Most disappointing movie of 2012? (so far)

[Gianakin_]

Oh, and here comes Leo Drone Tep with his Nolan worshipping. Stop defending this movie, clearly the comics where Batman retires or where Batman has a bunker or where Batman appears in brightly lit spaces aren't the ones that matter. When will you get it?

 

[Naked Shia]

Oh, and here comes Leo Drone Tep with his Nolan worshipping. Stop defending this movie, clearly the comics where Batman retires or where Batman has a bunker or where Batman appears in brightly lit spaces aren't the ones that matter. When will you get it?

You're clearly faithful to people who don't know the comics, aren't you? The only really important Batman stories are the silver age ones. Period. and Nolan did a great job in recreating them, if only with a darker mood.

 

[Gianakin_]

Look, there are comics and there are comics. Are you meaning to tell me that you'd be fine with this in TDKR? Hey, it's in the comics, right?

Spoiler

 

[Naked Shia]

Look, there are comics and there are comics. Are you meaning to tell me that you'd be fine with this in TDKR? Hey, it's in the comics, right?

Spoiler

I would recommend to read Batman 300 for instance. It's far from the campiness, and yet it shows how and why Batman would be fine with retiring.

I would be fine with your example, as long as it's done in a campy movie. The thing is, a movie has to be consistent. And TDKR is consistent with the whole trilogy.

I do like both the dark and the campy batman, so yes, I would be happy with this Batman, or even the zebra batman for instance, as long as it's consistent with the mood of the movie.

 

[Gianakin_]

Oh, and Batman retiring (twice) wasn't cheesy? It goes against what Batman is as a character.

 

[Naked Shia]

Oh, and Batman retiring (twice) wasn't cheesy? It goes against what Batman is as a character.

It wasn't because the first time he retired, he did it because there was no purpose in Batman still being active. But he wasn't ready to retire, which is why he was dying to be Batman again in TDKR. He couldn't be Batman anymore when he felt he still needed to. He had no purpose anymore.

In the end, he was at peace, because he knew he did everything he could do to save Gotham, by stopping the one threat that created him, making the story full circle. He was finally ready to retire, and he could move on with his life.

At first, he couldn't be Batman anymore. And in the end, he didn't need to be Batman anymore.

 

[Gianakin_]

It wasn't because the first time he retired, he did it because there was no purpose in Batman still being active. But he wasn't ready to retire, which is why he was dying to be Batman again in TDKR. He couldn't be Batman anymore when he felt he still needed to. He had no purpose anymore.

And in the process Nolan didin't even have the decency to imply that Batman had fought other rogues during those 8 years. Very comic-based, yeah.

In the end, he was at peace, because he knew he did everything he could do to save Gotham, by stopping the one threat that created him, making the story full circle. He was finally ready to retire, and he could move on with his life.

That's what he thought after TDK, too, no? What's different this time? [BLACKOUT]Blake?[/BLACKOUT] That's gonna go well. Happened in the comics, too.

At first, he couldn't be Batman anymore. And in the end, he didn't need to be Batman anymore.

And that's a fallacy. It happened once in the comics and ti was terrible.

 

[Roose Bolton]

I was most dissapointed by the Bourne Legacy. ugh

UGH!

 

[Naked Shia]

And in the process Nolan didin't even have the decency to imply that Batman had fought other rogues during those 8 years. Very comic-based, yeah.

it was clearly stated that Bruce didn't fight even one rogue during those 8 years. Because, Like Blake said to Gordon "when you cleaned these streets, you cleaned them good". Apart from petty muggers that the police was more than able to take care of, there wasn't any crime left in Gotham City. If Batman was to be seen, not only he would have much to do (apart from escaping the police), but people would be wondering why this criminal, who killed a lot of people, including Harvey Dent, was trying to prevent crime. Thus the lie would be uncovered, and the sacrifice would be meaningless.

That's what he thought after TDK, too, no? What's different this time? [BLACKOUT]Blake?[/BLACKOUT] That's gonna go well. Happened in the comics, too..

He wasn't at peace at the end of TDK. His loved one was killed, Gotham was in chaos, Harvey Dent was a murderer and was killed, and Batman itself had to take the blame. He was forced to retirement, but he wasn't ready for it, which is why he couldn't be at peace. In TDKR, Gotham knows the truth and understand his sacrifice. People can now build the city again. A war is over, hope is back, his mission is over. He inspired not only Blake, but also Selina, Foley, and it's likely he inspired a lot of other people. His legend is strong enough to ensure that someone will take over after him, and the citizen themselves will be ready to fight for their city, because he gave them hope, he show them what heroism and altruism is about.

