The Dark Knight Rises Should "Realism" be lightened up a bit?

[Phaser]

Are you saying there can't be a middle ground? Schumacher crossed the line of "fun" & ventured into the territory of silly. Why does it have to go from one extreme to the other?

No, I'm saying that Nolan gave this franchise exactly what the fans have been clamoring for since Schumacher killed it over 10 years ago. Look at the keywords I mentioned in my last post that were so popular around these boards circa 2000-2003 and they fit Nolan's Batman franchise like a glove. It may not be the preferred version of the character for every single fan but it is still unmistakably Batman. Stories like Year One, Broken City, Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum and the recent Joker graphic novel are unquestionably more 'serious' and hardly any more 'fun' than Nolan's Batman films, so where is this 'extremist' argument coming from? It's not like Nolan crafted his iteration of Batman out of thin air. It has its roots firmly planted in the source material.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I can't believe you just advocated low-art, the very stigma comic books have long faced (and still is) from being considered legitimate sources of literature.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with genre pictures, but to insinuate they shouldn't try to have a message is absolutely ludicrous. Especially when MANY comics (including Batman) have had several doses of social commentary intertwined in their fantasy-oriented stories.

Ok, i went too far. A good movie should have both a great story and good visuals. So far Nolan has been disappointing in the latter. Its a comic book movie, boyish escapist fantasies, it should have been better than that. I get what he's trying to do, but such a "de-comic-ized" batman is not my cup of tea. However i do think that Nolan did this on purpose so that his movies are taken more seriously than the average comic book movie which carries the stigma of being geeky, cheesy or whatever.

Oh, and the very awesome Favreau that you so greatly praise? He looks up to Nolan. Even he (along with every other director out) has stated TDK raised the bar and changed the game for comic book movies. Stop acting like Nolan is some atrocity to this franchise.

Everybody looks up to Nolan because he has raised the stakes when it comes to superhero movies, he has directed good movies with deep and engaging stories and treated them with utmost seriousness and care. The problem is that his high brow approach keeps him from totally embracing the franchise while also having great stories and themes. If people cant see a good story because a lady is moving trees with her thoughts, then its their problem.

Are you saying there can't be a middle ground? Schumacher crossed the line of "fun" & ventured into the territory of silly. Why does it have to go from one extreme to the other?

Agreed!!!

No, I'm saying that Nolan gave this franchise exactly what the fans have been clamoring for since Schumacher killed it over 10 years ago. Look at the keywords I mentioned in my last post that were so popular around these boards circa 2000-2003 and they fit Nolan's Batman franchise like a glove. It may not be the preferred version of the character for every single fan but it is still unmistakably Batman. Stories like Year One, Broken City, Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum and the recent Joker graphic novel are unquestionably more 'serious' and hardly any more 'fun' than Nolan's Batman films, so where is this 'extremist' argument coming from? It's not like Nolan crafted his iteration of Batman out of thin air. It has its roots firmly planted in the source material.

Those are good stories, but i also like it when Batman is duking it out with Firefly, Manbat, Freeze, Killer Croc, etc. Are wecever going to see them in the Nolanverse? No. Not unless they are toned down to a very realistic and less colourful version of their comicbook selves.

 

[The Joker]

Some of the comments in this thread only reaffirm the stereotype about fanboys being a fickle bunch. Prior to Batman Begins, these same forums were choking with demands to turn Batman from a colorful superhero he was in the last two Batman films into an urban vigilante. It only seemed like yesterday when keywords like 'gritty crime drama', 'Year One', 'The Long Halloween', 'Heat', 'Michael Mann', 'Se7en', 'David Fincher' and 'Andrew Kevin-Walker' were being thrown around left and right. We finally have a director who managed to wipe the death sentence and stigma off the Batman franchise turning it not only into the world's biggest and most successful superhero brand, but also resurrecting Batman as a smart, serious, intriguing and respectable mythology in the eyes of the general audience. The Dark Knight has broken a number of common conventions of the summer blockbuster formula and was one of the prime factors in the Oscar Academy's (rather dumb) decision to double the number of Best Picture nominees. It is hardly unrealistic to call it one of the most influential and important films of the decade.

