the biggest blow of all.
To me, this adds some new meaning to the line, and once again, Bale's eye acting completely sells the emotion. Harvey is too demented to even realize what Batman is saying, which is particularly sad, as the father emotionally looks on at his son, eyes filled with pain. And so, Bruce purges himself (inadvertently or not is another issue for another time) of having to deal with his fallen son. With Harvey's death, Bruce has the chance to conceal the man's downfall. Just as with the Joker, Batman does not want to be acknowledge nor accept the responsibility of spawning such offspring, and so he lets Harvey live on through the legacy he initially envisioned for him. The father takes the fall for his son, and is hunted as an outlaw.
The Joker ultimately corrupts Harvey and kills the good part in him... much like a bad brother spoils a good one. That hospital conversation between them had a simple, iconic quality that doesn't strike me as Abel-Cain as much as Eva and the Serpent, yet comparisons can be drawn with the two brothers.
In the end, Bruce has to pay for what went wrong with his sons, his 'failed creations'. He kills Harvey and abandons the support of the public, perhaps hoping that he won't spawn any more misguided 'sons'. Metaphorically, he tries to sterilize himself. We know it won't work.
So to call Batman the least significant element in it is a total falsity. He is the
most significant element in it.
EDIT: Got a lot of that from the Batman character thread.
is it a batman film though, nay.
I despair for some of the Batman fan base sometimes. I really do.
t:
