s
If you saw my previous post,I said just that
We see him speak chinese or some language,referencing on his multi-lingual ability
Ra's references different fighting styles and we see him learning them.It was good in BB.Nolan just went backwards after that
TDK is a sequel to BB. You obviously don't have to show all of that again or to readdress that because BB already established it. The writers expect people to know all of that walking into TDK and rightfully so.
Just because we saw him learn some fighting styles doesnt mean we can assume he uses them to beat thugs,we need to see that happen
Three things:
1) Before we see that, we have to "see" Chris Nolan learn how to properly film fight scenes and choreograph better fights in general. This may sound funny to some people but how do you expect to see Batman fighting and using those fighting styles when we barely see what's going on in the Nolan films during the fights?
2) You admit that yes, we did see him learn some fighting styles. Let me ask you a logical question. If you traveled the world and learned multiple fighting styles which you planned to use to fight crime and then returned home to your crappy corrupt city to fight crime, why wouldn't you use those fighting styles?
3) You do realize that if he never used those fighting styles at any point, he would be dead, right? You try taking on tons of thugs at once and a couple of SWAT teams at once (which was the case in TDK) without any firearms. You would utterly get destroyed if you didn't know how to fight. There would be no other way to win.
MJ as such is iconic(The name MJ) but her personality isnt,its different in different versions of Spider-man
In different versions in the comics? Yes. But by that definition, pretty much no one is iconic. Spider-Man himself is not the same in most non-canon stories either.
In different versions as in different in adaptations from the comics? I would argue she was ok in most cartoons but that doesn't really mean she isn't iconic; it just means she isn't properly adapted most of the time which is something that will quickly get fixed with time especially now since we'll probably get a good MJ in live-action. We have yet to see a serious and threatening Lex Luthor in a live-action Superman movie but Lex Luthor is still very iconic.
Its is fair to say Raimi was trying to different like the ultimate comics.
Nothing wrong with that till the 2nd movie(She just got on the nerves in the 3rd)
Raimi's MJ is nothing like the MJ in Ultimate Spider-Man. And no, making her different wouldn't be wrong unless you somehow have an idea and you can make her alterations fantastic.
Not the case with Raimi's MJ.
Respect to the source material.A link to the comics,something for the comic book readers to relate to better.If everyone ends up creating new major characters to go with the CB heroes,whats the use of decades of mytholgies?
Fair enough. Though I still don't have a problem with Rachel since what Nolan did was no different than what a comic writer does. If Nolan was a new writer on Batman, Rachel would be the love interest he would bring in the comics until the next writer came. And if you literally change everything about the love interest other than the name, that's not really respect to the source material. That, depending on how it is handled, would be either a nod/homage to the fans or a bastardization of the character.
Just pick up a character and create a whole new universe around him
As I said before,what Marvel did with Thor and Iron Man is the best example.I am not their biggest fan but they really know how to show respect to the source material even after modernising most of the concepts
That's true though there are still many things about Thor that bugged me. I didn't like that Thor's civilian identity Donald Blake was missing or the reason why Thor came to our world to begin with (as opposed to being sent here because he chose the humans over Asgard). I also didn't like the constant intrusion of other stuff from the Marvel universe in Thor's solo movie.
He is mostly criticizing the chemistry,which I admit wasnt the best and was ambiguous at places
Needless to say,it wasnt any better in BB or TDK either.From the corny way Batman discloses his identity to the whole whole 'I will be with you,when Gotham no longer needs Batman'-Idiotic dialogue.
Not to mention how unattractive Maggie Gyllenhaal was and how terribly she acted
My point being,we rarely see Female characters being potrayed the right way in CBMs.Webb has started something here,lets see how it continues
She was written well till the 3rd act,The corny way in which Batman discloses his identity like a love-struck teenager was lazy writing.
Also her final dialogue(I'll be with you when Gotham no longer needs Batman) made no sense,especially when she is someone who fights crime herself
How do Maggie's looks and acting talents have anything to do with their chemistry, which is what you're talking about right now?
It wasn't great in BB and TDK but it wasn't anywhere as bad as the chemistry between Peter and MJ either. The "I'll be with you when Gotham no longer needs Batman" thing was part of Bruce's character arc in the first two films. He starts out as Batman thinking it's just something he's going to do for a while until he cleans up Gotham and finds a good replacement for Batman and then he can be with Rachel. Then in TDK, he learns that not only it's not possible for him to ever quit but one of the obstacles that was in his way from embracing his true full life as Batman, which was Rachel, has now been killed. So that plot point was all part of the bigger story.
