Best Superhero Trilogy

[Spider-Fan]

Or a huge big freaking city where a lot of things happen at once. You, as an audience, are focused on that particular event. You, as an audience, know that Bruce is Batman, But for the people of Gotham, a crippled playboy billionaire probably doesn´t raise as much suspicion as you might think.

Plus, how many men in Gotham do you think could fit Batman´s shoes in people´s perception? Probably a lot. Probably, for them, Batman isn´t even a playboy billionaire, but someone hired and financed by the mob, the government or anybody else. Even if the films don´t talk much about it, we can easily assume that there are probably thousands of theories about Batman´s identity. Truth is though, that in real world ANY super hero would get caught much easier than in the movies.

And let´s not forget how much people complained about Blake knowing who Batman is. I think that Blake scene just proves that people actually do suspect about Bruce Wayne. But one thing is suspecting and creating stories, another thing is KNOWING. Besides Bruce, there were probably other guys that were the target of the same suspicion.

That Blake scene was also stupid. When faced with the evidence that "I saw you with hot chicks and knew you were Batman!" Bruce doesn't try to convince him he wasn't. Sorry, but that felt forced. As for alternate theories, then why DON'T we see anyone connect the dots? How many people could afford that equipment? How can Batman emerge/disappear (very visibly in the media mind you) at the same time his EQUALLY media attracting alter ego does? It just makes the people not look smart. Also, I hate the idea that Batman quit over a girl. He became Batman over an obsession to end crime. Taking the blame for Dent doesn't mean he had to stop fighting criminals period, and in most media, you see how Batman always finds a face to fight. It is what he does! He doesn't become a hermit because he lost someone. The war is still going! It was a bad angle, and it led to a rehash in which Wayne must become Batman again. No less, fighting the League of Shadows again, AND having to chase down a bomb at the end! It just felt unoriginal.

You are obviously a huge Marvel fan, and judging by your rating you think that almost anything Marvel does is amazing. But i think that some stuff that we see in the Spider-Man movies, just to give you an example, are 100x times more stupid than anything we see in Rises. Like the scene "wow, nice reflexes". She must be really dumb for not going "wow, you are not human!!!". Yes, because no human being would have done that.

You see, I am a man who likes variety. One day I want pizza, the next I want roast chicken and some mashed potatoes! Etc, etc etc. Yes, I like Marvel MORE, but I still enjoy myself some DC. I liked BB and loved TDK. But, TDKR was a giant disappointment to me. Especially following up TDK, which is one of the best CBM's by far.

I don't like every Marvel movie that comes out. Marvel has had a large amount of crappy movies based around their characters. I am very critical of the X-Men films basically prior to FC. The FF movies suck. DD had a crappy theatrical release (but the DC is good). Elektra was awful. Man-Thing was one of the worst movies I have seen. Punisher: War Zone was crap. Etc. Now, I do enjoy the MCU movies a great deal, but even there, those movies are not perfect either. I could easily tell you what the pros and cons are. I could also tell you how amazing I thought Nolan's first 2 films were, and how much I love Superman: the Movie.

But, of course, because it is a Marvel character movie, things can be stupid. Nobody cares. It´s all forgivable. Well, not to me.

Not at all. SM3 had a ton of problems. Heck, SM1 had some painfully awkward moments, also. But, I think people forgot that it had good elements as well. It gets lost in the discussion about SM3, and people let SM3 make SM2 (a great movie) seem like total garbage when those same people loved it prior to SM3. This is more why I defend SM3 openly. It is easy to bash it. It is trendy to bash it. But, the movie had good as well. Also, while SM1 has some bad dialogue in spots, it is far outweighed by the great scenes. Like Peter finding Ben. Like when he sees the Burglar's face. Any scene involving JJJ. Etc.

 

[BLobo]

That Blake scene was also stupid. When faced with the evidence that "I saw you with hot chicks and knew you were Batman!" Bruce doesn't try to convince him he wasn't.

I don´t think that was really the evidence. I think it´s pretty clear that the fact Bruce was a young, cool, good looking playboy who contributed for their cause but was also an orphan, captured the imagination of these kids. "Wow, he is like us, but he is cool and rich and gets the women". I think it´s actually pretty easy to understand the logic used by these kids. Blake was just a kid who took the story too seriously, maybe because he really wanted to believe that someone like him could be something as amazing as Batman. And maybe, later on, he "connected the dots". It´s a possibility.


The reason we don´t see more people connecting the dots is the same as we don´t see more people connecting the dots in other SH movies. It´s just not the main focus of the movie. These movies(all of them) work under the assumption that these heroes can get away with anything they do. None of these movies are realistic. They all, and i repeat ALL have HUGE leaps in logic. It´s fantasy, dude. You gotta ignore certain things in order to enjoy it. TDK trilogy is also not realistic at all. It´s just more relatable for most people.

Not at all. SM3 had a ton of problems. Heck, SM1 had some painfully awkward moments, also. But, I think people forgot that it had good elements as well. It gets lost in the discussion about SM3, and people let SM3 make SM2 (a great movie) seem like total garbage when those same people loved it prior to SM3. This is more why I defend SM3 openly. It is easy to bash it. It is trendy to bash it. But, the movie had good as well. Also, while SM1 has some bad dialogue in spots, it is far outweighed by the great scenes. Like Peter finding Ben. Like when he sees the Burglar's face. Any scene involving JJJ. Etc.

I don´t find SM3 completely bad. It´s just weak, in general, and has too many problems and not that many great moments. And i enjoy the SM trilogy. I just don´t think that any of these movies you supposedly like are any less "stupid" than TDKR. The amount of dumb people present in any SH movie is smilar to all of them. They are all illogical and unrealistic. That´s why i like them for the good stuff. If i think too much about the bad, i would have difficulty enjoying them.

