Alex Logan
Yes, Mr. Smith.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,413
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 58
I cant post it on here. Its too big.
You could post it in many parts.

I cant post it on here. Its too big.
I totally agree except I thought Batman Begins was a better film and a better Batman film.
Why people keep saying that the third act of Begins was weak? 2/3rds of the film are spent on Batman's origins, it was amazing that Nolan could fit a villain story in the last part of the film. I wouldnt have thought it possible.
But he tied it with Ras and the beginning of the film so it all made sense. It was great.
On which film was better:
TDK was deeper, but
1) lacked the charisma of BB
2) Batman wasnt the central character until Gordon's speech where they suddenly remembered him
3) BB was just a lot more enjoyable to watch. I'd easily rewatch it.
Good points. About the emitter, its a movie. Even if Ras had jacked a nuke, there would still be an easier solution that someone would come up with. Then, remember that he didnt want to annihilate the city, just destroy it to a certain degree that it would allow it to make a clean start.The microwave emitter was a fairly faulty plan to begin with. I find it kind of odd that Ras, while having the manpower to steal the emitter, hijack Gotham and drive it to the spot he needs to in order to send Gotham into chaos...would have just say...jacked a nuke, or placed multiple large scale explosives around the city and blow the place to hell. A lot easier to accomplish and a lot harder to stop.
Also, we can get into the whole argument about how the emitter actually functions and how it seems to not effect people, but I think that's been explored enough.
The under usage of Scarecrow and his absolutely horrible "defeat" at the hands of Rachel.
(These didn't bother me as much but are still frequently brought up)
*Gordon in the Batmobile
*Rachel's rather contradictory refusal of Bruce.
and then (and this isn't just a third act thing)
The fights weren't filmed very well. They weren't as bad as people make them out, but even at best they're still choppier than the fights in Bourne.
And I would completely disagree that Batman wasn't the focus of TDK. Joker's entire purpose was to attack Batman. All his antics were focused towards Batman. All the biggest tension moments (besides the boat scene) in the movie, were centered around Batman and his choices. (Will he give himself up? Will he pick Rachel or Dent to save?)
The central character arc was focused on Batman, on Bruce's desire to finally be able to hang up the cowl, and Joker showing him he can't.
Good points. About the emitter, its a movie. Even if Ras had jacked a nuke, there would still be an easier solution that someone would come up with. Then, remember that he didnt want to annihilate the city, just destroy it to a certain degree that it would allow it to make a clean start.
As for the emitter being unrealistic, well... its a batman film. In real life Batman would have been dead in a week. It wasnt all that farfetched.
Scarecrow's defeat was lame indeed. Batman should have been the one to take him out, even if it was easily.
Rachel's refusal was... odd... but understandable. She wanted Bruce to get off his ass and stop being irresponsible but being a vigilante is taking it too far.
And finally, the fights scenes were bad, but the general action was great (the tumbler chase scene, the majestic shots of the monorail crossing Gotham, etc). The bad fights were a trivial flaw if you ask me.
TDK's Prewitt building scene, as well as the TwoFace showdown in the worst set i have ever seen were worse than Begin's third act.
The Prewitt building scene was difficult to follow most of the time. But it was good yeah.I agree with that, and I'm actually one of those fans that gets tired about hearing how "realistic" everything is in Nolan's films, when really, they're not, he just does a great job of grounding them.
I actually loved the Prewitt Building scene, Batman simultaneous taking out the Swat, protecting the false hostages, and taking out the real goons was awesome to watch, and when you combine that with the tension of the boats, it was just an amazing scene.
I also thought the Two-Face scene at the end was great as well. Again, another amazingly beautiful tense scene, however, it just paled in comparison with the tension of the ferries before it. Had it come before (or have been saved for the next movie) I think it would have been fine, but it's hard to live up to it when you have, (arguably) one of the best tension based scenes in comic movie history right before you.
The Prewitt building scene was difficult to follow most of the time. But it was good yeah.
I didnt particularly like the TwoFace showdown because of the lame set it happened (was that Nolan's basement? For christ's sake with a budget like theirs it should have been better) and the fact that Batman pushed Dent to his death.
The microwave emitter was a fairly faulty plan to begin with. I find it kind of odd that Ras, while having the manpower to steal the emitter, hijack Gotham and drive it to the spot he needs to in order to send Gotham into chaos...would have just say...jacked a nuke, or placed multiple large scale explosives around the city and blow the place to hell. A lot easier to accomplish and a lot harder to stop.
But I've been kind of iffy on the whole them of "no killing" Nolan has established, because this is the second movie in a row where Batman has essentially killed someone.
It wasn't the most interesting set piece, but it was supposed to be the building that rachel was blown up in, so I don't think it was supposed to look very nice.
However, I agree about Two Face dying. I was just mad from the standpoint that they didn't save the character for a 3rd movie. But I've been kind of iffy on the whole them of "no killing" Nolan has established, because this is the second movie in a row where Batman has essentially killed someone. The Ras thing never sat very well with me in the first movie either.
Well, the flowers that create fear toxin grew nearby the LOS headquarters so Ra's probably couldn't resist using them. Plus, he may have been trying to send a message: Gotham wasn't destroyed by outsiders so much as it tore itself apart through its own fear.
I dont care for Dent's death. There are more characters out there to be explored, plus it allowed the whole batman taking the blame ending. But i do care about the way it happened. That batman shoved him to his death. And choosing to leave Ras to his fate was so unheroic. Ras could simply have opted not to accept Bruce's help (because he can always resurrect for all we know).
But you have to prove that batman was there, I mean do you really think Gordon would rat him out.Ras though...that's a tough one. It's something I've more or less been on the fence about for a while. I'll watch it some times and it won't bother me, and then sometimes it will. Regardless, Batman did kill him. You can be tried in court for standing by and watching someone die if it was easily within your power to save them.
But you have to prove that batman was there, I mean do you really think Gordon would rat him out.
You can be tried in court for standing by and watching someone die if it was easily within your power to save them.