Name a Popular CBM & an underrated aspect of that film

There is a tendency these days to downplay Batman/Christian Bale's role in The Dark Knight which I think is unfair. Yes, we all know how great The Joker was in that film, but it wasn't a Joker movie. The heart of that movie is still Batman and the relationship between him, Gordon, and Dent.

 

All the memes and jokes that were made about his voice notwithstanding, I think Bane’s dialogue and the writing for him in The Dark Knight Rises made him a very credible and lethal threat.

His lines were just as effective as Heath’s Joker.

 

I'll second this.

 

Well, I've never heard anyone defend that. To me it's still the worst deus ex machina ending ever. I remember being an 8 year old in the cinema and thinking " now this is some bull ****."
It's so problematic that I can't even begin to get into it - but I'm glad you liked it.

 

Well, don't agree that he was quite the standout performer that Ledger was - because between him and Nolan they reinterpreted the character in a way that's never been equaled - and that includes Phoenix.

But, Bale never gets enough credit for his performance as essentially 3 characters in one. Nolan's genius is keeping Bruce the main character by giving him the most to do and the most screentime as Batman and his various versions of Bruce.

I find some of Batman's lines overblown or at least they come off that way with that voice - in all honesty Ledger's performance in the interrogation scene alone is probably one of the best in any cbm ever. His lines are absolute genius , the " Killing is making a choice...." is just magic, but I suspect that a big part of that is also the delivery.

Kind of lost my thread there. I guess I disagree with you that Bale was Ledger's equal, - but that would have been very difficult, playing the straight man role- and I do agree that Bale is criminally underrated for his performances in the Nolan trilogy, especially TDK.

 

I suspect that the reason we draw the line at time travel is because it makes nearly every threat irrelevant, because Superman can always have a do over.

After showing he can travel back and save Lois, without any noticable consequences, why not travel further back and save Johnathan ? It opens the door to a lot of problems if you think about it at all - and if it was odd enough to bug me as an 8 year old, then it's got to be pretty bad as far as cop out ending go.

While a godlike Superman is acceptable, a Superman who is God is a bit much.

I still enjoyed the film , as an 8 year old, and still love it today.

As you say, to each their own.

 

I was referring to this guy...

 

Yeah this.

"It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan"

"peace has cost your strenght, victory has defeated you"

"Do you feel in charge?"

"And when Gotham in ashes, you will have my permission to die"

Excellent villain. I also think that Bale was quite underrated and a great Batman/Bruce Wayne overall. He did well in the interrogation scene, sewer fight and other great scenes

Other underrated aspects

- Civil War's Sokovia scene, shows the consequences of their actions

- Kilmer's performance in Batman Forever, he wasn't that bad

Revived one or two threads cause i just had seen Civil War and MoS, I wanted to see how they stack aganist CBMs of the same tier (TDK/TDKR meanwhile SM1 for the latter)

 

Whoops, my bad I misread your post - apologies.

TBH while Bane had great lines, for me the muffled voice didn't do them justice.

 

What's your point ? You've described Superman - able to deal with almost any threat - hence the "super". Deus ex machina is a little different because it's a very contrived solution to an unsolvable problem

In the film Johnathan's death establishes that Superman has limits, particularly that he cannot bring back the dead, which is consistent with the comics , and is a powerful character point. This is totally undone by him later being able to turn back time and essentially resurrect Lois ( and opens a can of worms of moral conundrums ). I suggest that while Superman's superhuman powers require us to suspend disbelief, and not think too much, the turning back time requires us to not think at all.

Because the story doesn't need him to ....is a non argument .

I suspect the real reason was that the writers didn't think that through enough, and assumed audiences were dumb, or that they just couldn't fit it into the running time.
And, If he's fast enough to turn back time, so faster than the speed of light, he's also more than fast enough to catch both missiles.

There were a bunch of ways they could have let all of that play out without the ridiculous turning back time, but the writers were perhaps just too lazy - in the same way that they don't show him doing anything other than turning back time and then restarting it without dealing with the cause of the disasters ( like maybe stopping the missiles ? If he can travel back in time then he can literally be in two places at once, because his past self would still be there).

 

I don't think he went back in time. He spun the earth on its axis back in the opposite direction so that he reversed time. It's not like those events were supposed to have happened in the future and he simply went back into the past. I think he remained in the present, but it was like hitting rewind on a VCR, or like looking at a globe and moving it in one direction, and then moving it in the opposite direction.

That is particularly evident because you see all the events being undone and going in reverse, not that he simply flew to an earlier point in time and intercepted events there.

When you rewind a video, you aren't reliving or occupying those same moments again and having a do-over. You're continuing where you are from the present but simply reviewing/ rewatching the earlier events and then doing something different from there.