TDKR has a good number of "problems", but none of them spoiled the good moments. The movie has very powerful scenes, amazing score, great acting, envolving story and goes in a totally different direction from most SH movies. Both TDK and TDKR follow different patterns than the other SH movies, and i find that refreshing. I find it refreshing, just for once, being able to watch a super hero movie without knowing exactly where it´s gonna take me. It´s not perfect, but at least it tries to deliver something unique.

 

[OcStat]

That Blake scene was also stupid. When faced with the evidence that "I saw you with hot chicks and knew you were Batman!" Bruce doesn't try to convince him he wasn't. Sorry, but that felt forced. As for alternate theories, then why DON'T we see anyone connect the dots? How many people could afford that equipment? How can Batman emerge/disappear (very visibly in the media mind you) at the same time his EQUALLY media attracting alter ego does? It just makes the people not look smart. Also, I hate the idea that Batman quit over a girl. He became Batman over an obsession to end crime. Taking the blame for Dent doesn't mean he had to stop fighting criminals period, and in most media, you see how Batman always finds a face to fight. It is what he does! He doesn't become a hermit because he lost someone. The war is still going! It was a bad angle, and it led to a rehash in which Wayne must become Batman again. No less, fighting the League of Shadows again, AND having to chase down a bomb at the end! It just felt unoriginal.

I agree with a lot of this. Didn't really notice what you mentioned with those last few points, how similar those beats are to Batman Begins. I do like how the movie does trace back to the first film but when you put it like that, it can seem like almost like a rehash.

What irritates me most is Batman tried to quit during the last movie, out of love and naivety. And after Gordon's closing speech, you expect Batman to be out there fighting his fight without caring at all if the cops are going to chase him or hate him or not. But no, didn't even put the suit on again after that night. It's just a little sloppy, and out of character. I hate using that term, because a fictional character is whatever the writer wants him to be. They have their version of Bruce and Batman and can make him fit into what story they want to tell, that's fine. They did it in TDKR, but it seemed to be at the expense of a character so well crafted in the last 2 movies.

Actually, the more I think about it, Batman's actions previously mentioned from TDK could be seen as hints that something was not right with this adaptation. Not even taking into account Batman Begins, and what he says to Ras.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don´t think that was really the evidence. I think it´s pretty clear that the fact Bruce was a young, cool, good looking playboy who contributed for their cause but was also an orphan, captured the imagination of these kids. "Wow, he is like us, but he is cool and rich and gets the women". I think it´s actually pretty easy to understand the logic used by these kids. Blake was just a kid who took the story too seriously, maybe because he really wanted to believe that someone like him could be something as amazing as Batman. And maybe, later on, he "connected the dots". It´s a possibility.


The reason we don´t see more people connecting the dots is the same as we don´t see more people connecting the dots in other SH movies. It´s just not the main focus of the movie. These movies(all of them) work under the assumption that these heroes can get away with anything they do. None of these movies are realistic. They all, and i repeat ALL have HUGE leaps in logic. It´s fantasy, dude. You gotta ignore certain things in order to enjoy it. TDK trilogy is also not realistic at all. It´s just more relatable for most people.

I never bought Blake's explanation for knowing the secret for a second. Nor that Bruce would crumble when accused with such little evidence. I also never saw any evidence that Blake was a worthy successor to Batman. He does very little in the climax of the film, other than try to tell the military to let him save some kids. Outside that, he is totally removed from the situation. It just didn't work for me. Yes, I know it is fantasy in regard to why no one finds out their identities. But, I can only take so much before I start to throw my hands up. I am also turned off by the fact that real time, Batman existed in that world for 2 whole years. Then he quits and becomes a hermit for 8 years. So for most of the Nolan world, Bruce was a hermit. That doesn't sit right with me.

I don´t find SM3 completely bad. It´s just weak, in general, and has too many problems and not that many great moments. And i enjoy the SM trilogy. I just don´t think that any of these movies you supposedly like are any less "stupid" than TDKR. The amount of dumb people present in any SH movie is smilar to all of them. They are all illogical and unrealistic. That´s why i like them for the good stuff. If i think too much about the bad, i would have difficulty enjoying them.

I agree to an extent, but TDKR had far too many bad decisions in the story for me to ignore. I said this years ago about Superman Returns: great camera work and such means nothing if I don't care about the core story. In TDKR, I simply didn't care. I was invested up to when Batman was broken, but after that, the story doesn't go in good directions. Yes, SM3 had tons of these types of moments as well. Totally no argument here. I just found more "fun" in SM3 than I did TDKR. Like I said, I think TDKR was a better made film, in regard to language of cinema and such. But, SM3 just had more fun elements, which helped with the story issues in my eyes.

TDKR has a good number of "problems", but none of them spoiled the good moments. The movie has very powerful scenes, amazing score, great acting, envolving story and goes in a totally different direction from most SH movies. Both TDK and TDKR follow different patterns than the other SH movies, and i find that refreshing. I find it refreshing, just for once, being able to watch a super hero movie without knowing exactly where it´s gonna take me. It´s not perfect, but at least it tries to deliver something unique.

TDK was full of twists and turns and surprises. TDKR was incredibly predictable. The Talia twist I saw coming before even seeing the movie. It was worst kept secret of the movie. I agree, the camera work and acting are great, but the story is repetitious, unoriginal, and it devolves into what many bad sequels of the past did: basically devolve into the same territory we already covered. TDK was fresh, original, and did something different. It was the good kind of sequel: expand upon the world and turn it upside down. I can watch the climaxes to TDKR and BB side by side, and it feels like watching the same movie. Only, Liam Neeson was 100x more interesting a threat than the underdeveloped Talia.