And what is our response to all this? Chris Nolan was wrong all along and we want our 'fun' back.

Quoted for truth

 

[returntovoid]

Why does it have to go from one extreme to the other?

Not everyone might agree with this but I thought the two Tim Burton films especially and to a certain extent Batman Begins balanced dark/serious/fun tone really well. Although a good film in general to me but vastly overrated and sort of disappointing, I think TDK was the extreme of serious/dramatic/realistic.

The sheerfully awful Batman & Robin was obviously the extreme of campy as everyone would agree and Batman Forever kind of came close but some parts kept it from reaching the extreme.

 

[batman_1989_]

Not everyone might agree with this but I thought the two Tim Burton films especially and to a certain extent Batman Begins balanced dark/serious/fun tone really well. Although a good film in general to me but vastly overrated and sort of disappointing, I think TDK was the extreme of serious/dramatic/realistic.

The sheerfully awful Batman & Robin was obviously the extreme of campy as everyone would agree and Batman Forever kind of came close but some parts kept it from reaching the extreme.

Agreed 100%

 

[Crook]

Ok, i went too far. A good movie should have both a great story and good visuals. So far Nolan has been disappointing in the latter. Its a comic book movie, boyish escapist fantasies, it should have been better than that. I get what he's trying to do, but such a "de-comic-ized" batman is not my cup of tea. However i do think that Nolan did this on purpose so that his movies are taken more seriously than the average comic book movie which carries the stigma of being geeky, cheesy or whatever.

Again with the exaggeration. What you are describing is 'Unbreakable'. Imo, a great movie, but that was as low-key as you can get for a comic book movie. No suits, no glorious action set pieces, no grand finale, it was very much an intimate personal story surrounding a superhuman. You may not like what you saw in TDK, but you'd have to be blind or in denial if you couldn't see the larger-than-life aspects of that film.

I'd even go as far as to say it had the biggest scope and scale of any other comic book film, simply because it's characters were so well developed, the narrative was huge, and almost all the locales were shot in real locations giving it that very immersive feel you can't get with sets.

Everybody looks up to Nolan because he has raised the stakes when it comes to superhero movies, he has directed good movies with deep and engaging stories and treated them with utmost seriousness and care. The problem is that his high brow approach keeps him from totally embracing the franchise while also having great stories and themes.

Newflash: I guarantee you 99% of the batfans are "guilty" of this. I know I am, and you've demonstrated in this very thread that you are as well. We all have our particular takes on the character, and we are all likely risk-averse to other interpretations because of taste. Most fans aren't sheep, they're not going to embrace any old story because 'Batman' is stamped on the cover.

So, Earle, why are you giving yourself a pass for this, but not Nolan?

Those are good stories, but i also like it when Batman is duking it out with Firefly, Manbat, Freeze, Killer Croc, etc. Are wecever going to see them in the Nolanverse? No. Not unless they are toned down to a very realistic and less colourful version of their comicbook selves.

Have patience. I don't know what else to say. Chastising Nolan for sticking with his directorial style is like getting angry at Eastwood because he doesn't inject comedy in his movies.

 

[Phaser]

Those are good stories, but i also like it when Batman is duking it out with Firefly, Manbat, Freeze, Killer Croc, etc. Are wecever going to see them in the Nolanverse? No. Not unless they are toned down to a very realistic and less colourful version of their comicbook selves.

So? Why is that such a huge problem? Nolan has clearly chosen a very specific depiction of Batman and his world to portray in his films, which is clearly evident from his choices from the source material. The stories that have inspired Nolan are clearly devoid of such surreal and supernatural elements. They are what The Dark Knight is - gritty, serious crime dramas that revolve around its larger-than-life characters. A Batman film is not under no obligation to give due to every single element from the comics. Nolan's films not featuring the likes of Man-Bat or Firefly doesn't make them any less Batman.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Again with the exaggeration. What you are describing is 'Unbreakable'. Imo, a great movie, but that was as low-key as you can get for a comic book movie. No suits, no glorious action set pieces, no grand finale, it was very much an intimate personal story surrounding a superhuman. You may not like what you saw in TDK, but you'd have to be blind or in denial if you couldn't see the larger-than-life aspects of that film.

