The Dark Knight Rises Best to watch the trilogy as Bond films, not Batman

[OutRiddled]

Not to the extent of Bill Finger. Not even close to it. And he lied about it.

Yeah, and he was probably a drinker and a fiend as well. Who cares? What matters is what he personally achieved.

But I digress. Nolan's take is what is popular right now. Everybody is going to be jumping on the bandwagon. Opinions, even of 'notable people' are meaningless. What exactly are you trying to prove? This is argumentum ad verecundiam (argument based on authority), it's a fallacious method of debate.

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, and he was probably a drinker and a fiend as well. Who cares? What matters is what he personally achieved.

Which was nothing compared to what Bill Finger achieved but the credit for that was stolen by Kane.

So when you bring up Kane's opinion, how shall I put this, why should anyone care what a glory hogging liar thinks?

But I digress. Nolan's take is what is popular right now. Everybody is going to be jumping on the bandwagon.

Keep telling yourself that.

Opinions, even of 'notable people' are meaningless.

So anyone who loves Nolan's movies, their opinions should be disregarded just because you say so?

What exactly are you trying to prove?

That some of the best talent in the Batman field loved Nolan's Batman movies. So his method of doing a comic book movie can't be as "wrong" as the OP was claiming.

This is argumentum ad verecundiam (argument based on authority), it's a fallacious method of debate.

No, calling people like Bruce Timm and Co. sycophants, and dismissing everyone's pro Nolan opinion is a fallacious method of debate. Making up false personal statements on behalf of actors and directors is a fallacious method of debate.

 

[ThePhantasm]

What exactly are you trying to prove? This is argumentum ad verecundiam (argument based on authority), it's a fallacious method of debate.

There are two kinds of arguments based on authority - the fallacious kind and the non-fallacious kind. Joker used the latter. Before you throw logic terms around you should read up on the nuances of that area of argumentation.

Joker didn't make an appeal to an inappropriate authority, nor did he make an unconditional appeal to authority, both of which would be fallacious. Rather, he simply stated that comic book authorities would disagree with the OP about Nolan's films.

You did, however, commit a fallacy - poisoning the well - when you suggested blindly that all the comic book authorities mentioned were sycophantic and lying through their teeth. THATS a logical fallacy.

 

[The Joker]

There are two kinds of arguments based on authority - the fallacious kind and the non-fallacious kind. Joker used the latter. Before you throw logic terms around you should read up on the nuances of that area of argumentation.

Joker didn't make an appeal to an inappropriate authority, nor did he make an unconditional appeal to authority, both of which would be fallacious. Rather, he simply stated that comic book authorities would disagree with the OP about Nolan's films.

You did, however, commit a fallacy - poisoning the well - when you suggested blindly that all the comic book authorities mentioned were sycophantic and lying through their teeth. THATS a logical fallacy.

Thank you

Glad I'm not the only one who see's the absurdity of OutRiddled's approach.

 

[Anno_Domini]

He's been banned, Anno. Just when it was getting interesting. I'd love to have read his comeback to that.

I'd love to hear his reply to that as well. It had to be one of the most confusing phrases I read too, lol.

 

[Mace Dolex]

I wonder what got Anno banned for.

 

[JackWhite]

Nah, I'll watch them as Batman films, lol.

Yeah, Amen.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I wonder what got Anno banned for.

 

[JackWhite]

 

[OutRiddled]

Which was nothing compared to what Bill Finger achieved but the credit for that was stolen by Kane.

So when you bring up Kane's opinion, how shall I put this, why should anyone care what a glory hogging liar thinks?

Now who is poisoning the well?

Keep telling yourself that.

I will. t:

So anyone who loves Nolan's movies, their opinions should be disregarded just because you say so?

I never said that.

That some of the best talent in the Batman field loved Nolan's Batman movies. So his method of doing a comic book movie can't be as "wrong" as the OP was claiming.

"Best talent" according to you.. but you only like the Batman that fits with your favourite interpretations.

I'd love to hear what Alan Moore thinks, since he is usually much more honest in his opinions, especially of people trying to adapt his work.

No, calling people like Bruce Timm and Co. sycophants, and dismissing everyone's pro Nolan opinion is a fallacious method of debate. Making up false personal statements on behalf of actors and directors is a fallacious method of debate.

Opinions are opinions, not facts. Claiming they are sycophants is just the same as claiming that just because certain people agree on an opinion, that somehow makes it more valid or true.

And I never make anything up..

There are two kinds of arguments based on authority - the fallacious kind and the non-fallacious kind. Joker used the latter. Before you throw logic terms around you should read up on the nuances of that area of argumentation.

Joker didn't make an appeal to an inappropriate authority, nor did he make an unconditional appeal to authority, both of which would be fallacious. Rather, he simply stated that comic book authorities would disagree with the OP about Nolan's films.

You did, however, commit a fallacy - poisoning the well - when you suggested blindly that all the comic book authorities mentioned were sycophantic and lying through their teeth. THATS a logical fallacy.

