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

[General Vulcun]

OK, I'll get off the "it sucks because of realism" s**t and go more in depth to why I was not fond of the film as I was with Batman Begins plus the Tim Burton films. I don't want to prove it's a bad film but I just want you people to understand my reasons/logic for my criticisms/opinion.

-I thought the Batsuit was aesthetically horrible and not scary in any way unlike the one in Batman Begins

-The fight scenes may be a bit clearer but they lack the excitement/kinetic energy of the ones in Batman Begins

-Not enough focus on Batman, there was more focus than in the Schumacher films but less focus than in Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns

-Batman lacked the powerful presence, it's not just about screen time but powerful/iconic impact that Batman has whenever he's comes on the screen, I got that in Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns but not TDk

-Bringing Rachel Dawes back was pointless to me because Batman's relationships with ordinary women are not that strong, besides she seemed totally done with him in Batman Begins and was just a lame damsel-in-distress character that doesn't like him as Batman after all. I would have preferred if they used Catwoman instead. Don't bring the excuse that she brought tragedy to Harvey Dent because the Gilda character from the comics could have been used for that plus I hated the unnecessary/sappy love triangle of Rachel, Harvey and Bruce

-I didn't like the fact that Batman considered giving up his persona because The Joker killed some innocents, I mean Batman is only human he can only save innocents that he is able to save instead of whining, he could have just gone and kick The Joker's a** to get it over with because the murder of those innocents was a sin committed by The Joker not Batman. Besides, giving up is like him throwing away his soul because let's face it, Bruce Wayne is the facade and Batman is the real person

-I didn't like the fact that Batman took the blame for a golden boy-turned-psychopath even though he was a good person that fell to tragedy, I think Batman should still let the truth out. This message of lying for the public felt morally wrong to me

-Heath Ledger's Joker may have been well acted/unique and I liked some bits like the pencil trick and bazooka but to be honest, overall I didn't enjoy this Joker as much as the one played by Jack Nicholson, this Joker didn't hysterically laugh that much, didn't use any iconic deadly toys/gags to kill people or use laughing gas, his humor didn't hit my laughter nerves and just was too much of a terrorist that I might as well call him Osama Bin Joker

-Batman hardly used any of his iconic gadgets, was too naive/unsure and they made The Joker seem more intellectual than him but don't bring excuse that this is a young Batman because we already saw him learning Batman Begins

-Gotham City lacked the atmosphere that was present in Batman Begins, Batman 1989, Batman Returns, no iconic shots of Batman and I didn't feel that I entered Batman's world in any way

-Batman was no longer the mythical creature of the night/terror striking from the shadows that he was in Batman Begins

-The film lacked the fun/excitement of Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns instead it tried too hard to be a serious/very realistic crime-drama

Though I can see your position on some of the cinematic decisions Nolan made, but overall, this just reminds me why fanboys should stay fanboys and not film makers. There is just too much of a hugging of the comics. Not saying that being faithful to the comics is bad, but this is an adaptation, not a duplication. If I wanted a duplication, I'd just read the comics in the first place and skip the movie.

Also, I disagree completely on TDK not being about Batman, Rachel not being important to the story, Batman wanting to retire, and Batman taking the blame for Dent's murders. I think it fits very well into the story Nolan wanted to tell in TDK, while also working as an extension of the themes introduced in Begins.

 

[weezerspider]

I don't want to oversimplify many of the very valid arguments here, but I think there is a degree of misunderstanding involved on both sides.

Those arguing against "realism" as it appears to be evidenced in BB and TDK are not in fact arguing for "unrealism" or surrealism as a goal in its right. They are, broadly, arguing that any rigidity in Nolan's "realistic" approach should be relaxed if becomes an impediment to adapting these characters to screen in an entertaining way.

Those who want to preserve the degree of "realism" or "groundedness" that Nolan seems to bring to the movies are not, in general, arguing that the comics are flawed, or that the source material should be suppressed. They object to the objection to realism as a matter of principle. It's easy to see why: if you take being unrealistic as your goal, then you will quickly stray into high fantasy and that strange type of lurid whimsy that lets down a lot of fantasy fiction.

As it happens, I think most people in both camps believe in roughly the same approach: to have the movies set in a fairly plausible world that is comparable with our own, but to allow inconsistencies and fractures in the plausibility of the events that occur therein, if and when those exceptions are important to the development of the characters and narratives being adapted.

Everyone will have their own tastes, their own boredom threshold and their own bull**** threshold; within that framework.