I'd even go as far as to say it had the biggest scope and scale of any other comic book film, simply because it's characters were so well developed, the narrative was huge, and almost all the locales were shot in real locations giving it that very immersive feel you can't get with sets.

And yet it feels lacklustre, because Chicago simply isnt right for Batman. Like Favreau, Nolan could have used a lot more CGI to upgrade Chicago into Gotham. Instead TDK was filmed in pitch dark alleys, a blown up warehouse, and a dusty unfinished skyscraper. The penthouse was bland as hell too. TDK's story was great, but my eyes wanted a better spectacle.

Newflash: I guarantee you 99% of the batfans are "guilty" of this. I know I am, and you've demonstrated in this very thread that you are as well. We all have our particular takes on the character, and we are all likely risk-averse to other interpretations because of taste. Most fans aren't sheep, they're not going to embrace any old story because 'Batman' is stamped on the cover.

So, Earle, why are you giving yourself a pass for this, but not Nolan?

I agree that every batfan likes his own particular take on the character but it would be nice if we got something close to canon. Its one thing to not adapt the Mandarin because he would look silly, and another to ground batman so much in reality that 80% of his rogues gallery + Robin cannot ever appear. I personally had my fill of mobsters.

Have patience. I don't know what else to say. Chastising Nolan for sticking with his directorial style is like getting angry at Eastwood because he doesn't inject comedy in his movies.

You got a point there. I guess Nolan should stick to what he does, but i do hope that after him we ll get a more canon batman by someone else.
After B&R it was imperative that they went with a serious and realistic approach, but now that superheroes have become cool again, Ironman is teaming up with a Norse god and a guy dressed as the american flag to take down a green monster (Hulk). And i want that. Thank you Nolan for rejuvenating Batman and starting the superhero age. I appreciate your stories but i'd rather watch Heat or Public Enemies for the mob and politics. Now can someone call Del Toro?

So? Why is that such a huge problem? Nolan has clearly chosen a very specific depiction of Batman and his world to portray in his films, which is clearly evident from his choices from the source material. The stories that have inspired Nolan are clearly devoid of such surreal and supernatural elements. They are what The Dark Knight is - gritty, serious crime dramas that revolve around its larger-than-life characters. A Batman film is not under no obligation to give due to every single element from the comics. Nolan's films not featuring the likes of Man-Bat or Firefly doesn't make them any less Batman.

No, it doesnt. But it does make them less fun and in this genre, the movies should be fun. Here:
[YT]eZeKSriSuuw[/YT]
[YT]6W20Mi_oI3Y[/YT]

Screw realism and seriousness.

EDIT: I dont mean that Bruce Wayne should become like Tony Stark, but the lack of meticulous realism, pretentiousness and the use of CGI makes Ironman awesome. Batman couldnt have glided the way Ironman flies, but with the help of some CGI they could have given us a dramatic and spectacular gliding-fighting scene.

 

[Crook]

And yet it feels lacklustre, because Chicago simply isnt right for Batman. Like Favreau, Nolan could have used a lot more CGI to upgrade Chicago into Gotham. Instead TDK was filmed in pitch dark alleys, a blown up warehouse, and a dusty unfinished skyscraper. The penthouse was bland as hell too. TDK's story was great, but my eyes wanted a better spectacle.

You're not even talking about the same thing anymore. I already addressed subjectivity on visual eye candy. The issue was whether the films have had larger-than-life aspects ala the comics you read.

I agree that every batfan likes his own particular take on the character but it would be nice if we got something close to canon. Its one thing to not adapt the Mandarin because he would look silly, and another to ground batman so much in reality that 80% of his rogues gallery + Robin cannot ever appear. I personally had my fill of mobsters.

Yes, it would "be nice". But Nolan has clearly put focus on a particular area of the mythos. It's in the source material, and there are clearly man fans of it, so I'm not going to complain because it's not entirely suited to my preference.