 

[The Joker]

I never bought Blake's explanation for knowing the secret for a second. Nor that Bruce would crumble when accused with such little evidence. I also never saw any evidence that Blake was a worthy successor to Batman. He does very little in the climax of the film, other than try to tell the military to let him save some kids. Outside that, he is totally removed from the situation. It just didn't work for me. Yes, I know it is fantasy in regard to why no one finds out their identities. But, I can only take so much before I start to throw my hands up. I am also turned off by the fact that real time, Batman existed in that world for 2 whole years. Then he quits and becomes a hermit for 8 years. So for most of the Nolan world, Bruce was a hermit. That doesn't sit right with me.

I couldn't agree more. Blake was such a drag on the movie. I didn't buy that scene where he tells Bruce how he figured out he was Batman for a second. For god's sake it's public knowledge that Bruce Wayne saw his parents murdered in front of him when he was a kid. Naturally he's going to be hiding pain and anger over that. Millions of people do it. How the hell does that mean he's Batman? Blake's scenes in the big finale ruined the pacing. Kept cutting back to that dreary BS of him trying to convince the Cop to let him and the orphans cross the bridge. ZzzzzzzzzzZ. Who wants to see that?

The whole John "Robin" Blake revelation at the end was one of the most cringe worthy ideas ever. What did Blake do to prove he was worthy of the Batman mantle? Because he's an honest Cop who lost his parents? That's all it takes? Bruce only had like three brief scenes with him in the whole movie, and not once did he try and make Blake prove himself that he was worthy to be Batman. Unlike with Dent where he made Dent prove he could get all those convictions of the mob using Lau's testimony. He didn't just take it for granted Dent was a better symbol of hope than Batman. He had to see it.

Furthermore since when did Batman ever plan to leave his mantle to anyone? Batman was about inspiring people out of apathy. Not passing the mask to a successor.

Don't even get me started on the LOS plan to kill Gotham when it was in a crime free peace time. At least in BB they had the reason that it was dirty, full of crime and beyond saving in their eyes.

TDKR was a total contradiction of BB and TDK.

 

[DACrowe]

TDK was full of twists and turns and surprises. TDKR was incredibly predictable. The Talia twist I saw coming before even seeing the movie. It was worst kept secret of the movie. I agree, the camera work and acting are great, but the story is repetitious, unoriginal, and it devolves into what many bad sequels of the past did: basically devolve into the same territory we already covered. TDK was fresh, original, and did something different. It was the good kind of sequel: expand upon the world and turn it upside down. I can watch the climaxes to TDKR and BB side by side, and it feels like watching the same movie. Only, Liam Neeson was 100x more interesting a threat than the underdeveloped Talia.

I just wanted to respond to this bit. While I agree that TDK is much, much better than TDKR...that is not really accurate.

Not unless you weren't a Batman fan in 2008. Because as someone who avoided spoilers in 2008, I can say the most of the board still knew (predicted, really) that Joker would kill Rachel, would escape the jail, that Harvey Dent would have his face half burned off, that he would become Two-Face, etc. etc.

Now, the hows were mostly shocking and fun and exhilarating, but the only technical "twist" that I don't think many saw coming was Batman straight up killing Harvey Dent.

I also feel that for most non-comic fans (at least everyone I saw TDKR with in three screenings), who don't know a Talia from a Zatanna, that the twist was actually shocking. Yes, we knew it in advance, it was the "worst kept secret," but so too was Rachel's death on this board. Fans sniff this stuff out years before the general audience sees it. That doesn't mean for those who aren't pathologically obsessed that it is not surprising.

As for comparing SM3 and TDKR? Eh. I too defend Spider-Man 3, faintly. It has some really good moments. But it is not a good movie. It is a jumbled mess with some nice heart and some great visuals and style...at times.

Rises is a great movie, in my opinion. But I have burned through that argument quite a bit as of late.

 

[BLobo]

I never bought Blake's explanation for knowing the secret for a second. Nor that Bruce would crumble when accused with such little evidence.

Ok then. But that´s just your personal preference. I´m also not a fan of the whole thing, though i don´t act like Blake knwoing Batman´s identity is a plot hole and something completely impossible.

You wanted someone to connect the dots, well...there you have.

So for most of the Nolan world, Bruce was a hermit. That doesn't sit right with me.

Still better than promoting a movie with a villain that doesn´t even exist. That´s like The Joker not having been in TDK. Lol. They only got away with it because not that many people care about the character itself. We all know it´s all about RDJ. As i said before, females rate these movies higher than men, wich is rare in the SH genre. That says a lot.

I also never saw any evidence that Blake was a worthy successor to Batman.

Who said he was going to be the successor? That´s up to you to interpret. He only had access to Bruce´s resources. We don´t know how he is going to use them, but there´s many ways all that tech can be used without Blake putting on a cape and being "Batman´s successor".

He does very little in the climax of the film, other than try to tell the military to let him save some kids.

What else do you wanted him to do? He is not Batman. The movie is not about him. He did what he was supposed to do. He is a cop, and from what we saw, a damn good one, hence having earned Bruce´s respect. He risked his life several times in the movie and showed to be a very good detective. I don´t know if you expected him to start beating up people like a kung fu master and doing the exact same stuff Batman does, but that was not the point of his character.

I am also turned off by the fact that real time, Batman existed in that world for 2 whole years. Then he quits and becomes a hermit for 8 years. So for most of the Nolan world, Bruce was a hermit. That doesn't sit right with me.