For instance, I don't think there was any reason to have the possibility that The Joker's skin was bleached white eliminated, especially if the pursuit of "realism" was the cause. Other people, I know, disagree.

I'm not saying I don't want a more "comic" Batman movie. I'm just saying there are alot of people who have yet to give a good reason why they dislike Nolan's films other than "its too realistic". I think thats absurd to automatically put it below other Batman films because its "too realistic". TDK has had the most success and biggest impact than any other comic book movie. The realism didn't help it, IMO. It also didn't hurt it. It was just a good movie involving a legendary Hero and a legendary Villain.

 

[El Payaso]

Apart from Eckhart, there was no indication that Gotham City had a corrupt Police force. Even Gordon knew that Eckhart was corrupt. "I'm in charge here, not Carl Grissom".

There was nobody gunning for Harvey Dent either, so Gotham cannot have been that corrupt. So what you're basing that statement on, I don't know.

The Police force in Batman '89 were just incompetent. Jim Gordon was in charge, and he was an honest Cop. He was there listening to Joker's announcement. So was the Mayor and Harvey Dent. Are you seriously trying to tell us that they wouldn't have had a platoon of Cops waiting for the Joker at midnight?

I thought Eckhardt was precisely the indication of Gotham City having a corrup Police Dept. Sure, they could (should?) have shown some other cops being corrupt but as the critic said 'you don't need to drink the whole barrell to know the wine is corked.'

Gordon knowing about corruption doesn't make Gotham any less corrupt. Gordon knew about Flass in BB and that made no difference.

B89 Mayor announced on TV that they were unable to keep people safe for the bicentennial. Sure in real life etc etc but within the logic of the movie they literally quit and were waiting for a miracle.

Now yes, Nolan's Gordon would have done anything to stop Nicholson Joker's parade but then again Burton's Batman would have killed Ledger Joker at once.

 

[Travesty]

Also, I disagree completely on TDK not being about Batman, Rachel not being important to the story, Batman wanting to retire, and Batman taking the blame for Dent's murders. I think it fits very well into the story Nolan wanted to tell in TDK, while also working as an extension of the themes introduced in Begins.

Which may be the reason why he didn't like the movie.

 

[General Vulcun]

Which may be the reason why he didn't like the movie.

Weeeeeird stuff maaaaan

 

[weezerspider]

Which may be the reason why he didn't like the movie.

Well if he doesn't like the film because its not his style of Batman, cool, but lets not get mad a Nolan. From a pure film aspect, its tough to make an argument that TDK ISNT the best movie out of all the Batman movies. You guys might not think its the best BATMAN movie, but as far as a film, it SEEMS pretty far ahead of any Bat film we've seen.

 

[The Joker]

I thought Eckhardt was precisely the indication of Gotham City having a corrup Police Dept. Sure, they could (should?) have shown some other cops being corrupt but as the critic said 'you don't need to drink the whole barrell to know the wine is corked.'

One corrupt Cop does not a crooked Police Department make. Eckhart was the only one who was shown or even mentioned to have any kind of corrupt connections. We didn't see any other Cops on the take.

Whereas in Nolan's movies, it's spelled out that there's corruption everywhere, from the Cops, to the Judges, to the people working in Harvey Dent's office.

Again you can only judge based on what was shown. We can speculate, but there's nothing else in B'89 that implies there's any corruption in Gotham beyond Eckhart.

Gordon knowing about corruption doesn't make Gotham any less corrupt. Gordon knew about Flass in BB and that made no difference.

Gordon was a lowly Sargent in a department full of corruption in BB. In B'89, he was the Commissioner. And he was tight with the Mayor and Harvey Dent.

B89 Mayor announced on TV that they were unable to keep people safe for the bicentennial. Sure in real life etc etc but within the logic of the movie they literally quit and were waiting for a miracle.

The Mayor said they can't guarantee public safety. He didn't say they were going to lay down and stop trying to keep it though.

Canceling the anniversary festival was a precaution, because it was open day for an attack by the Joker. The Joker then announces he'll be there at midnight with bells on, and they have not got one single Cop to take him and his little gang. No SWAT team? Nothing.

I love B'89, but Payaso me old chum, that part was a croc. The Police should not deem to be this incompetent. It makes both Batman and the Joker look less clever, too.

How dangerous can the Joker be with a Police force as stupid as this, or citizens so dumb to trust a man who's been bumping them off by poisoning their products for weeks beforehand?

