Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by DACrowe, Jul 31, 2012.
How could the bat fly 6 miles in a short ammount of time?
In a jet/chopper hybrid thing?
In a car, if you're going 60 mph, you're traveling 1 mile per minute. I'm gonna go ahead and guess that The Bat was traveling a little faster than that.
Dude rises ****ing blew. So let me get this straight Batman hung up the cape and cowl for 8 years because a girl he loved died? How cute. There were so many problems with those films right off rip that it would take too long to type them out. Then after saving Gotham he just pretends to be dead and stops? What? Like get out of here with that nonsense Nolan. I'm really glad his filming of the series is done. I mean The Dark Knight was good and all, mainly because of Ledgers performance, but there's only so much that film can make up for. I understand Nolan was trying to make it realistic as possible but Batman, and well all comics series, are great because of the impossible.
Those movies are terrible, The Dark Knight was the only good one.
Well lets say modern jets can travel at 900mph at sea level, a helicopter like an Apache 182mph.
The Bat is sort of a hybrid between jet and 'copter so lets say for arguments sake it can travel at 475mph
To travel 6 miles it would take roughly 46 seconds.
and yes I am very boredt:
Huh. Funnily enough, I would argue Nolan was closer to the comics than most filmmakers are when adapting for the screen. He just made it soar as A FILM and not just an adaptation.
So let me get this straight Batman hung up the cape and cowl for 8 years because a girl he loved died? How cute.
You mean like how Frank Miller's lauded masterpiece, "The Dark Knight Returns," had him retire for TEN YEARS because his second Robin, Jason Todd, died? That's cute too.
hen after saving Gotham he just pretends to be dead and stops? What?
You mean also like in "Returns" when Batman...fakes his death and stops while passing the mantle on to the next generation (though its hundreds of people without training as opposed to one cop)? Pfft. Miller clearly didn't get the character either.
Actually, the great thing about Batman is he is open to many variations and interpretations. Miller being about as cynical as can be and Adam West and "Silver Age" being the other end of the spectrum. Strangely though, Nolan pulled more from the preferred "modern" comics more than anyone.
Yet, he ended it. There is nothing new to talk about them, so it is time for fans to turn on them. Such is the cycle.
In Miller's Returns story Bruce was Batman for decades, not a year and a few days, tops like Nolan Batman. He experienced a host of theats, crime of all types, Superman, the Justice League, etc.Miller Batman was a seasoned crime fighter in his 50s, pushing his 60s, not 30s pushing 40s. 20 years is a pretty big different. Miller Batman lost a "good soldier", a child, to a lifestyle he allowed, not a not-girlfriend who knew the risks. Miller's Batman never quits or goes into retirement to live out his blubbering Butler's crazy dream in a cafe in Italy, he still believes in the mission, is still obsessed and dedicated to fighting crime.
Context is everything. The Miller Returns Batman is a much better character than the one Nolan and Co. thought up. He's a much deeper and conflicted character and that story is arguably better.
The duration that he was actually in the cape and cowl matters little to me. He was Batman. He saved Gotham multiple times and put his life on the line. He was THE Batman that was the center of my attention the past 7 years of my time as a Batman fan. He might be my favorite iteration of the character ever. That holds weight and matters.
LMAO. He didn't retire for Rachel, obviously you weren't paying attention.
You gotta admit that Nolan had some cajones to end the series. Not just leave the franchise, but end it. He actually gave Batman a beginning, middle, and end.
This poll is awful. Where is the "won't happen" choice?
And thank goodness for that. Nolan gave Bruce and ending he deserves, an exit from the pain in Gotham.
And thus made the character less compelling than he could have been.
I think it would have been much more interesting to see a Bruce Wayne that can't be happy, even if he tries. I'd love to see a follow up where the tourist, cafe life (that someone else wanted for him by the way) is too mundane to him and he gets more cynical and comes back to fight crime as a sort of catharsis. It would have been nice to see the character relish in the persona instead of always seeing it as a burden or a curse for the good of Gotham. It makes me wonder, if it's such a "negative lifestyle" that is compared to the role of protectors of Rome, how could Wayne possibly let someone else carry the burden without some forewarning or apprehension. He just tells him to wear a mask (something that didn't even help him) then hands it all over to some poor young guy with a year or two of police training. I definitely prefer the interpretations where Batman is the dominant persona and Bruce Wayne is the mask ala BTAS, the Dark Knight Returns, Keaton Batman, etc.
It's unfortunate because there are signs that it might have been the case like with Rachel's quote at the end of Begins, Batman's questionable methods in Dark Knight and the letter. Unfortunately they didn't have the balls to showcase a fully developed Batman character past what we see in film two. He's disgustingly normal. One of my favorite lines in the Nolan films aren't even actually featured in the movies. "They told me there was nothing out there, nothing to fear. But the night my parents were murdered I caught a glimpse of something. I've looked for it ever since. I went around the world, searched in all the shadows. And there is something out there in the darkness, something terrifying, something that will not stop until it gets revenge. Me." That's fantastic and edgy. I hate how that dynamic was ultimately lost and ended up really being about Rachel's ideals of justice, hope, shining, glimmering legacies and more about the city itself than Bruce Wayne's neurosis. That quote, to me, summed up my Batman perfectly, too bad that kind of thinking and darkness was done away with. I love that look he has too after he states "a guy dressed up like a Bat clearly has issues". Then at the end on the rooftop it feels like the sky is the limit.
