Separate names with a comma.
The 2022 Hype Award Season, hosted by Lily Adler and ComicChick is officially live!Voting is now over! Stay tuned for the awards ceremony!
The SuperHeroHype Awards
Voting is now over! Stay tuned for the awards ceremony!
The SuperHeroHype Awards
Watch the show and join the conversation, Guest!
Discussion in 'Misc. Comics Films' started by The Batman, Jan 10, 2022.
Definitely the misconception that TDK isn’t a good ‘Batman’ movie.
It’s a fantastic Batman movie.
Any time somebody says it isn't a good Batman film, I usually just stop reading whatever else they got to say. Makes no damn sense whatsoever.
Gotham doesn't look like how Gotham is "supposed" to look
The movie is about Harvey Dent or Joker or Gordon, not Bruce
Nolan made a crime movie, not a Batman movie
If you've seen how discussions here often go when someone says they don't like TDK it's no surprise that we suddenly have people in the thread making negative opinions about the movie into "misconceptions".
I think it's a lot more about Joker and Harvey Dent than Bruce. That doesn't make it bad but it is ironic given that the previous films were, before and after, slammed so much for so long for being more about the villains (and BB got so much praise for finally focusing on Bruce, although that plus Ledger's acting and Two-Face having been done terribly before probably did give Nolan a lot of leeway to not focus on Bruce in the sequel).
He was very open in loving and wanting to do something like Heat although most fans think that isn't incompatible with a Batman movie (I agree it isn't incompatible).
In my view, there are three characters who have distinctive arcs: Bruce/Batman, Gordon and Dent. And in different ways and to different degrees, these arcs are manipulated by the Joker (who has no arc, per se). Now, Bruce/Batman gets the most screen time. So in that sense, he’s still the main protagonist. But at the conceptual level, it might be fair to say that Batman is only one of three pawns in Joker’s chess game. And I guess some folks think he should have been a more thematically dominant figure.
Harvey Dent is the Maguffin of the movie and Joker is the antagonist. Both exist as the two opposing consequences to Batman's influence in Gotham and however fully realized their characters are they're only in the story to further develop and define Bruce.
"take the Joker out, and TDK isn't good". Ah yes, take out an essential element and it ceases to be a movie. What a genius comment!
Being very fair, there is a good faith way to interpret this: one could mean "How good would a movie be, if you remove the standout excellent performance by one actor, and replace it by a strictly average and functional performance?" IOW, not that you yank out a critical aspect of the movie and leave a hole in it, but simply remove the influence of the particular *quality* of performance.
Which, admittedly, still kind of fails here, since while a merely-serviceable Joker would certainly lessen the movie, Ledger was *not* the only good thing in the movie. You would still have excellent performances by Bale, Eckhart, and Oldman. The idea that the movie wouldn't even reach the level of "good" is. . . honestly, I'd go with "Absurd, and a symptom of how people are addicted to hyperbole and binary judgements".
While I think that a number anti-TDK takes are trash, this really isn't a misconception, just an opinion.
What's also dumb about that comment is that even if you did take Joker out of TDK and have Two-Face as the main villain by the end with the mob and crime bosses as secondary antagonists (and the catalysts for Harvey's transformation instead of Joker), you'd still have a really solid film, as blasphemous as it sounds.
A big misconception in fandom is that Batman Forever wasn't a popular film with the GA when it came out, and that the response was lukewarm from the GA.
I chalk alot of those arguments up to alot of fans who were too young to remember how popular and successful the film was in 95, in addition to alot of fans assuming that Batman Forever and Batman and Robin got the same reception and reaction.
Ironically, the reason B&R went into production so quickly ,was because BF was such a hit.
If you ever wonder how Donald Trump ended up becoming President, just remember there are people who describe Bane as the good guy of TDKR, despite the scene where Bane straight up tells Batman he's going to give people hope to poison their souls, before blowing them up with a nuclear bomb.
It even made more money, domestically at least, than Batman Returns.
In terms of calendar gross, the first three Batman films were, domestically, the most successful films of 1989, 1992, and 1995 respectively.
I think even Joel Schumacher himself had to mention that BF was a BO success.
Although, often overlooked, BF also did cost more than BR.
...And in the context of this discussion, that doesn't detract BF from outgrossing BR. The point is that BF not only wasn't a failure with the GA, the GA seemed to like it more than BR going by the BO.
Just don’t show them depictions of Gotham city looking like a generic city before the 90’s!
It's success was one of the reasons WB wanted to strike while the iron was hot, and get out another Batman film ASAP.
It was that rush ,that conflicted with Val Kilmer's commitments to filming The Saint , which was one, of several reasons, Kilmer didn't want to return.
Thank you for this. I’ve never understood why people criticized Bruce for being hung up on her, because a good chunk of the complaints I’ve seen aren’t supported by what’s actually in the movies.
For example: “Bruce was gonna give up being Batman for Rachel!”
What actually happened is that Bruce was on the cusp of saving Gotham and would have if Joker hadn’t intervened. There was no reason for him to be Batman any longer, and therefore no reason to not have a normal life with the person he loved.
And like you said: if Rachel had lived and told Bruce she wanted to be with Harvey, there’s no way wouldn’t have eventually moved on. If he could get over his parents’ deaths, he could move on from a relationship he was never in.