Thank you Nolan for rejuvenating Batman and starting the superhero age. I appreciate your stories but i'd rather watch Heat or Public Enemies for the mob and politics. Now can someone call Del Toro? No, it doesnt. But it does make them less fun and in this genre, the movies should be fun. Here:
[YT]eZeKSriSuuw[/YT]
[YT]6W20Mi_oI3Y[/YT]

Screw realism and seriousness.

What are the Batman equivalent scenes of those two clips? Furthermore, I really don't think you're applying the right qualifications for the franchise. I won't go into the vast differences between Bats and IM (they should be evident). But particularly for Bats, "fun" isn't exactly a strong association with the character.

You look at any top 10/20/50/100 list for the most revered Batman stories, you will seldom find "fun". I'm confident to say that it's an indisputable fact.

 

[MacLeod]

A more apt statement would be Nolan failed to depict your Batman in his movie. He failed to do mine as well, but there's no way I'm going to agree that he didn't think Bruce through with either BB or TDK. From the several interviews alone, it's clear as day he puts characters first above everything else in the movie. Chris has great insight into character development and their psyche. That's his specialty as a director. This is exemplified by the near universal praise most of the characters have gotten with both films. The great performances sure helped, but everything was laid out in the script and with his direction.

No one ever said he wasn't talented or didn't put forth effort into the film or the characters. What is being suggested is that his thoughts may not have been correct regarding said characters. You may think you know something and describe it really well, but it doesn't mean you actually have it right. Now, I'm not saying he's totally wrong, just not totally correct either. For me, the movies were good, just not Batman movies, and furthermore Batman was not in them for me at all. Call it failing to depict my hopes for a Batman movie or just missing something because of focusing on something else, but either way I feel something was lacking.

Look, I've probably b***hed with the best of them regarding some of the decisions Nolan has made, but the nitpicks are getting ridiculously exaggerated here. Especially the ones directed at Nolan.

What, we can't disagree with Nolan? I for one was not nitpicking because overall I thought the entire TDK movie was missing something. I know I'm in the minority but there various things that I didn't like so nitpicking isn't my issue necessarily.

 

[Phaser]

No, it doesnt. But it does make them less fun and in this genre, the movies should be fun. Here:
[YT]eZeKSriSuuw[/YT]
[YT]6W20Mi_oI3Y[/YT]

Screw realism and seriousness.

'Fun' is a relative term. And not everything has to be 'fun' to be good. Watchmen, V for Vendetta and the Batman stories I mentioned didn't need to be 'fun' to be as good as they are.

EDIT: I dont mean that Bruce Wayne should become like Tony Stark, but the lack of meticulous realism, pretentiousness and the use of CGI makes Ironman awesome. Batman couldnt have glided the way Ironman flies, but with the help of some CGI they could have given us a dramatic and spectacular gliding-fighting scene.

What you mentioned as drawbacks of TDK is precisely what makes TDK an undoubtedly superior film than Iron Man in my view.

 

[MacLeod]

So? Why is that such a huge problem? Nolan has clearly chosen a very specific depiction of Batman and his world to portray in his films, which is clearly evident from his choices from the source material. The stories that have inspired Nolan are clearly devoid of such surreal and supernatural elements. They are what The Dark Knight is - gritty, serious crime dramas that revolve around its larger-than-life characters. A Batman film is not under no obligation to give due to every single element from the comics. Nolan's films not featuring the likes of Man-Bat or Firefly doesn't make them any less Batman.

True, but not having the charcacter look like Batman or have the feeling/mood of the movie depict Batman is the problem I think some people are having. The depiction of Batman chosen is not the one some people would have hoped for. I for one do not see the mystique in TDK and for me that destroys it.

 

[MacLeod]

Not everyone might agree with this but I thought the two Tim Burton films especially and to a certain extent Batman Begins balanced dark/serious/fun tone really well. Although a good film in general to me but vastly overrated and sort of disappointing, I think TDK was the extreme of serious/dramatic/realistic.

The sheerfully awful Batman & Robin was obviously the extreme of campy as everyone would agree and Batman Forever kind of came close but some parts kept it from reaching the extreme.

Perfectly said.

 

[Phaser]

True, but not having the charcacter look like Batman or have the feeling/mood of the movie depict Batman is the problem I think some people are having. The depiction of Batman chosen is not the one some people would have hoped for. I for one do not see the mystique in TDK and for me that destroys it.