Well, Nolan likes to portray his characters as real humans, hence Bruce having an emotional breadown and Bane crying. They´re not gods, and this is not the Marvel Universe. I have no problem with that. In many comics Batman looks super human. I prefer him a little more flawed. Nolan nailed it. You still have the comics, my friend. This is just a different take.

TDKR was incredibly predictable. The Talia twist I saw coming before even seeing the movie. It was worst kept secret of the movie.

We both know that you knew Talia was going to be in the movie, right? It was all over the internet.

but the story is repetitious, unoriginal, and it devolves into what many bad sequels of the past did: basically devolve into the same territory we already covered.

The story might not be very original, but the way it is developed is way more original and less obvious than anything we can see in any Marvel movie. The movie had plenty of surprises and unpredictable moments. Especially for those who didn´t spend the previous year reading spoilers.

I´ve said this before, and i´ll say it again: I saw this movie with 2 girls, none of them cared about Batman, both cried. To me this tells me the movie does an excellent job making people really care about all the characters and being on the edge of their sits.

Of course, not everybody liked it, but the vast majority did, that´s why the movie is rated so high in every major movie site. I think we can all agree that, like it or not, the movie was very successful. And it was successful in a way most comic book movies fail to be. I can only think of one or two SH movies as successful as TDKR. Everything else is wayyy, wayyy behind. And there´s a reason for that.

 

[Squaremaster316]

The worst thing about the Mandarin twist isn't so much for what it did to the character, but the fact that it drastically reduces Tony's accomplishment at showing what he can do without his IM tech.

I mean, what did he succeed at? He tasered a few guards who were protecting a reject from the Surreal Life. THREE CHEERS FOR FLESH AND BLOOD TONY!!!

This, coupled with the fact that in the final battle he needed every single one of his 40+ suits and an ally enhanced by his enemy's tech that he was trying to stop, just goes to show how ridiculously botched the execution was for the whole "Tony is Iron Man without the suit" theme.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I couldn't agree more. Blake was such a drag on the movie. I didn't buy that scene where he tells Bruce how he figured out he was Batman for a second. For god's sake it's public knowledge that Bruce Wayne saw his parents murdered in front of him when he was a kid. Naturally he's going to be hiding pain and anger over that. Millions of people do it. How the hell does that mean he's Batman? Blake's scenes in the big finale ruined the pacing. Kept cutting back to that dreary BS of him trying to convince the Cop to let him and the orphans cross the bridge. ZzzzzzzzzzZ. Who wants to see that?

The whole John "Robin" Blake revelation at the end was one of the most cringe worthy ideas ever. What did Blake do to prove he was worthy of the Batman mantle? Because he's an honest Cop who lost his parents? That's all it takes? Bruce only had like three brief scenes with him in the whole movie, and not once did he try and make Blake prove himself that he was worthy to be Batman. Unlike with Dent where he made Dent prove he could get all those convictions of the mob using Lau's testimony. He didn't just take it for granted Dent was a better symbol of hope than Batman. He had to see it.

Furthermore since when did Batman ever plan to leave his mantle to anyone? Batman was about inspiring people out of apathy. Not passing the mask to a successor.

Don't even get me started on the LOS plan to kill Gotham when it was in a crime free peace time. At least in BB they had the reason that it was dirty, full of crime and beyond saving in their eyes.

TDKR was a total contradiction of BB and TDK.

I 100% agree with all of this. Nolan built a great foundation with BB and TDK. He is a talented filmmaker and one of Hollywood's best. Unfortunately, TDKR was a dud. Everyone has them from time to time. Shame it had to come then.

I just wanted to respond to this bit. While I agree that TDK is much, much better than TDKR...that is not really accurate.

Not unless you weren't a Batman fan in 2008. Because as someone who avoided spoilers in 2008, I can say the most of the board still knew (predicted, really) that Joker would kill Rachel, would escape the jail, that Harvey Dent would have his face half burned off, that he would become Two-Face, etc. etc.

Now, the hows were mostly shocking and fun and exhilarating, but the only technical "twist" that I don't think many saw coming was Batman straight up killing Harvey Dent.

I also feel that for most non-comic fans (at least everyone I saw TDKR with in three screenings), who don't know a Talia from a Zatanna, that the twist was actually shocking. Yes, we knew it in advance, it was the "worst kept secret," but so too was Rachel's death on this board. Fans sniff this stuff out years before the general audience sees it. That doesn't mean for those who aren't pathologically obsessed that it is not surprising.

As for comparing SM3 and TDKR? Eh. I too defend Spider-Man 3, faintly. It has some really good moments. But it is not a good movie. It is a jumbled mess with some nice heart and some great visuals and style...at times.

Rises is a great movie, in my opinion. But I have burned through that argument quite a bit as of late.

I have argued over TDKR a lot on this board as well. I am glad some enjoy the movie and think it was great. I simply do not. Hated the story, felt it was a poor continuation from TDK, and the movie thinks it is far more clever and original than it actually was.

Ok then. But that´s just your personal preference. I´m also not a fan of the whole thing, though i don´t act like Blake knwoing Batman´s identity is a plot hole and something completely impossible.

You wanted someone to connect the dots, well...there you have.

Ok, how about I wanted to see someone connect the dots in a competent manner. Not some BS Nolan tossed in there to force a connection between a crappy Blake character and Wayne.

Still better than promoting a movie with a villain that doesn´t even exist. That´s like The Joker not having been in TDK. Lol. They only got away with it because not that many people care about the character itself. We all know it´s all about RDJ. As i said before, females rate these movies higher than men, wich is rare in the SH genre. That says a lot.