And why would he state that? Because he is trying to argue that the OP is wrong by appealing to authority. At the end of the day, they are stated opinions, not facts. I could be the most acclaimed comic book writer in history, doesn't mean that everything I say is true.

 

[ThePhantasm]

And why would he state that? Because he is trying to argue that the OP is wrong by appealing to authority. At the end of the day, they are stated opinions, not facts. I could be the most acclaimed comic book writer in history, doesn't mean that everything I say is true.

You're confusing plausibility with conditionality. No one said the comic book authors were infallible. That would be a ridiculous position to take, and it clearly isn't one that the Joker holds. However, is their opinion worth nothing? If someone says the films aren't faithful to the comics, and a whole cadre of comic book authors and illustrators say otherwise, whose position suddenly seems more plausible?

This really isn't difficult stuff to grasp. People rely on experts all the time to make decisions based on measured probability. That's what experts are for. People trust experts, not blindly (I hope), but by giving what they say some measure of weight. To assert that those experts are errorless gods would be a fallacy, but that isn't remotely what's happening here.

So no, it isn't the sort of logical fallacy that you think it is. Try again.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Opinions are opinions, not facts. Claiming they are sycophants is just the same as claiming that just because certain people agree on an opinion, that somehow makes it more valid or true.

There are true and false opinions. I may be of the opinion that the moon is made of cheese, but the fact that it is my opinion doesn't make it any more true or logically unassailable. There can be good and bad opinions. People change their opinions about things all the time. It is because people can be persuaded that their standards and tastes are bad, believe it or not.

Furthermore, you aren't an expert on sycophants. The people Joker cited are experts. People trust experts on a related subject more than non-experts for a reason. We trust scientists for a reason. Why? Because we can't study everything in the universe on our own. We trust that what experts say is probably true because we have to make decisions based on measured probabilities, and trustworthy (i.e. credible) experts who have lots of experience in their respective field are more likely to be right about something than non-experts. Doesn't make them infallible, but doesn't make arguments based on authority wrong either.

So no, the two arguments are not "just the same." Try again.

 

[OutRiddled]

You're confusing plausibility with conditionality. No one said the comic book authors were infallible. That would be a ridiculous position to take, and it clearly isn't one that the Joker holds. However, is their opinion worth nothing? If someone says the films aren't faithful to the comics, and a whole cadre of comic book authors and illustrators say otherwise, whose position suddenly seems more plausible?

This really isn't difficult stuff to grasp. People rely on experts all the time to make decisions based on measured probability. That's what experts are for. People trust experts, not blindly (I hope), but by giving what they say some measure of weight. To assert that those experts are errorless gods would be a fallacy, but that isn't remotely what's happening here.

So no, it isn't the sort of logical fallacy that you think it is. Try again.

Any claim requires evidence, even from so-called professionals or experts. But they aren't really making any claims, just stating their opinions. It's the same thing as asking any man on the street. If I have evidence, I can disprove the claim of anyone. But opinions are just that, opinions..

 

[BatLobster]

And I never make anything up..

Says the guy who said Anne Hathaway was only cast in TDKR because she was in Alice in Wonderland...

 

[ThePhantasm]

Any claim requires evidence, even from so-called professionals or experts. But they aren't really making any claims, just stating their opinions. It's the same thing as asking any man on the street. If I have evidence, I can disprove the claim of anyone. But opinions are just that, opinions..

Do you think their opinions just come out of thin air with no basis in their life's work and experience at all? Do you think they are just riffing off the top of their head about a topic they know nothing about?

I'm all for fact-checking experts and thinking for yourself, but good gosh your cynicism and skepticism take things to a whole new level.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Watch them "as" Bond films?

Like what... Bruce Wayne is James Bond with amnesia? Or they are in the same universe? I'm so ****ing baffled by OP.

 

[Just_Human]

Skyfall had a lot of Dark Knight Trilogy moments

 

[OutRiddled]

Says the guy who said Anne Hathaway was only cast in TDKR because she was in Alice in Wonderland...

That's not my claim, it's straight from Crispin Glover himself, on why he was not cast as Joker:

[YT]_ZJikZtwXUA[/YT]

(from about 2:30 onwards)

Do you think their opinions just come out of thin air with no basis in their life's work and experience at all? Do you think they are just riffing off the top of their head about a topic they know nothing about?

I'm all for fact-checking experts and thinking for yourself, but good gosh your cynicism and skepticism take things to a whole new level.

I'll take their analysis seriously if they actually provide some kind of at least half-academic argument.

 

[BatLobster]

That's not my claim, it's straight from Crispin Glover himself, on why he was not cast as Joker:

[YT]_ZJikZtwXUA[/YT]

(from about 2:30 onwards)

So let me get this straight...you trash the opinions of some of the most well-respected Batman authors around, and then take the word of CRISPIN GLOVER as gospel? And do Back to the Future or Charlie's Angels not count as a successful box office movie? Did he forget he was in those movies?