He doesn't reveal his identity to her. He just says "It's not who I am underneath but what I do what defines me". She just figures it out based on that. It's by no means too great of a scene but it's not like he openly told her.
She can't be with him because at the moment, he is an unstable man that dresses up as a bat every night, fights Gotham's criminals head-on (which Rachel doesn't do), and puts Gotham before anything including relationships and family.
You are right,but we have to give credit to Marvel for changing the female character in such a way that it modernises things plus being respectful to the source material at all times.
That's true. You're right about that.
This.
People worship Nolan and Marvel so much that everything they change is genius but when Sony does something similar,then they are ruining the character and what not
This is true too
.
His skills other than fighting were very impressive,I will give him that credit.He was creative with his gadgets and the whole capturing-Lau scene in TDK was mindblowing
Its his fighting style that resembles 'Thugs on roids'.Its how someone fights when they very very angry and have lost their minds in the anger,not someone who is supposed to calm and composed and prey on the enemies fear.That Style suited Bane but not Batman
Yes and no. He had some moments of anger but that's normal. Some writers write Batman like that as well. Also, the only moments when we see his fighting style was in TDKR where he is past his prime and severely injured from past experiences. We barely saw anything in BB due to the camera angles and while TDK was a big improvement in that department, most of the fights happened in the dark so you still couldn't clearly see everything. So we technically don't see Batman clearly fight throughout the whole Nolan franchise except for when he is the beaten-and-broken-and-worn-out Batman in TDKR
.
And thats a flaw alright.
People criticize Tobey's crying face,as if anyone looks photogenic while crying
It
is a flaw. Never said it wasn't. Just that it was an acting flaw and not an adaptation flaw. Tobey's obviously fake tears were not an adaptation flaw either but an acting flaw.
So its a flaw alright
My final point-Raimi didnt get a one or two of characteristics spot on for Peter Parker/Spider-man but neither did Nolan for Bruce Wayne/Batman.It beats me why Raimi get so much blame for that while Nolan's faults are so watered down
We've already been through this discussion. As I already said, Nolan's Batman = very early Batman, specifically from Year One and Long Halloween and that is excluding the entire character arc of Batman in TDK, which fits great for Batman and shows what the difference between Batman and your average vigilante is. Yes, Nolan's Batman has a few small flaws here and there but I don't count those because they can be found in any superhero movie including the Raimi films. I don't count those small flaws for Raimi's Spider-Man either; just the big ones (except for when I want to annoy nitpicky haters that look for really small flaws in the portrayal of Spider-Man in TASM).
Also, regarding your point...
My final point-Raimi didnt get a one or two of characteristics spot on for Peter Parker/Spider-man
I highly disagree with you on this point. It is completely wrong. Raimi didn't not get just
one or
two characteristics wrong about Spider-Man, if you know what I'm implying
.
As I said before,The spider-sense will always remain ambiguous,its ambiguous in comics aswell
Very rarely in the comics does it not work when he is being attacked head-on and whenever that is the case, it's always due to bad writing.
You simply cant see Spidey dodging every single move since that would make him unbeatable and they cant have that sound ring on everytime somebody throws a punch as it will be irritating and take you out of the moment
Already addressed this. I said in my last post that Spidey having an active spider sense doesn't automatically make him unbeatable or mean that he can't dodge anything coming his way. And no, you don't need the sound ring on every time someone throws a punch. Didn't say you need it. Having a spider sense =/= always hearing the sound effect.
Raimi had it explained through that Lady at the field trip and after wards in the school fight,it was enough explanation and the audience get it
Plus you don't get the basis,the spider-sense just warns him of an oncoming dangers,he has to judge and dodge them himself.You cant take him getting hit here and there as the spider-sense not working,its Spidey not able to dodge
That's what I just talked about now and in my previous post. And most of the times in the Raimi films when it didn't work, it was literally the spider sense just not working. It makes no sense to me how freakin' Bonesaw - who has no powers - was able to sneak up behind him and hit him in the head with a chair. Peter didn't see that coming at all. Not to mention that he doesn't even look worried or as if he feels something is strange when Harry attacks him on the street in Spider-Man 3. Or how about the scene in SM1 where MJ has to warn him that the Green Goblin is about to attack him and only then he turns around and gets hit? I'll have to rewatch all 3 films for all the other times.
