Aye, i edited another bit into that post after this stuff, agreeing that we missed the 'martial artist' aspect of Batman in the film, ok, it was there, just not very well done due to the nature of the suit.
But, apart from that, we did see the character doing iconic things like the Flass interrogation, the Scarecrow interrogation, and the Arkham action worked very well i thought, with the crooks all still thinking he could be supernatural.
Given the fact that they have always had this problem with Batman martial arts, due to the rubber suit and cape being there, Nolan did quite well with the short sharp brutal hits he gave the crooks.
and as i edited in, yeah, Iron-Man did deliver on that front.
Compared to the previous movies, I don't see how Nolan did so well respect to Batman fights since we can't see them (I mean, at least in BB).
But aye, when i came away from my first viewing of Bb i was quite disapointed they did not get that aspect of the character onscreen, the onscreen martial arts, they still haven't, although the scene in Maroni's club in TDK was pretty good for it.
I agree. TDK was a vast improvement.
Yeah, as i was saying, they pushed it a bit, but, for instance, I did like the fact they explained why he wore a cape, and truned it into sci-fi gliding material, with that whole scene with Gordon showing his need for it, I thought that was better than the comics in that regard. It's better he can swoop away v fast sometimes, as opposd to taking the time to find suitable hanging points for his grappling hooks.
Or we can have explained every one of the different grappling hooks depending on very specific Batman's necvessities.
Well, when they explained for like an hour that he feared bats and thefeore wanted to become one, then the cape is pretty much explained. Not that the movie's explanation is useless (far from it) but having so many scenes with Bruce coming to Fox's office to ask for something else was quite repetitive.
Yeah, as i was saying, they pushed it a bit, but, for instance, I did like the fact they explained why he wore a cape, and truned it into sci-fi gliding material, with that whole scene with Gordon showing his need for it, I thought that was better than the comics in that regard. It's better he can swoop away v fast sometimes, as opposd to taking the time to find suitable hanging points for his grappling hooks.
Or maybe we could have explained every one of the different grappling hooks as well.
Well, when you have explained for like an hour that Bruce fears bats and that's why he wanted to become one, then the cape is very mucn explained. Not that the movie's explanation was bad but watching Bruce coming back to Fox's office to ask for a new thing so many times gets old and repetitive really soon.
*************************************
uh thats the understatement of the century.Thank god for Nolan.Although I am a little miffed at him as well right now because I have heard Harvey Dent wont be in the next film.That pisses me off,you cant kill off an important charater like Two face.
You "have heard"?
Did you actually see the movie?
Harvey Dent/Two-Face is dead, Batman himself pushed him to his demise.
Thats something those two idiots Burton and Schumacher do.Thats a Burton/Schumacher thing.Nolan is suppose to be above all that.
Well, as you see he is not.
The three of them have killed important villains off. Burton killed Joker and Penguin and let catwoman live. Schumacher killed Two-Face and let Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane live. Nolan killed Ra's al Ghul and Two-Face and let Joker live. Ah well, and Scarecrow too, but he ruined him as a character.
****************************
And perhaps Nolan sees how limited Two-Face is. He's not a huge player, important Batman character, but if this next film is to be Nolan and Bale's last, then who cares. Plus they do leave it partially open, sure they say Harvey Dent is dead, but it is possible that Two-Face is in a coma or in Arkum, so there's still hope.
No, people in coma or in Arkham do not have eulogies and funerals. People who get those are dead, just as Dent/2-Face is.
It's not partially open, it's pretty much close.
I think a lot of people really miss [not you] how great BB really is, as I read more and more posts here of people saying there was too much detail, not enough emphasis on his martial arts training and other comments that are all valid, from a perspective these are things that the viewers want.
But do nothing to help progress the story telling of the movie. All of Nolan's set pieces are done extremely well, there are very few if any that don't add to the film. Even if you think too much time, or detail is spent on a particular or set of scenes, they are helping develop the character of Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. Learning what works and what doesn't, detailing how he becomes Batman.
Problem is there's way too much time spent on those details and then we can't see Batman in action because apparently Nolan thought that choppy messy editing was cool for Batman. But it is not.
It's cool how he becomes Batman, but it's cooler when he IS Batman.
While Ironman does a very good job at this as well, there are definitely some [not a lot] of set scenes that don't really add to the story in anyway other than some comic relief.
True, bue then again BB has some share of bad comic relief and some scenes that add nothing.
When you've spent the whole movie explaining where does Bruce get the cape, the cowls and what not from, you don't need to give details such as the cowl being easily broken (but that, at least, they have spares). Specially when Batman's cowl is never in danger of being broken during the movie. Same with spending one hour explaining Bruce's fear of bats and then having Alfred asking "why bats sir?" I mean, at that point we all have seen and understood why.
In that sense, Iron Man's pace was much better, and the action was too.