Honestly, Crazy Quilt could take over Gotham with suckers like these.

 

[regwec]

(@wheezerspider)

I share that view, as a movie fan. As somebody who had Batman pyjamas when he was six, however, the integrity of the characters and mythos seems almost as important to me as the success of the movie overall. Now, that is a very personal and very selfish outlook, and I would never expect someone like Chris Nolan, who is handling a multi-million dollar franchise, to pander to such a narrow audience. But I can completely understand why some fans feel that certain concepts they were hoping to see in the movies- like Batman's detective skills, like an architecturally awesome Gotham city, like a debonair Joker- were sold a bit short.

TDK was a great crime epic, and I think that Batman's character and some of The Joker's deviousness were brilliantly realised. But there were, I think, a few points on which the comicbook fans could have been indulged a little more, without hurting the movie or alienating the general audience.

I return again to The Joker's painted face, only because it is my own personal gripe. It changed the physical cue that, in comicbook language, defined who The Joker was. Why? Well, facepaint is something with which we are all familiar, so it is completely plausible. But The Joker is meant to be a little implausible, a little eerie, isn't he? I know that many accepted the change, others didn't care, and most no longer care one way or the other, but I retain the view that it was a small but important shard of comicbook fantasy that should have made it to the screen. The fact that it did not seemed like an emphatic message that this was not a realisation of the existing mythos.

 

[weezerspider]

(@wheezerspider)

I share that view, as a movie fan. As somebody who had Batman pyjamas when he was six, however, the integrity of the characters and mythos seems almost as important to me as the success of the movie overall. Now, that is a very personal and very selfish outlook, and I would never expect someone like Chris Nolan, who is handling a multi-million dollar franchise, to pander to such a narrow audience. But I can completely understand why some fans feel that certain concepts they were hoping to see in the movies- like Batman's detective skills, like an architecturally awesome Gotham city, like a debonair Joker- were sold a bit short.

TDK was a great crime epic, and I think that Batman's character and some of The Joker's deviousness were brilliantly realised. But there were, I think, a few points on which the comicbook fans could have been indulged a little more, without hurting the movie or alienating the general audience.



I return again to The Joker's painted face, only because it is my own personal gripe. It changed the physical cue that, in comicbook language, defined who The Joker was. Why? Well, facepaint is something with which we are all familiar, so it is completely plausible. But The Joker is meant to be a little implausible, a little eerie, isn't he? I know that many accepted the change, others didn't care, and most no longer care one way or the other, but I retain the view that it was a small but important shard of comicbook fantasy that should have made it to the screen. The fact that it did not seemed like an emphatic message that this was not a realisation of the existing mythos.

Well, if they didn't make it obvious Joker had make-up on, it wouldn't have bothered me. The script doesn't mention that he's wearing make-up. Without a backstory, us comic fans can assume he's white and movie fans can assume its make-up. However, they had some many scenes where it was smeared and stuff that yes, it was clearly supposed to be make-up which frustrated me. However, I felt they got the soul of The Joker right. He may not use comedic weapons, but his overall goals, thoughts and plans are very Jokerish, so for the most part, I'm quite happy with Joker.

EDIT: Also, I will admit, I like "the comic feel" of B89. Actually apart from Nicholson, the movie isn't very good from a film aspect. My love for Batman and the comics lead me to enjoy it and put it up there with BB and TDK as far my favorite Bat-films. That said, I would never try to make an argument that B89 is a better film than TDK. It might be a better BATMAN film, but IMO, TDK is just as much a Batman film as B89.

 

[lixdexia]

(@wheezerspider)

I share that view, as a movie fan. As somebody who had Batman pyjamas when he was six, however, the integrity of the characters and mythos seems almost as important to me as the success of the movie overall. Now, that is a very personal and very selfish outlook, and I would never expect someone like Chris Nolan, who is handling a multi-million dollar franchise, to pander to such a narrow audience. But I can completely understand why some fans feel that certain concepts they were hoping to see in the movies- like Batman's detective skills, like an architecturally awesome Gotham city, like a debonair Joker- were sold a bit short.

TDK was a great crime epic, and I think that Batman's character and some of The Joker's deviousness were brilliantly realised. But there were, I think, a few points on which the comicbook fans could have been indulged a little more, without hurting the movie or alienating the general audience.