What was done to Mandarin in IM3 I actually felt was clever. The movie had a great message about false faces, and was a good social commentary on how the media and fear can and have been used to manipulate the population so that they don't so who the real enemy is. It was a great message, especially for a superhero movie, and it worked very well. I grew up reading a lot of Iron Man, but the idea still stayed true to core aspects of the Mandarin: Mandarin was often a guy many thought to be a legend, he used the shadows to hide his true motives, was a physical threat for Iron Man (see Killian trashing Stark's suits in the fight) and he sought domination in those same shadows. The idea actually stayed consistent to the Mandarin in several ways. He just wasn't a Chinese guy with rings of power.

Who said he was going to be the successor? That´s up to you to interpret. He only had access to Bruce´s resources. We don´t know how he is going to use them, but there´s many ways all that tech can be used without Blake putting on a cape and being "Batman´s successor".

Him finding the cave and the "Robin" thing clearly indicate he was Batman's protege and/or successor. To which I say, he did nothing to earn that in the movie. Outside of stare at some military guys when more important plot points were occurring.

What else do you wanted him to do? He is not Batman. The movie is not about him. He did what he was supposed to do. He is a cop, and from what we saw, a damn good one, hence having earned Bruce´s respect. He risked his life several times in the movie and showed to be a very good detective. I don´t know if you expected him to start beating up people like a kung fu master and doing the exact same stuff Batman does, but that was not the point of his character.

Return of the Jedi was about Luke Skywalker, yet it found things for ALL of the main characters of the movie/series to do in the final stand against the Empire. What did I want Blake to do? Something more interesting visually and to the plot than stand around and tell the military to et the kids go, and do something that actually had bearing on the finale. The fact they spend so much time on a plot point that ultimately is meaningless is bad writing.

Well, Nolan likes to portray his characters as real humans, hence Bruce having an emotional breadown and Bane crying. They´re not gods, and this is not the Marvel Universe. I have no problem with that. In many comics Batman looks super human. I prefer him a little more flawed. Nolan nailed it. You still have the comics, my friend. This is just a different take.

Where did I say I had issue with Bruce showing emotion? You can be sad, depressed, etc. But, 8 years of sulking? And quitting what makes him Batman? Sorry, I just think it is way out of character for Bruce to do. I don't buy it. Real people fight through deaths. Brett Favre played a football game after his dad died, no less well. It isn't inherently more REAL to become a depressed hermit for 8 years. Ample real examples of that idea being crap everyday in the news.

We both know that you knew Talia was going to be in the movie, right? It was all over the internet.

Spoilers I never read. But, it was easy to see. In defense, so was Ducard being Ra's. But, Talia's twist sucks because it comes too late, neuters Bane (who was a far better character), and she is "Talia" for all of 5 mins before she has a pathetic death scene. It was poorly handled.

The story might not be very original, but the way it is developed is way more original and less obvious than anything we can see in any Marvel movie. The movie had plenty of surprises and unpredictable moments. Especially for those who didn´t spend the previous year reading spoilers.

I actively avoid spoilers when they start coming, and I generally agree that Marvel's twists are nothing special. But, TDKR never fooled me once. Conversely, IM3...I never saw that coming when I was watching the movie. I guess point for Marvel?

I´ve said this before, and i´ll say it again: I saw this movie with 2 girls, none of them cared about Batman, both cried. To me this tells me the movie does an excellent job making people really care about all the characters and being on the edge of their sits.

Means nothing. People found friends that loved Green Lantern. Does that mean it was good? Heck, I saw this movie with MY girlfriend and my brother (who worships Batman). We all hated this movie. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. I never said TDKR was a hated film. Obviously not, it performed well. However, in the eye of myself (the beholder), it wasn't good.

Of course, not everybody liked it, but the vast majority did, that´s why the movie is rated so high in every major movie site. I think we can all agree that, like it or not, the movie was very successful. And it was successful in a way most comic book movies fail to be. I can only think of one or two SH movies as successful as TDKR. Everything else is wayyy, wayyy behind. And there´s a reason for that.

When did I say financially it wasn't successful? When did I say otherwise about TDKR's financial success? $$$ proves nothing. It was also never part of my criticism of the movie. The fact you're defending it's financial history says to me you're looking for excuses to defend the movie. In my posts about SM3, I never once said it was a BO hit. But, if you want to go there, SM3 was a BO hit. So was Iron Man 3. Iron Man 3 actually made MORE than TDKR did. Do we really want to go down this road?

 

[Lord]

I 100% agree with all of this. Nolan built a great foundation with BB and TDK. He is a talented filmmaker and one of Hollywood's best. Unfortunately, TDKR was a dud. Everyone has them from time to time. Shame it had to come then.

If you're only conting with those who make films that have a bigger budget than 100 million then i agree, otherwise, as much as i like him, he's not there yet.

 

[747]

The Dark Knight Trilogy, without any real competition.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

The worst thing about the Mandarin twist isn't so much for what it did to the character, but the fact that it drastically reduces Tony's accomplishment at showing what he can do without his IM tech.

I mean, what did he succeed at? He tasered a few guards who were protecting a reject from the Surreal Life. THREE CHEERS FOR FLESH AND BLOOD TONY!!!

This, coupled with the fact that in the final battle he needed every single one of his 40+ suits and an ally enhanced by his enemy's tech that he was trying to stop, just goes to show how ridiculously botched the execution was for the whole "Tony is Iron Man without the suit" theme.

That's how I saw it too. The who "I am Iron Man without the suit' theme was lost since he got beat and captured without it and had to call the suit to succeed.

 

[Lord]

The Iron Man suit exists due to Tony Stark, he succeeds not just because of the suit, but thanks to his brains, the brains that create various plans and tech. I took that last sentence as meaning that Tony will no longer be so obsessed with his work or try to protect himself from the world by going into the suit.