 

Absolutely.

 

I think after Lois died, Superman should've just laid down on a bed in a hotel room and hypnotized himself to go back in time, repeating to himself "the year is 1978..."

 

For that matter, I don't think Bale's performance gets the credit it deserves. The way he weaves through Wayne's three different personas is often so subtle. In a given scene he'll morph from the playboy Bruce to the real Bruce with just a look or gesture, and then there are the instances where he shifts into Batman mode. It's easy to forget because one tends to only remember the shouty Batman stuff, and because TDKT had such a murderer's row of great actors in it, but he does a lot of great work behind the eyes.

 

You misunderstand the nature of "deus ex machina". Superman, like Heracles or Perseus or Gilgamesh or many mythic heroes is beyond mortal Man- true Supes is an extreme example because he's so powerful. Having super powers is not an example of deus ex machina.

In ancient Greek theater the convention of an unsolvable problem by the appearance of a god ( lowered or raised onto the stage by a crane so literally god in the machine). The expression has widened to include contrived solutions to unsolvable problems in stories.

In a pure sense Superman turning back time isn't a true deus ex machina ( because he solves the problem himself) but it feels incredibly contrived and goes against the idea that even he has limits - and yes, heroes rising above their limits is another convention ( Snyder actually does this well in Man of Steel , a more recent example was at the finale of Captain Marvelor Wonder Woman) but it's rarely done in ways as ridiculous as this.
A better way of resolving problems is by a clever use of a hero's abilities ( in Shazam he shares his powers with his family, in Dr Strange he uses the time stone to trap Dormammu).
Another way is via guile - Superman cannot overcome Zod and co in Superman 2, so he tricks them.
None of these are deus ex machina - and when the writers/directors take care to set up the idea by planting hints earlier in the story, these make sense to us as an audience.


What makes the time turning sequence so irritating is the way it's done: whether it is literally what is shown I.e. Superman flying backwards and changing the rotation of the Earth ( which would have wiped out most life on the planet) or him travelling backward in time OR the inference you have drawn which is that he himself flew fast enough to travel back in time.

Neither of these explanations addresses that regardless of how Superman returned to the moment before the catastrophe occurred, he never stops the root cause ( the missiles) if those events . Had he travelled back and helped his past self stop the missiles then that ( while impossible) would have made a bit more sense.

Back to Superman as deus ex machina- yes he's extremely powerful, but not without limits , which is what Johnathan's death establishes - all of that is wiped away by turning back time. It is a contrived solution that undermines the rest of the film.

Well I suppose that's a semantic argument about the nature of resurrection - but I suggest to you that preventing someone's death by travelling back in time, and actually undoing events which have occurred, is about as miraculous as laying on hands or saying magic words or whatever.

It requires you to suspend disbelief- which is what skillful storytellers do. At the Star of Star Wars the first thing we see is two giant spaceships, so we accept that the story takes place in an alien setting ( along with the words " A long time ago, in a Galaxy far far away"). In Superman we hear before the destruction of Krypton that on Earth Kal El will be a godlike being. When we see him doing impossible things we accept it, we suspend disbelief.

Christopher Nolan is very skillful at creating a suspension of disbelief - particularly in the TDK trilogy because he sneaks in impossible things, dressed up enough to make them seem possible, so we accept them. Batman catching a falling Joker with a grapple hook and then hauling him back up is completley impossible - but because so much of the film seems believable, we let it go.

However, the suspension of disbelief is a fragile thing - when a character acts in a way that doesn't make sense, or a jarring or contrived event takes place that suspension can fall apart. The notion of actions having consequences plays a part in this.
You mentioned that Superman turning back time has no consequences, good on you for noticing that, because that's part of what makes that sequence particularly uncomfortable.

In comparison, Dr Strange, uses the time stone to create an endless loop that traps Dormammu, thus saving Earth. But as a consequence he's trapped in that loop too. Now, if he'd been able to use the time stone to trap Dormammu in his own loop, without being trapped himself ....well that might just seem wrong and might cause the suspension of disbelief ( that a glowing green rock can control time) to collapse.

So, as for my suggestions about why the writers fell back on the turning back time option, well you're right I've got no basis for that.

That is different from your statement that the reason Superman doesn't use his newfound time travel powers to then save his father's life " because the story didn't need him to" . That is like saying it didn't happen because it didn't happen, a non argument.

Ultimately we aren't going to agree on this, but there you go. Fortunately the thread is big enough for both our points of view.

 

Yeah, it wasn’t going to match Heath’s performance but Bane certainly brought the threat level.

 

Totally agree - best example during the penthouse party just before the Joker arrives, we see Bruce the playboy, Bruce the man with a plan and then shortly after, Batman.

 

Ummmm......okay then ?