My head hurts.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'll take their analysis seriously if they actually provide some kind of at least half-academic argument.

Considering that I just gave you an academic argument about accumulated / measured probabilities that has roots in rhetorical and epistemological philosophy all through the ages back to Aristotelian phronesis, and you ignored said argument in favor of a half-baked theory on opinions, I think that no, you actually wouldn't take their analysis seriously.

Even though in the quotes Joker provided, they gave specific, concrete examples of how Nolan's batuniverse was faithful to the comic books that they were directly involved in creating. Examples which you ignored as mere "opinion."

You've been misusing the phrase "argument from authority." You've been mis-defining logical fallacies. You demand evidence from comic book authors about what comic books contain (yeah, that's kinda like demanding evidence from George Lucas that Vader is Luke's father in Star Wars). You're just digging your hole deeper and making your argument more bizarre.

 

[BatLobster]

You're just digging your hole deeper and making your argument more bizarre.

"He does that"

 

[Tequilla]

I don't understand why i would adapt myself before seeing a movie. I watch all of them the same way. Open minded .

 

[The Joker]

Now who is poisoning the well?

Not me. I'm just reporting these facts. I didn't start them.

I never said that.

Then stop going on about how these opinions are meaningless because they're either sycophants or just hopping on some popularity bandwagon.

Your pathetic attempts to degrade these pro Nolan opinions is laughable.

"Best talent" according to you.. but you only like the Batman that fits with your favourite interpretations.

No, best talent according to millions of Batman fans. Not just me. Or are you insane enough to try and argue these guys are not beloved by millions of Batman fans?

I'd love to hear what Alan Moore thinks, since he is usually much more honest in his opinions, especially of people trying to adapt his work.

Well if he ever says anything you'll be the first to know

Opinions are opinions, not facts. Claiming they are sycophants is just the same as claiming that just because certain people agree on an opinion, that somehow makes it more valid or true.

Wrong. You have NO basis for calling them sycophants. People who form an opinion usually base it on something factual. You just decided to call these guys suck ups for no reason.

I think it just gets under your skin that they love Nolan's movies and so you attempt to degrade them as people.

And I never make anything up..

LOL!

I've lost track of the number of times I've proven you wrong on things like that. From things like claiming Heath Ledger saying he was struggling to not act like Jack Nicholson, to trying to say why Nolan chose Bane.

The thing of it is that it's always too easy to prove you're wrong on these things. The proof is always readily available all across the Net from these people's own mouths.

 

[milost]

Why would I watch a Batman movie as a James Bond movie? There are only two things "Bondish" about it,

- Fox supplying gadgets to Bruce (they're exchanges are just like Q and Bond)

- Bane could be some weird, cliched, Bond villain (herro mistah Bond, let's not stand ohn cerehmonheh here)



That's pretty much it.


The gadgets? Most of those gadgets in the Nolan films are the SAME stuff Batman had in the Burton ones. The grapple gun? Smoke pellets? Remote for the bats? None of those things the Keaton Batman had were "batted out" (I'm assuming the OP loves the Burton version). They looked like practical, functional gadgetry and weaponry. Why should any of his weapons other than the batarang look "batty".


Unless the OP likes those huge, clunky Schumacher gadgets that are all decorated with bat logos and were silver and shiny. I don't see how that's "Batman".








As for Bob Kane, I mean no disrespect, but I bet if he were still around today he'd be calling the Nolan/Bale Batman the "best one" just like he did with Schumacher.

I think he was just enamored with the idea of something "he created" being popular and famous. He enjoyed being in the spotlight obviously.

 

[Saint]

"Yes, my first exposure to Batman as a character was Batman the TV series. But honestly, I didn’t know it was supposed to be a parody or campy. I thought it was the coolest thing I’d ever seen. Of course, I was 5 at the time. But all in one fell swoop, I became an instant super hero fan. Later on, as I got older and started reading more comics and getting into the super hero scene, I realized that the Batman show was kind of a comedy. I was reading Neal Adams comics and thinking, “Batman is kind of cooler than that show – he’s kind of scary and mysterious.” So my perception of Batman changed over time, and then I went through the periods with Frank Miller and the Tim Burton movies. So now I’ve got these warring Batmans in my head. I still love the Adam West/Batman show. I still love the Neal Adams take on Batman comics. I still love The Dark Knight. All of these things totally contradict each other, and yet it’s fine to me. I’ve said it over and over again – Batman as a character is such a strong concept, he’s the kind of character that you can take him in any number of ways and it still feels right. Batman: The Animated Series is a really good version of Batman. Batman: The Brave and the Bold – that’s a really good version of Batman. They have equal value."

- Bruce Timm

http://www.facebook.com/notes/batma...ght-on-dc-universe-animated-o/124092317631826

This is the only item of value is this entire thread.