When it comes to superhero trilogies, there isn't exactly a perfect one, Spider-Man 1 is a classic that is more and more insulted by some fans nowadays due to some of its flaws, Spider-Man 2 was great but it was almost the same thing as the first film, while Spider-Man 3 is generally dislike and has many flaws, though i kinda enjoy it due to certain scenes and loving Sam Raimi's style in general.

I'dd say that Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy are the perfect blockbusters, they're not aging that well, but they deserve a place as classics, they have charm and heart, with a great tone and soundtrack, but with many flaws, each film is self-contained, but end up leaving having an arc throughout the trilogy. The ammount of hype for the Spider-Man franchise before the reboot was enormous, around the level of Transformers now or even more.

Nolan's Batman was a strong new take on the franchise, first one is good but probably not as good as the original Batman film, The Dark Knight is one of the best sequels and The Dark Knight Rises is divisive. There are some visible weaknesses in only planning the present film, like how Batman spent more time in retirement than as Batman.

What started off as just another franchise, ended up having an huge impact on the industry and had the audience growing with each instalment.

Iron Man wasn't really a Trilogy since The Avengers was as big of a chapter in the whole story as any of the isolated films. This trilogy also went with the popcorn type of franchise, each instalment was a sigle story and Iron Man 3 didn't feel like that much of a conclusion since the director of the first 2 left and his ideas for the great finale of the arc were mostly dropped. Said that, Shane Black still did a very entertaining and enjoyable film that had witt and some creativity.

I'dd say that Nolan's Trilogy was the best one, but it's not that much above the other two.

 

[DACrowe]

People think B'89 is better than BB?

Huh. I actually think they're very close in quality, though I give the nudge to Begins, yet I thought Begins was far and away more loved. Then again, I am just remembering 2005. And back then Nolan "got" Batman. Now, Snyder will save us from his "limitations."

And the Hype keeps on bouncing.

 

[Lord]

89 was an event and was a great film all around. Most of the themes Nolan put in his Batman are in that film, the difference is that there, they aren't being overexplained and it embraces the bizarre universe. I'm sayig this as someone who became a Batman and Nolan fan after watching Begins, with that film having Spider-Man replaced by Batman as my favorite superhero.

 

[DACrowe]

Understood. I grew up with Batman 1989. It is still among the only 10 or so superhero movies that I think has any staying power as something substantial. But I do view it as a more a Tim Burton movie that creates this amazing fairy tale like world. I prefer Begins, because while you can make an argument of pre-crisis and post-crisis approaches, Nolan really understood the character on a fundamental level. Burton bent the character to fit his vision, which I love. But I think Nolan trying to reach the comic book world through his own sensibilities created a film with a lot more depth, which is why it was easier to build off of. I like Returns too, but there is no denying that Burton struggled making a sequel to the original film and after he was gone, that universe kind of imploded.

 

[Lord]

Agreed, i allways thought that Batman Begins looked a lot like a Batman comic, many scenes reminded me of what i would expect in one, expecially from the 90s ones (the good ones).

I didn't like Joker killing Bruce's parents, but i think he did a good job on the rest. Returns is trickier, i myself love it, but that film is not for everybody, much less for those that are more purist to the comics.

After watching Begins i bought the Tetralogy set and watched all of the 4 previous films, for years Begins was still my favorite, but as time passes i start to see more merit in Tim Burton's films and their subtlety, as well as the design itself, his Gotham fits very well. The only thing i really dislike in his films is James Gordon, he was interchangeable, i think i even confuse him with the fat guy who was killed by the Joker's pen in my first watch (even though he appeared more after that).

But i have to agree with what RedLetterMedia said, The Dark Knight Rises was also pretty much like a fairy tale, even if up until now Nolan's series has been advertised as being realistic.

 

[DACrowe]

Rises is more like a big mid-20th century Hollywood epic. Something like David Lean would make if he ever attempted a superhero movie. I actually think it gets much better after Batman's back is broken. I love the action sequences before then too, but once the tropes of a Batman movie are most discarded (save for the rather redundant doomsday weapon that's in 90% of superhero movies), that is when Nolan starts showing his hand about what he wants to do with that film.

I like the Burton movies fine, but I approach them as Burton movies first. Though yes, I still get shivers of childhood nostalgia at certain parts of the Elfman score or at the way Burton visualizes Gotham, which has left a lasting impression on the comics as well.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Sandman was a murderer and escaped convict, Harry tried to kill him, and slapping MJ was an accident. If doing what he did makes him "evil" then Wolverine and Punisher are also evil.

Raimi had the message clear in Aunt May's words: "Spider-man? I don't understand. Spider-man doesn't kill people (...) I don't think it's for us to say whether a person deserves to live or die (...) [Uncle Ben] wouldn't want us living one second with revenge in our hearts. It's like poison (...) before you know it, turn us into something ugly"

So, let's go and explain Uncle Ben that it's okay that Peter kills because Punisher and Wolverine do so.

When Peter fights Harry at his penthouse, it's not because Harry tried to kill him, he does because he was angry that Harry had won MJ over.

Yes, defacing your best friend because he got your girl (after you kissed another girl in front of her), killing a convict, that makes him evil and Raimi certainly says do.

So he lets himself rot because his alter-ego is hunted by the police. Oh and then he quits being a hero and retires to Italy.

Spider-Man goes after Harry, and defeats him.

Spider-Man wins

Yes, Batman accepts the blame until things are okay. Heroic.

"Evil" Peter defaces his best friend because he lost his girl to him (because of his own actions).

Spider-man wins... the biggest *****e award.