Webb basically aped Raimi in this aspect,he changed the school fight for the subway fight,we cant say he did a better job.Raimi atleast had the scientific basis explained
I admitted that already. Raimi had the spider sense explained while Webb had the spider sense not addressed but consistently working good throughout the film. I'll take Webb's spider sense over Raimi's. Plus, like I said, with a bit of Google, anyone can find out about the spider sense because some spiders in real life have something similar.
And the electro static cling shouldnt be able to work with the thick shoes Webb's spidey has.Thats a bigger flaw
Umm...no it isn't. At all. It's strong enough that it goes through shoes and yes, it's possible to have an electrostatic cling that strong. The Thing trying to pull Spider-Man off the wall and failing to do so shows exactly how strong it is. But even if it wasn't, how exactly does that make more sense than little hairs that grow out of his shoes? Peter doesn't go barefoot in the comics and in the Raimi films when he is Spider-Man (well, I know not in the comics but I'm assuming he isn't barefoot in the Raimi films). The electrostatic explanation makes so much more sense.
Exactly,but do we need a sound everytime to make us understand that? We got adequate explanation is SM1,people will understand through out the trilogy
No you don't need a sound. I already said you don't.
Nope,I saw that scene again
It only went off when Stacy is about to unmask him
I'm talking about before that. There is a scene where he tries to dodge multiple bullets coming from multiple police officers and he fails to dodge one bullet.
Also Webb got it wrong in the subway scene aswell,he isnt supposed to react after the drop hits his forehead,thats reflex not the spider-sense
The beer bottle that that guy put on his head was going to fall right on his face and would've soaked him everywhere. That was danger to him and his spider sense reacted to that.
Raimi portrayed it better imo,it was explained at the field trip then before his confrontation with Flash,we see an increased sense of resposiveness to the surrounding before the uncoming danger,he percieves even small things as Danger(The fly and water droplet),he sees Flash's moves in slow motion and hence can dodge them easy.Thats basically spider-sense,there can be no better explanation
Wow. Even more wrong over here.
Like I already said, yes it wasn't explained in TASM and it should've but an explanation for that is just a Google search away. It's much more important to have it working period than explaining it.
We see an increased sense of responsiveness to the surrounding before the incoming danger? Like I said, only when the writers want to.
he percieves even small things as Danger(The fly and water droplet)
Are you kidding me? You just criticized the subway scene in TASM for doing the same thing. The water droplet falling onto his face and the beer that was going to fall onto him and splash him on the face was a small danger perceived and detected by his spider sense.
he sees Flash's moves in slow motion and hence can dodge them easy.Thats basically spider-sense,there can be no better explanation
Except that is
not how the spider sense works. Peter doesn't see things in slow motion. He detects them before they happen and where they're about to come from. You just explained why Raimi didn't fully understand the spider sense to begin with.
I disagree
TSSM cartoon is the best example on how spidey to should quip
There is thin line between being funny and coming across as a *****e or bully
What he did to the car jacker was basically what Flash was doing to that kid,it shouldnt be like that
The Spectacular Spider-Man is the best example of how to do anything Spider-Man related really good if I can't bring up the comics. I can say that about anything.
It's not what a bully does. It's exactly what Spider-Man would do. He sometimes likes to screw with the criminals he fights. He webs up the mouths of criminals like that in the comics all the time and even webs up the mouth of Jameson sometimes just because. I don't see how that makes him a bully or a *****ebag. All he did was web up his mouth, crotch, and certain other body parts. It's not like the webbing was painful to begin with and all it did was further keep the criminal secure until the police showed up. There were times in comics where he would web up criminals completely from head to toe.
t:
. lol
). I really hate the term "comic book movie" to begin with. From the way I see it, there is no such thing as a comic book movie - there's only movies based on comic books. The term "comic book movie" implies that the film is like a comic with multiple panels on screen which we have yet to get (except for a few scenes in Ang Lee's Hulk). From the way I see it, if there is such thing as a comic book movie, it means either something similar to the scenes in Ang Lee's Hulk where he used multiple panels or it means any movie based on a comic book but there is no such thing as, for example, "This X-Men movie right here is a comic book movie but that Batman movie right there is not a comic book movie". I find that ridiculous. Comic books are a form of medium on their own. They can be love stories, crime drama, fun action stories, and the list goes on. Anyone who doesn't see this simplifies the medium whether they realize it or not.
. 