I am sorry you feel that way, because in my estimation Nolan's films have pretty much nailed the general look, feel and idea of Batman. It's the specifics that people are arguing over.

 

[Mr. Earle]

You're not even talking about the same thing anymore. I already addressed subjectivity on visual eye candy. The issue was whether the films have had larger-than-life aspects ala the comics you read.

OK, my bad. Yes TDK was larger than life.

What are the Batman equivalent scenes of those two clips? Furthermore, I really don't think you're applying the right qualifications for the franchise. I won't go into the vast differences between Bats and IM (they should be evident). But particularly for Bats, "fun" isn't exactly a strong association with the character.

You look at any top 10/20/50/100 list for the most revered Batman stories, you will seldom find "fun". I'm confident to say that it's an indisputable fact.

I didnt mean that Batman should be Ironman fun, but Batman fun. What do i mean by that? Hm...
Well instead of the climax of the movie taking place in a dusty skyscraper and a blown up warehouse, what if it took place in a more majestic set with better fight scenes than that? What if instead of thrashing SWATs and fighting dogs batman fought a flying villain on air using his glider and grapple gun? What if the action was taking place in a jaw dropping Gotham and not Chicago?

What if everything was less bland and real? If i am not mistaken during "The Long Halloween" that most of you have read, Bruce holds a gala on the penthouse of a Wayne skyscraper with a huge pool and garden. Why was his penthouse an empty warehouse with some couches thrown around?

What if there were less politics and more batman stuff?

Why are Batman's moves so grounded, heavy and boring? Because of realism or because they dont use CGI and wires? In any case, its boring.

That's the sort of fun that's missing from the Nolan movies. Not "hahaha" fun.

What you mentioned as drawbacks of TDK is precisely what makes TDK an undoubtedly superior film than Iron Man in my view.

Just to remind everyone, i mentioned:

the lack of meticulous realism, pretentiousness and the use of CGI makes Ironman awesome. Batman couldnt have glided the way Ironman flies, but with the help of some CGI they could have given us a dramatic and spectacular gliding-fighting scene.

and those things make Ironman inferior to TDK? It is an inferior movie but because of TDK's story and characters. Would it have hurt the movie if it took place in Gotham and not Chicago? Wow, then perhaps giving Superman a jetpack and taking away his flight, and shooting in NY and saying its Metropolis is the right way to make a good superman movie.

True, but not having the charcacter look like Batman or have the feeling/mood of the movie depict Batman is the problem I think some people are having. The depiction of Batman chosen is not the one some people would have hoped for. I for one do not see the mystique in TDK and for me that destroys it.

I agree with you man!

 

[regwec]

I would argue only that some of Nolan's attempts to keep the movies "grounded" can deprive us of moments and images that should be iconic. For instance, Jack Napier's fall into a chemical vat at the climax of the industrial pursuit sequence at Axis Chemicals is a profoundly operatic, melodramatic moment. It delivers a brilliant conclusion to the build up of tension that preceded it, and gives a simple, exciting visual queue for the baptism of evil that the character experiences. Further more, the scene is mirrored in The Joker's fall from Gotham cathedral, which offers a neat, bombastic demise to the short life the movie's antagonist.

Both of these moments are melodramatic, "comic-booky", and unrealistic. But they looked fantastic, were much imitated, gave a sense of "pay off", and achieved the same thing as a good comic in structuring story and characters around strong, resonant imagery.

BB and TDK don't, for me, have many moments that quite deliver on those terms. Nolan's style is more wordy, more cerebral and more even of tone. Those are all advantages so long as they don't exclude the possibility of stronger visual flourishes.

 

[Phaser]

Why are Batman's moves so grounded, heavy and boring? Because of realism or because they dont use CGI and wires? In any case, its boring.

I don't know, you tell me why Broken City, Year One, Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum are so grounded, heavy and 'boring'. Because now you're simply complaining about Nolan's films being like Batman comics they're based on. Which doesn't make any sense.

and those things make Ironman inferior to TDK? It is an inferior movie but because of TDK's story and characters.