He blindly trusted a thief and walked right into a trap, that's stupid.

Like when Peter let Flint Marko go unpunished in spite of being a killer? At least Batman corrected his mistake. He wins.

We're comparing Spider-Man 3 with TDKR. And his Spidey sense in the films isn't the same as esp because that would be too cartoonish, it just allows him to sense coming actions. He only would have sensed a person there, not that the person would be the Green Goblin.

Spider-Man wins

He would sense that the person was a villain ready to attack.

Spider-sense fails.

Except what I meantioned, plus Blake finding out Bruce Wayne was Batman out of nowhere, Gordon sending 90% of the police force into the sewers, Batman getting stabbed by Talia but then being fine five minutes later.

That was stupid. And yet better than the kitchen twist, the street dancing or letting the villain go unpunished.

Your opinion

Whatever the case is, it works both ways. Take the flawed things of the movies and they get better.

Thing is, goofiness is there and so we judge the movie.

So you admit that the Bane scene was forced, yay we agree.

Where exactly did I do that?


*****************************************************

Forget the plot holes and contrivances in TDKR.Peter Dances!Don't you get it?That's why SM3 sux!
That's basically all the Senator has against the movie.

Even when the dancing alone is enough to destroy a movie, a quick reading tells us that I mentioned many other things.


*******************************************************

You wanna talk about lame reasons to retire? How about Tony blowing up his billions of dollars in advanced weaponry because his girlfriend was feeling neglected.

It's incredible how a great first movie with a great performance by RDJ would spawn two lackluster sequels.

*******************************************************

Meh. I actually think Iron Man 3 was miles better than TDKR myself. TDKR I thought was a poor attempt at recreating Batman Begins, only as a sequel. Think of Ghostbusters II. Basically rehashed what we already saw, only in a way that made the people of Gotham look like morons (seriously, how did no one know Bruce was Batman? He comes back to life same time Batman emerges in BB, then he disappears for 8 years before remerging...same time as Batman? I mean...really guys...takes some dumb people not to notice this). Iron Man 3 at least was fresh and far more original.

Millions of people live in Gotham, they leave and come back, so no one would assume this specific person is Batman, why would they?

While I think TDKR is a better made film than SM3 was, honestly guys...I enjoy SM3 more. Yes, Peter dances and that was stupid and it has a bunch of plotholes as well, but I enjoyed the Harry plotline and it does have powerful scenes in there (though it also has some very poor ones as well). But, I see the same mistakes in TDKR as well. Only in the case of TDKR, I felt like the movie thinks it is far more genius than it actually was. SM3 at least knew what it was and was more fun. After Bane breaks Batman, TDKR just keeps going downhill.

I doubt SM3 was well-aware of its flaws, as scenes like Peter letting Flint Marko get away with murder and robbery was shown in a serious tone, and it was a really stupid thing to do.


************************************************************

People think B'89 is better than BB?

Huh. I actually think they're very close in quality, though I give the nudge to Begins, yet I thought Begins was far and away more loved. Then again, I am just remembering 2005. And back then Nolan "got" Batman. Now, Snyder will save us from his "limitations."

And the Hype keeps on bouncing.

I do think B89 is better.

Begins was a great promise, but basically its tone contrasted in a bad way with some decisions. Some of the dialog was terrible, the constant smashing of the word 'fear' was amateurish in its over-exposition, the villains were a bore (or pathetic buffoons in the case of Scarecrow) and when batman finally gets to be in the movie, he can barely be seen.

 

[OcStat]

I prefer 89 to BB because of the mystery surrounding the title character in the first film. You spend the whole movie trying to figure out why this person became the Batman. It is a more intriguing plot to me. The sequence of events that lead Bruce to become Batman are interesting also, so Begins had the right idea to do what no film in the franchise had done before and show the origin of Batman. I just think '89 is more compelling.

In response to one thing you said Senator, I think you have a funny idea of how Spider-Man's spider-sense would work. It doesn't let him see the future, he can't say "Oh the Goblin is in that burning building, I better keep on swingin'!". His sense was probably already buzzing because he jumped into a burning building, there's danger everywhere. Until the Goblin attacks him, there's no reason that one person would be a bigger threat or warning.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I prefer 89 to BB because of the mystery surrounding the title character in the first film. You spend the whole movie trying to figure out why this person became the Batman. It is a more intriguing plot to me. The sequence of events that lead Bruce to become Batman are interesting also, so Begins had the right idea to do what no film in the franchise had done before and show the origin of Batman. I just think '89 is more compelling.

I agree.

In response to one thing you said Senator, I think you have a funny idea of how Spider-Man's spider-sense would work. It doesn't let him see the future, he can't say "Oh the Goblin is in that burning building, I better keep on swingin'!". His sense was probably already buzzing because he jumped into a burning building, there's danger everywhere. Until the Goblin attacks him, there's no reason that one person would be a bigger threat or warning.

No, it's not a "funny idea" I just happen to have. It is explained in SM1 that the spider-sense, according to scientists "borders on precognition." Precognition: the alleged ability to foresee future events.

Like when Peter was at the cafe with MJ (SM2). There was no reason a car would smash the place, but the spider-sense warned Peter about it right before it happened. So, he might not know Goblin was in the building, but it would have told Spider-man that "woman" was not what it seemed to be.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Raimi had the message clear in Aunt May's words: "Spider-man? I don't understand. Spider-man doesn't kill people (...) I don't think it's for us to say whether a person deserves to live or die (...) [Uncle Ben] wouldn't want us living one second with revenge in our hearts. It's like poison (...) before you know it, turn us into something ugly"

So, let's go and explain Uncle Ben that it's okay that Peter kills because Punisher and Wolverine do so.