Had he "gotten lost in the monster" without losing his humanity and morals, I think he would have been a better character than going around and fulfilling his blubbering butlers' wishes.
There are rarely any endings that are truly happy (unless it's a fictional fairy tale happy ending). I think when writers "cure" Bruce of his issue it makes the character less interesting. That's why Kilmer, Clooney, and TDKR Bale do nothing for me. I have no desire to see a "happy" Batman. One that comes to terms with the pain and embraces both identities isn't too bad as long as he's still driven. Too bad Bale Bruce ended up discarding the Batman persona, but the Bruce Wayne one too.
I'll take a Batman that states things like, "I am vengeance, I am the night.", " I chose this life. I used the night. I became the night." And is compelled to BE Batman anyday.
I won't deny the story is better. But I much prefer Nolan's interpretation of the character, as Miller writes him as a selfish, narcissistic fascist, like he does so many of his characters.
We want to complain about Bruce retiring to a cafe in Italy? What about Bruce's first retirement in "Returns" where he becomes an alcoholic and a race car driver with a death wish?
Yes, Miller had all of comicdom to base his story off of while Nolan, confined by the medium of FILM, and only had three films, but the idea is the same. After fighting the good fight, he retires and for a little bit altruistic and a little bit selfish reasons, he comes out of retirement. He finds a replacement for the "soldier" he lost. And yes, Rachel was much apart of the "Bat-team" (if you will) in the film series as Jim Gordon, Alfred Pennyworth, Lucius Fox and Harvey Dent. Indeed, you could even say they were his "Bat-family" in this film (well, maybe not Dent...).
The point is complaining about his retirement, whether he did it for 18 months or 18 years, or a second retirement (which in both cases results from a faked "death" and an heir apparent appointed)one should look where it came from.
And it is a valid point, whether some would choose to acknowledge that or not.
It is not on there because it is not a realistic option. In fact, I voted closer to release, but it has already happened. Look at half the posts in here and most of them in the "Future Batman Series" or "Batman/Superman" forum. The tide has already shifted. In another year, around the time we get the first teaser, they will be tarring and feather these films.
Sad, but true.
So, long story short, you wanted a redo of the ending of TDK. He loses everything and embraces the darkness. You would like to see him miserable without the costume and yearning to go back to feed his psychology? Go rewatch the first 45 minutes of TDKR, as that is exactly what happens.
I love Batman Beyond and I think it walked the line well between the happy ending Nolan gave him and the miserable (but brilliantly executed) ending that Miller gave him.
Still, Nolan's take, after so much darkness, was fascinating to see. Eventually Bruce Wayne either will die or let it go. Nolan opted for the latter.
Again, this all boils down to Nolan ended it. If it concluded like the last two movies or B'89 wit hhim ever watchful, I am sure half the backlash would not exist. But it would be a much weaker movie.
Batman was always hunted, the whole Dent cover up wouldn't have made the police pursues any bit more easy to avoid then they had been. The fact he had the man out of commission is just ridiculous. Bruce kept going until he either died, had heart failure and attempted to use a gun, beyond, or a series just fell away. Bale was great as the Bat and the films were good, but rises just pissed me off.
Well that kind of depends on how well this Batman/Superman film goes down, if its as divisive as MoS there wont be quite such a backlash as much as people wanting to berate Snyder.
Admittedly, I haven't been here for awhile, but I don't see anymore hate now then when TDKR was released.
Unfortunately, I agree with this. We're seeing the start of that already. By this time next year when the pics/teaser trailer of the new one comes out, it won't surprise me if people start saying that Nolan's trilogy is worse than garbage. Not that it matters as Nolan, Bale, etc. have moved on as well to other endeavors.
but on the flip side of that coin...
It wouldn't surprise me to see the Nolan fans/Nolanites and Dark Knight Trilogy fans in general, blast the new footage as soon as it comes out, call it generic, watered-down crap that couldn't stand up to Nolan's stuff on it's best day. They'll also likely tear the director to shreds and blast his/her filmography.
I can only speak for myself when I say it wasn't just that Nolan didnt stick to source material, but the plot holes in the third movie made it almost unwatchable. Bane not using venom/PCP/HGH, Talia Al Ghul popping up out of nowhere after being "on the board" for several years, Batman being the WORST detective in doing almost zero background checks of house servants, his board members and friends.... The list goes on and it does force you to reevaluate the past work he put together in the trilogy. Heath Ledger diverted a lot of attention of the same issues in the 2nd movie but his superior portrayal of the Joker took a lot of focus away from the fact that Bale was being a pretty poor Batman and Bruce Wayne. I'm sorry, and I repeat this is only my opinion, but TDKR was so director message driven I was almost glad it was over because I was tired of things just not making any sense not to mention the weak tie ins to elements from the comics.
You really don't know what "plot-holes" are, do you?