And that's a fallacy. It happened once in the comics and ti was terrible.

Why would that be a fallacy? when Bill Finger created Batman, Bruce was driven, but not obsessed. He was always leaving Gotham to go on vacation. when Batman was created, it was clear he would retire one day. Only the post crisis Batman is a boderline psychotic. and he's only 36 years old. From 1939 to 1986, he wasn't so obsessed, and he could retire. It's not just once, it's consistent with the mythos, at least pre crisis.

 

[Roose Bolton]

*And Gia your rebuttle....

 

[Gianakin_]

it was clearly stated that Bruce didn't fight even one rogue during those 8 years. Because, Like Blake said to Gordon "when you cleaned these streets, you cleaned them good". Apart from petty muggers that the police was more than able to take care of, there wasn't any crime left in Gotham City. If Batman was to be seen, not only he would have much to do (apart from escaping the police), but people would be wondering why this criminal, who killed a lot of people, including Harvey Dent, was trying to prevent crime. Thus the lie would be uncovered, and the sacrifice would be meaningless.

I know it was clearly stated, and that's exactly the problem. The Harvey Dent act should've been used to clean up the mob and common criminals, whereas the city would be plagued by supervillains, you know, like Joker implied in TDK which was *gasp* written by Nolan!

He wasn't at peace at the end of TDK. His loved one was killed, Gotham was in chaos, Harvey Dent was a murderer and was killed, and Batman itself had to take the blame. He was forced to retirement, but he wasn't ready for it, which is why he couldn't be at peace. In TDKR, Gotham knows the truth and understand his sacrifice. People can now build the city again. A war is over, hope is back, his mission is over. He inspired not only Blake, but also Selina, Foley, and it's likely he inspired a lot of other people. His legend is strong enough to ensure that someone will take over after him, and the citizen themselves will be ready to fight for their city, because he gave them hope, he show them what heroism and altruism is about.

Wow, so it's that easy to get over his parents' death, huh? A nuclear bomb and a groupie in a catsuit. Those are the least of what he's faced in the comics and in the latter he still hasn't found peace.

It's not just once, it's consistent with the mythos, at least pre crisis.

And like I said, some comics had just bad ideas. Simple as that.

 

[Naked Shia]

I know it was clearly stated, and that's exactly the problem. The Harvey Dent act should've been used to clean up the mob and common criminals, whereas the city would be plagued by supervillains, you know, like Joker implied in TDK which was *gasp* written by Nolan!.

That shows that the Joker was wrong, because he wasn't a prophet.

Wow, so it's that easy to get over his parents' death, huh? A nuclear bomb and a groupie in a catsuit. Those are the least of what he's faced in the comics and in the latter he still hasn't found peace..

He will never get over it, but he's finally accepted that he can't change their death, and that he has punished himself enough about it. The pit was a way to make him realize how he care about things, and how he wants to live. Bane wanted to punish him, but Bruce finally realized that he was the one really punishing himself. And he didn't deserve to be punished, because he wasn't reponsible for his parents death, and he dedicated his life to protect innocent people and to honour his parents legacy, by helping the city. which he did. He inspired a lot of people, and he made sure that Gotham would always have a protector.

He can't find peace in the comics, because the comics won't end. Because what would Dc sell otherwise? They don't want to end Batman's story, and nor do us, the readers, want them to end it. But Nolan ended his story, that's why he could afford to bring peace to Bruce. Because he deserved it.

And like I said, some comics had just bad ideas. Simple as that.

You also have to understand that while you have the right to only like the post crisis Batman, he's been around since 1939, and a lot of people like the pre crisis Batman as much as the post crisis one, if not much. Is someone right about that? I don't think so. It's more a matter of personnal preference. But it's still part of the mythos, regardless of you liking it or not.

 

[Gianakin_]

That shows that the Joker was wrong, because he wasn't a prophet.

At that moment you KNOW the Joker is the writer.

He inspired a lot of people, and he made sure that Gotham would always have a protector.

A non-trained cop who wouldn't even touch a gun? Right.

He can't find peace in the comics, because the comics won't end. Because what would Dc sell otherwise? They don't want to end Batman's story, and nor do us, the readers, want them to end it. But Nolan ended his story, that's why he could afford to bring peace to Bruce. Because he deserved it.

