If I'm infamous for anything at this point, it's for being the guy who didn't like Batman Begins. Which isn't really true, by the way - I liked it enough that I felt the lazy, stupid ending truly killed what was an otherwise good film. That's what annoys me so much about the movie; if Batman Begins had been bad from frame one I wouldn't have given a **** that the third act goes the way that it does. But director Christopher Nolan and company get off to such a strong start that the strike out at the end hurts so much more.
I agree with this. Most of the third act of BATMAN BEGINS is uninspiring and somewhat lazy.
First of all, I don't think Batman tends to be an interesting character.
When you look at the basics of the character, he's really not. The weakness of Devin's argument is that he's only looking at the basics of the character. His argument boils down to something similar as a person saying "Iron Man is just a guy in a high-tech suit".
The fact that he cannot see the "adventure hero" in prior Batman movies and comics tells me he's just not looking that closely.
Batman tends to be one note, an obsessive nut who can't get past his early childhood traumas*.
That's not who the comic book Batman at all. Nor is it who the movie Batman has been, even during the Burton era. Which again, tells me that he's not looking closely enough.
It's interesting to see that most of the creators who have worked on Batman seem to have understood how dull he is - Batman is constantly surrounded by supporting characters because he only becomes interesting when he's being bounced off someone else, or is reflecting aspects of someone else.
Umm...doesn't every character require other characters to interact with to allow interesting character interaction? What a stupid, stupid complaint.
And because the last few decades of Batman's history has been a race to the bottom in regards to depicting him as humorless, grim and super-serious, this element of the character is only getting more magnified. Batman sheds no light, he absorbs it from others. He may be the only iconic superhero whose villains are endlessly more interesting than he is.
Batman's villains being more interesting than him is relative. Most of his villains are fairly gimmicky, albeit colorful. Batman may not shed light, but the CHARACTER behind him (Bruce Wayne) certainly does. The story of Batman is very inspiring, even if it is tragic.
It's that problem which informs the first four modern Batman films. In each one the villains upstage the hero, but it's hard to see how it could be any other way (Nolan solves this problem by making his villains mostly as flat as Batman in Begins).
No, the villains pretty much upstage the hero in the new movies as well. Again, he's clearly just not looking at this closely enough.
Batman's character is established quickly and easily, and then that's it. There's nowhere else to go with him. He's a character who never learns anything, and the only growth he ever shows is to become more and more withdrawn and crazy.
Patently untrue. There's only so much "growth" a character can undergo if they're going to remain like themselves, and I can't think of too many Marvel characters or other superheroes who have experienced as much "change" as Bruce Wayne has over the years.
All of this is compounded by the false math that says dour is more meaningful; it's the high school reaction that says love songs and dance songs are never going to be as good as the really heavy songs about death and wizards. People claim that Batman is more relatable because he's human; in many ways this makes him less relatable to me. If I had super powers, maybe I would go out and do superheroic things. If my parents were murdered I would probably be less likely to dress up as a bat and punch out criminals. It's an insane reaction, frankly.
And here, clearly he doesn't understand what "relatable" means in context. That's more or less inexcusable for a movie critic.
But also, what does Batman say about us? Spider-Man is about being a regular guy and trying to do the best with what you have.
And Batman isn't?
Superman is about the American ideal.
And Batman isn't?
Iron Man is about taking responsibility for what you've done.
And what you can do. And again...Batman isn't?
Batman is about... how horrible life is in modern urban areas? Being an obsessive sadist weirdo?
No. And again, this guy just can't see the forest for the trees. Batman is about how bad things happening to us need not cripple us. How we can grow beyond the worst elements of our lives and turn bad things into good ones.
The thematic element that has people excited about The Dark Knight - that Batman's very presence escalates things in Gotham City - is itself a post-modern take on the character, not what the character is actually about.
That's part of what GOTHAM is about. It is not a theme that deals directly with Batman himself as a character, but rather, the reaction Gotham and others have to his presence.
Maybe the most interesting thematic element to Batman is the idea that no matter how much we improve ourselves physically, it doesn't make a difference if we don't improve ourselves emotionally, but I somehow don't feel that most fans are interested in Batman as a cautionary tale.
No. It's not about "I became strong physically to fight crime". It's about "I became strong, period, and through my drive and ability to learn and put that knowledge to good use, I learned to overcome the bad things in this world". And that's easily as interesting, in the context of the character, as any other superhero's "theme", and far, far more relevant as a broad concept.
Christopher Nolan seems to have bought into the idea that songs about death and wizards are cooler than songs about being in love; all indications point to The Dark Knight being exponentially darker and tougher than the first film.
I guess the question is...why is this an issue? This is a staple of sequels. Almost any trilogy has featured this element in their second film.
Batman can have adventures. He can be an adventure character. His villains don't need to be ruthlessly rooted in reality and psychology - if anything it would probably be more interesting to see the modern, 'realistic' Batman going up against more fantastical elements in his movies. The idea of Batman being the mirror image of his insane foes is so boring already - let's see a Batman movie where he's the model of rationality going up against something profoundly irrational.
How can you look at the Batman movies that have been made thus far and pretend that Batman hasn't had adventures? Batman does go up against profoundly irrational elements in BATMAN BEGINS, and in the previous movies. What movies is this man watching that this is his assessment of them?
R'as al Ghul would have been more interesting with his Lazarus Pit and mystical mumbo jumbo intact from the comics because those elements are so outside of the modern movie Batman's comfort zone.
That's possible, but given that it's an origin story, I'd say that using a fear gas to destroy Gotham is pretty far outside his comfort zone as well.
I don't want a realistic Joker, one extrapolated from a place of reality. I want a Joker who is larger than life, who approaches the cartoonish, because the laugh-a-decade Batman going up against him is more intriguing that way.
Again, which trailers is this man watching?
Twenty years ago, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight and Alaan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen kicked off the trend of deconstructing and psychologically examining comic book superheroes.
Maybe, but looking for depth in comics has been around since the late 60's.
It was intriguing and fascinating for a while, but the characters can't remain deconstructed if they're going to continue on in movie franchises.
Where is that written?
That's what I love about Jon Favreau's Iron Man - the hero isn't being deconstructed, he's not a closet case or a deviant or a freak. Who would have thought that a mostly psychologically undamaged heroic superhero would be refreshing?
Explain to me how Iron Man is psychologically undamaged. This is a man who has seen his weapons used to do great harm, has been kidnapped, tortured, etc, and then realizes he essentially owes the world for his the evils done in his name. That sounds fairly psychological.
His whole argument is just insanely biased and full of holes.
I would love to debate him publicly. That would be hilarious.