And TDK's story and characters are superior because they are more serious than Iron Man's. The lack of CGI gives the film and natural and realistic feel, making it seem like a far more plausible and believable world, which is important considering the narrative and themes of the story.

Would it have hurt the movie if it took place in Gotham and not Chicago?

What difference does it make? Everyone knows that Gotham is nothing but a fictional American metropolis like New York or Chicago. If you're talking about the extreme stylistic depictions of the city, well, Gotham isn't always drawn that way.

Wow, then perhaps giving Superman a jetpack and taking away his flight...

Irrelevant argument. The superpowers are one of the most basic and defining attributes of Superman, one that has been present in every single iteration of the character. Nolan's films on the other hand, clearly have their roots planted firmly in the source material, so it's nowhere near the same thing.

and shooting in NY and saying its Metropolis is the right way to make a good superman movie.

Actually, New York did double for Metropolis in Donner's Superman. And that one is widely considered to be the best Superman film to date.

 

[Mr. Earle]

double post

 

[Mr. Earle]

I don't know, you tell me why Broken City, Year One, Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum are so grounded, heavy and 'boring'. Because now you're simply complaining about Nolan's films being like Batman comics they're based on. Which doesn't make any sense.

I was talking about the fight scenes and how heavy and bland they look.

And TDK's story and characters are superior because they are more serious than Iron Man's. The lack of CGI gives the film and natural and realistic feel, making it seem like a far more plausible and believable world, which is important considering the narrative and themes of the story.

So plausibility and realism make the story good? They dont even make the story more serious, they re pretending to do that. The story is equally serious despite how Gotham is portrayed or Batman's armour in the batsuit.

What difference does it make? Everyone knows that Gotham is nothing but a fictional American metropolis like New York or Chicago. If you're talking about the extreme stylistic depictions of the city, well, Gotham isn't always drawn that way.

Well judging by the fact that Favs made LA appealing, its certainly a big failure of Nolan's that given an imaginary city to work with he managed to bore my eyes to death. Have you seen the Stark Expo in IM2?

 

[nogap87]

I will agree that Nolan has proven he's good with providing deep characters. Alfred, Fox, Gordon, Dent, and the Joker were very well done. It's seeing these characters that makes me dissapointed in his version of Batman/Bruce Wayne. All of the "realism" has made Batman's quirks a bit too obvious and distracting. The batvoice, batbra, ridiculous car, mediocre fighting style, and "The Tick" levels of needless destruction has made Batman one of the most unintentionally hilarious superheroes I've seen in recent years. I really shouldn't be trying to contain my snickering everytime Batman talks.


And I think Iron Man is superior to BB and about equal to TDK.

 

[lixdexia]

you see this page? that's why i (and i'd assume other people) hate this thread. people getting their panties in a twist because "realism" and that accursed nolan are preventing them from seeing firefly and killer croc on screen. and rather than anyone talking about the suit we'll have pages long arguments over semantics and minuter.

WTF PEOPLE!?! you don't like the dark knight? don't watch it. its that simple. you want to see something else? we all do on some level, that's why there's a misc. batman films section. feel free to go there and come up with fantasy casts and designs etc. to you hearts content. but if you come here i for one would appreciate if you relegated your posts to your thoughts on how you'd like batman's suit to appear in the third installment of this franchise and your thoughts on other poster's suggestions about the former.

(and yes, i'm sure the vast majority of us would love to see a comic accurate suit in the movie but chances are that ain't gonna happen and belly aching ain't gonna help.)

 

[Crook]

No one ever said he wasn't talented or didn't put forth effort into the film or the characters. What is being suggested is that his thoughts may not have been correct regarding said characters. You may think you know something and describe it really well, but it doesn't mean you actually have it right. Now, I'm not saying he's totally wrong, just not totally correct either.

Well then I want you to explain where is he actually, irrefutably wrong. Because that is a definitive position that leaves no room for interpretation. Last I checked, the majority (if not all) your complaints have dealt with Nolan adapting a character in a way that isn't to your particular liking, but has been relatively faithful to the source. Even for the characters I felt were underwhelming, I cannot fully say Nolan didn't know the basic ins-and-outs.