He could've killed him.

You also have to understand that while you have the right to only like the post crisis Batman, he's been around since 1939, and a lot of people like the pre crisis Batman as much as the post crisis one, if not much. Is someone right about that? I don't think so. It's more a matter of personnal preference. But it's still part of the mythos, regardless of you liking it or not.

Yeah, but there's a reason post-crisis Batman resonates more with people. B&R was pre-crisis and it tanked.

 

[Naked Shia]

At that moment you KNOW the Joker is the writer..

because he told you so? That's just like when people are claiming the whole stuff about the truth contradict the point of the dark knight. It doesn't. What characters believe in a movie is not the truth. It's just their belief. They can be wrong.

A non-trained cop who wouldn't even touch a gun? Right..

Blake is like Bruce, he is driven. That's why he put things together about Bruce's identity. It shows how he understands Bruce, how he's just like him, and why he can be his successor. Because "the training is nothing, the will is everything. the will to act".

He could've killed him..

Maybe he did. Which would be another way of letting him find peace. What matters is not Bruce retiring or dying. what matters is that in the end, Bruce is no longer Batman, and that he found peace in a way.

Yeah, but there's a reason post-crisis Batman resonates more with people. B&R was pre-crisis and it tanked.

yeah, and there is a reason why Twilight resonates more with people than Drive (and I'm not even a fan of Drive).....

 

[Gianakin_]

because he told you so? That's just like when people are claiming the whole stuff about the truth contradict the point of the dark knight. It doesn't. What characters believe in a movie is not the truth. It's just their belief. They can be wrong.

But everything was pointing to that direction thematically. The freaks were taking over and the mob was dying.

Blake is like Bruce, he is driven. That's why he put things together about Bruce's identity. It shows how he understands Bruce, how he's just like him, and why he can be his successor. Because "the training is nothing, the will is everything. the will to act".

Oh good, you're using a major TDKR plot hole to defend this.

Maybe he did. Which would be another way of letting him find peace. What matters is not Bruce retiring or dying. what matters is that in the end, Bruce is no longer Batman, and that he found peace in a way.

Well, then they should've killed him off. One thing is final whereas what we got was a conscious choice. He'll live every day and if Gotham's in deep s**t he'll go "It's ok, [BLACKOUT]Blake's got this[/BLACKOUT]". Not the Batman I know.

yeah, and there is a reason why Twilight resonates more with people than Drive (and I'm not even a fan of Drive).....

Care to elaborate?

 

[henzINNIT]

TDKR is the most disappointing film for me so far this year. It wasn't out of expectation or hype. I wasn't expecting it to top TDK, but I was expecting far more from Nolan. It's easily his worst film to date. 6/10.

I found Prometheus pretty disappointing as well but the flaws were to be expected with Lindelof's name attatched. It was beautiful even if the script was iffy.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

I was more disappointed by TDKR not living up to my expectations than TASM, even though I rate TASM slightly lower.

 

[Naked Shia]

But everything was pointing to that direction thematically. The freaks were taking over and the mob was dying.

One freak was taking over. And he was arrested. That may have been enough to scare any potential successor. Not to mention people think Batman is a murderer. The so called freaks, granted that they exist in this world, would be too afraid to try anything. Or they may lose interest knowing that Batman is nowhere to be seen. The mob did die, and so did the Freak with Joker's arrest.

Oh good, you're using a major TDKR plot hole to defend this.?

I'm using something nolan already used in Memento: empathy. It's because Blake can feel and understand Bruce. Because they share the same kind of loss. Just like Leonard Shelby was able to understand Sammy Jenkins's loss. It creates a bond between them. and it shows that Blake has the will. and it fits the whole trilogy thematics.

Well, then they should've killed him off. One thing is final whereas what we got was a conscious choice. He'll live every day and if Gotham's in deep s**t he'll go "It's ok, [BLACKOUT]Blake's got this[/BLACKOUT]". Not the Batman I know.?

Then I'm glad that the Batman you know is far from being the only Batman. Or else we would always have the same stories, over and over and over. I, for one, I'm glad that they tried something different for once. Because art allows you to be bold and ambitious. and while this ending was bold, it was also logical, considering what was etablished since Batman Begins, when Bruce gave Alfred his speech in Batman Begins. not to mention, it was faithful to the comics.

Care to elaborate?

It's simple. Numbers don't prove the artistic qualities of a movie.