When Peter fights Harry at his penthouse, it's not because Harry tried to kill him, he does because he was angry that Harry had won MJ over.

Yes, defacing your best friend because he got your girl (after you kissed another girl in front of her), killing a convict, that makes him evil and Raimi certainly says do.



Yes, Batman accepts the blame until things are okay. Heroic.

"Evil" Peter defaces his best friend because he lost his girl to him (because of his own actions).

Spider-man wins... the biggest *****e award.

And wasn't Spider-Man being a *****e the point of the movie? That the Black Spider-Man corrupted what Spider-Man was. See, this doesn't bother me because that was inherent in the concept of the film. My problem with Batman is that the hermit angle feels forced and out of character for Batman. At least in Spidey's case, there was a plot device to explain it. In Batman's he CHOSE to be a hermit. The Batman I know, would have continued the war even with the police pursuit. And honestly, that would have been a more interesting angle.

Like when Peter let Flint Marko go unpunished in spite of being a killer? At least Batman corrected his mistake. He wins.

Sandman going free was stupid. No argument here.

He would sense that the person was a villain ready to attack.

Spider-sense fails.

Unless that villain is Venom!

Millions of people live in Gotham, they leave and come back, so no one would assume this specific person is Batman, why would they?

You mean other than 1 of the few people who could afford to be Batman, and just so happened to have appeared/disappeared in a pattern EXACTLY the same as Batman's? I think someone would of noticed.

I doubt SM3 was well-aware of its flaws, as scenes like Peter letting Flint Marko get away with murder and robbery was shown in a serious tone, and it was a really stupid thing to do.

At the same time, the film ventured into goofy territory (consistant with Raimi's work). Yes, it had a serious point to make, but it also let the movie play with it at various points. Now, not all those points were good. But, it did play with them. Once again, letting Sandman go was awful. But, SM3 had a lot of reshoots and changes that Raimi obviously wasn't happy with. Most interviews indicate SM3 wasn't a great experience for him, nor was he truly happy with it. I hope one day they let him rework the movie with the existing cut footage (of which there is a lot).

 

[Spooderman]

Raimi had the message clear in Aunt May's words: "Spider-man? I don't understand. Spider-man doesn't kill people (...) I don't think it's for us to say whether a person deserves to live or die (...) [Uncle Ben] wouldn't want us living one second with revenge in our hearts. It's like poison (...) before you know it, turn us into something ugly"

So, let's go and explain Uncle Ben that it's okay that Peter kills because Punisher and Wolverine do so.

Just because you do thinks that are not okay, doesn't mean you are evil.

When Peter fights Harry at his penthouse, it's not because Harry tried to kill him, he does because he was angry that Harry had won MJ over.

Harry had previously tried to kill him earlier in the film, and attacks Spider-Man a few seconds after their encounter.

Yes, defacing your best friend because he got your girl (after you kissed another girl in front of her), killing a convict, that makes him evil and Raimi certainly says do.

So you think Wolverine and Punisher are also evil?

Yes, Batman accepts the blame until things are okay. Heroic.

Accepts blame doesn't mean you have to mope around for eight years. Stupid.

Like when Peter let Flint Marko go unpunished in spite of being a killer? At least Batman corrected his mistake. He wins.

Yeah, that was a poorly done scene. Should have had Sandman turn himself in.

He would sense that the person was a villain ready to attack.

Spider-sense fails.

Only when compared to the comic books and cartoons, which would be too goofy to do on screen.

That was stupid. And yet better than the kitchen twist, the street dancing or letting the villain go unpunished.

Because friends never dance with each other.

Whatever the case is, it works both ways. Take the flawed things of the movies and they get better.

Thing is, goofiness is there and so we judge the movie.

SM3's only worse than TDKR if you think goofiness is worse than plot holes, contrivances, and being overall boring.

Even when the dancing alone is enough to destroy a movie, a quick reading tells us that I mentioned many other things.

Once again, your opinion.

 

[OcStat]

No, its not a "funny idea" I just happen to have. It is explained in SM1 that the spider-sense, according to scientists "borders on precognition." Precognition: the alleged ability to foresee future events.

Like when Peter was at the cafe with MJ (SM2). There was no reason a car would smash the place, but the spider-sense warned Peter about it right before it happened. So, he might not know Goblin was in the building, but it would have told Spider-man that "woman" was not what it seemed to be.

Borders on precognitive and actually being precognitive are two different things.

In one instance Ock has a car flying across the street towards Peter's head. If anything he would've actually reacted sooner.

In the other instance Green Goblin is lying low, and actually doesn't threaten Spider-Man initially, he talks to him, asks if he gave his offer any thought. Then he attacks Spider-Man. (Well, actually I believe he does hit Spidey when he takes off his granny blanket, right?) But still, my point stands, Spider-Man was in a burning building looking for survivors. His sense would've been acting up, and in those situations it can actually be easy for Spider-Man to be distracted or even surprised. And then, once he knows Goblin means to do him harm, his Spider-Sense kicks in for an awesome slo-mo shot that dropped all our jaws the first time saw it.

I won't say the portrayal of the Spider-Sense has been totally consistent but it isn't an easy ability to convey on screen.

 

[Human Torch]

And wasn't Spider-Man being a *****e the point of the movie? That the Black Spider-Man corrupted what Spider-Man was. See, this doesn't bother me because that was inherent in the concept of the film. My problem with Batman is that the hermit angle feels forced and out of character for Batman. At least in Spidey's case, there was a plot device to explain it. In Batman's he CHOSE to be a hermit. The Batman I know, would have continued the war even with the police pursuit. And honestly, that would have been a more interesting angle.
.