For me, the movies were good, just not Batman movies, and furthermore Batman was not in them for me at all. Call it failing to depict my hopes for a Batman movie or just missing something because of focusing on something else, but either way I feel something was lacking.

See, this is my issue here. I'm not going to take away your opinion of the films, but it's absolutely baffling to suggest they were not Batman movies. I loathe Schumacher's B&R, but I can still recognize them as Batman movies. Excluding whether they fit your taste, the films' characters, themes, settings, and stories, are all unequivocally 'Batman'.

What, we can't disagree with Nolan? I for one was not nitpicking because overall I thought the entire TDK movie was missing something.

The whole is only a sum of it's parts, and trust me, from one nitpicker to another, you've nitpicked the hell outta things.

OK, my bad. Yes TDK was larger than life.
I didnt mean that Batman should be Ironman fun, but Batman fun.

Well then cite Batman material, not Iron Man.

What do i mean by that? Hm...
Well instead of the climax of the movie taking place in a dusty skyscraper and a blown up warehouse, what if it took place in a more majestic set with better fight scenes than that? What if instead of thrashing SWATs and fighting dogs batman fought a flying villain on air using his glider and grapple gun? What if the action was taking place in a jaw dropping Gotham and not Chicago?

The issue is more of choreography than set pieces. I find nothing wrong with abandoned warehouses or fighting a SWAT team. That's right in line with Batman's world.

What if everything was less bland and real? If i am not mistaken during "The Long Halloween" that most of you have read, Bruce holds a gala on the penthouse of a Wayne skyscraper with a huge pool and garden. Why was his penthouse an empty warehouse with some couches thrown around?

His penthouse was refined. Bale's Bruce is clearly uninterested in glamorous surroundings. In any case this is one of the pettiest things to poke a critique at.

What if there were less politics and more batman stuff?

Oh, c'mon. The politics in TDK is greatly exaggerated. Not to mention that the politics found in the film are lifted from the comics.

Why are Batman's moves so grounded, heavy and boring? Because of realism or because they dont use CGI and wires? In any case, its boring.

You were bored? That's a strong word. You sure that's what happened when you watched the movies? Or are you again stretching your point?

 

[Phaser]

I was talking about the fight scenes and how heavy and bland they look.

Hardly a film-destroying critique. And a fight scene is what, two-three minutes max? Iron Man having better fight scenes didn't help it from being an inferior film to The Dark Knight.

So plausibility and realism make the story good?

If not, why are there no ray guns in The Godfather? Where is the CGI in The Shawshank Redemption? Did Lawrence of Arabia have 'great-looking' fight scenes? Was Citizen Kane 'fun'? Why did these great filmmakers opt for the oh-so-boring realism with no CGI or fight sequences if it would've had no effect on the story and would've instead put more butts in seats?

They dont even make the story more serious, they re pretending to do that. The story is equally serious despite how Gotham is portrayed or Batman's armour in the batsuit.

Of course, the story itself remains unchanged on paper. However, for the narrative to work the visuals must be accordingly appropriate. The underlying themes in The Dark Knight deal with many contemporary issues and the fact that Nolan's Gotham looks and feels like a real modern city in America only enhances its impact. Of course, you can slap in gargoyles and gothic structures but considering the content of the story, the film loses some of its immediacy and relevance by doing so.

Well judging by the fact that Favs made LA appealing, its certainly a big failure of Nolan's that given an imaginary city to work with he managed to bore my eyes to death. Have you seen the Stark Expo in IM2?

Again, you seem to be the type that likes glitzy colors and eye-popping images over more naturalistic scenery. Iron Man has the former, TDK has the latter. In fact, in terms of cinematography both of Nolan's films are leaps and bounds beyond anything in Iron Man.

 

[Phaser]

His penthouse was refined. Bale's Bruce is clearly uninterested in glamorous surroundings. In any case this is one of the pettiest things to poke a critique at.

Not to mention it was simply a temporary placeholder until the mansion was rebuilt rather than a permanent residence. And it didn't even originally belong to him - he bought it, a fact mentioned in one of the Gotham Times clippings from the viral minigames.

 

[redhawk23]

Ah I love the smell of backlash in the morning....