 

[Gianakin_]

One freak was taking over. And he was arrested. That may have been enough to scare any potential successor. Not to mention people think Batman is a murderer. The so called freaks, granted that they exist in this world, would be too afraid to try anything. Or they may lose interest knowing that Batman is nowhere to be seen. The mob did die, and so did the Freak with Joker's arrest.

But that's the thing, Batman wouldn't be nowhere to be seen. He'd be there, active for 8 years, a suffering hero to those who knew and a criminal for all the rest. Much closer to the comics.

I'm using something nolan already used in Memento: empathy. It's because Blake can feel and understand Bruce. Because they share the same kind of loss. Just like Leonard Shelby was able to understand Sammy Jenkins's loss. It creates a bond between them. and it shows that Blake has the will. and it fits the whole trilogy thematics.

So Batman goes through all that thought to create his persona and someone just looks into the eyes of BRUCE, without even looking at Batman's, and deduces his identity? Wow.

 

[Vapor]

And that's pretty much it.

yeah.. I can appreciate what you're saying and i guess it makes sense.. But i am not a bat fan so while i initially enjoyed it in the cinema that was just how i viewed it afterward, especially compared with how great and enjoyable i found TDK, which in itself i think would have been fairly average had it not been for Heath as the Joker..

 

[Naked Shia]

But that's the thing, Batman wouldn't be nowhere to be seen. He'd be there, active for 8 years, a suffering hero to those who knew and a criminal for all the rest. Much closer to the comics..

Which wouldn't make sense storywise, since Gotham City is almost a crimefree city during those eight years. I guess he could help people to catch their cat who climbed in a tree, but wouldn't that be a waste, not to mention, wouldn't that be meaningless? The symbol of Batman must have a meaning.

So Batman goes through all that thought to create his persona and someone just looks into the eyes of BRUCE, without even looking at Batman's, and deduces his identity? Wow.

Which is precisely the point. It would be really easy to deduce his identity anyway. Coleman Reese did it, Blake did it... A lot of people could easily deduce his identity.... that's very close to the comics, considering Ra's Al Ghul, Tim Drake, Bane (among others) deduced his identity in the comics.
But anyway, the eye thing is just a way of showing that Blake understand Bruce, and thus, understands why he's Batman.

 

[Gianakin_]

yeah.. I can appreciate what you're saying and i guess it makes sense.. But i am not a bat fan so while i initially enjoyed it in the cinema that was just how i viewed it afterward, especially compared with how great and enjoyable i found TDK, which in itself i think would have been fairly average had it not been for Heath as the Joker..

So what you're saying is Nolan's take on Batman wasn't your cup of tea?

 

[Vapor]

You were dissapointed by the muppets?

Yeah, can't quite put my finger on it.. I enjoyed it.. Maybe there was too much emphasis on Walter i dunno.. It kinda felt like there wasn't enough of the actual muppets in it, especially Gonzo.. It was ok.

 

[Gianakin_]

Which wouldn't make sense storywise, since Gotham City is almost a crimefree city during those eight years. I guess he could help people to catch their cat who climbed in a tree, but wouldn't that be a waste, not to mention, wouldn't that be meaningless? The symbol of Batman must have a meaning.

That's what I'm saying. At no point during watching TDK's finale did I think that Gotham would be crime free in general. Just the mob, which was also Batman's obsession, as shown in the beginning of TDK.

Which is precisely the point. It would be really easy to deduce his identity anyway. Coleman Reese did it, Blake did it... A lot of people could easily deduce his identity.... that's very close to the comics, considering Ra's Al Ghul, Tim Drake, Bane (among others) deduced his identity in the comics.
But anyway, the eye thing is just a way of showing that Blake understand Bruce, and thus, understands why he's Batman.

Coleman had evidence (and that's how Ra's found out about Batman as well, although in reverse). Drake, too, more than Blake anyway. Bane's deduction was always stupid.

 

[Vapor]

So what you're saying is Nolan's take on Batman wasn't your cup of tea?

Yes and no. Its more than that.. The godfather isn't my cup of tea. Jaws isn't my cup of tea. Usually something like this would be my cup of tea.. I dunno, Its more my cup of tea than Burtons and Schumachers was. It looks good, its well shot and everything, i like the more realistic take and i enjoyed TDK, i just found BB and TDKR to be.. I dunno.. Meh. But as i say, im not really a bat fan, so that was just the way i viewed the points i made.. Some of the points i could perhaps take back.