I return again to The Joker's painted face, only because it is my own personal gripe. It changed the physical cue that, in comicbook language, defined who The Joker was. Why? Well, facepaint is something with which we are all familiar, so it is completely plausible. But The Joker is meant to be a little implausible, a little eerie, isn't he? I know that many accepted the change, others didn't care, and most no longer care one way or the other, but I retain the view that it was a small but important shard of comicbook fantasy that should have made it to the screen. The fact that it did not seemed like an emphatic message that this was not a realisation of the existing mythos.

i can understand that, and when problems like this arise for me i think 2 things
1- if it wasn't mentioned then there's nothing to say it isn't there. lazurus pits and perma-white joker fall into this category. if it helps your enjoyment simply imagine that the joker is wearing 2 layers of make-up. flesh on white and the white on flesh.

2- there's nothing to say that he can't have bleached skin in a sequel

 

[Travesty]

Well if he doesn't like the film because its not his style of Batman, cool, but lets not get mad a Nolan. From a pure film aspect, its tough to make an argument that TDK ISNT the best movie out of all the Batman movies. You guys might not think its the best BATMAN movie, but as far as a film, it SEEMS pretty far ahead of any Bat film we've seen.

That's a bit of a double edged sword, now isn't it? I agree, TDK IS a good movie, and I've said that time and time again.....BUT, it's not a good Batman movie to me. Doesn't it help for the movie to be in the style of the actual character portrayed within it? Now, I know this is all subjective, but I really don't like TDK from a Bat-fan standpoint, although, you, being another Bat-fan, like it. See, that's the beauty of opinions, it brings the best out of all us individuals. Nolan purposefully made the movie a certain way, so if someone doesn't like it, then who are we to blame? Nobody? We as consumers, get to judge our own experiences in movies, so we give out the final grade to our own individual liking. I know TON of people who dislike a lot of "A-grade" movies, and yet, who am I to say they are wrong? To me, it's very easy to say TDK is one of the worst movies out of all the Bat-flicks(not THE worst, but it's close to me). Why? Because it's my own opinion on the matter! You think it's the greatest, so you think it's "impossible" to think otherwise. I can see where you're coming from, but why is it so hard to see where we are coming from? Are we to not put blame on the director, the very person responsible, for creating the movie that we don't like? Yes, I think we do.

 

[batman11]

Are we to not put blame on the director, the very person responsible, for creating the movie that we don't like? Yes, I think we do.

I find this bit of your post particularly interesting Trav. Not really in the realm of Batman, but more-so pertaining to the nature of opinions and different mindsets regarding subjective scenarios. You deem it appropriate to personally blame Nolan for not making the movie you like, while I simultaneously praise him for producing a film that I adore. On one end of the spectrum, we have him being condemned (yeah, the word might be a tad harsh) and on the other, we have him being praised. My question is whether or not blame is the right word in this situation? If one builds an idea of a film in their mind, one that they absolutely desire to see made, and then it doesn't come to fruition, is it right to blame the director? Is it the director's job to make the movie you specifically want to see? Is it his duty to ensure that his film caters to the specific needs of all movie-goers? If we flip things, and you got a Batfilm you hailed as an absolute masterpiece, yet I despised it because it's not something I wanted to see, would you tell me that I'm justified in blaming the director for not producing a product I desire? Like you said, it's a double edged sword. Most of the questions I pose are rhetorical and obviously have no set answer, but I just find it such an interesting, almost borderline psychological topic. What is the true extent and effect of our opinions in the most subjective of situations? Cool stuff.

(Yes...I'm aware that was incredibly off-topic. LOL. What can I say? News is slow. )

 

[AG1973]

I personally think that TDK was a great movie and I also think that B89 was an enjoyable movie. Both films had components that I loved and parts that I hated. I think that TDK did a much better job of capturing the essence of Batman, Joker, and Gordon. Bale IMO is the best fighter (as Batman) in all of the Batman movies. I also think that Morgan Freeman does an excellent job as Fox BTW.

The bat-suit in B89 is better than suit the recent films, however, I still long for the Gray Bat-Suit. Nicholson looked the most like Joker while Ledger played him better and I'm with Weezer I could have done without the white face paint.

I also hate the Tumbler Bat Mobile and I hope they use a Bat Mobile in the next movie that is closer to a Lamborghini.

The Batman story is rich and engaging I am okay with a level of realism but I hope that they get closer to the comics in the future without going campy lik Schumacher...

 

[Travesty]

I find this bit of your post particularly interesting Trav. Not really in the realm of Batman, but more-so pertaining to the nature of opinions and different mindsets regarding subjective scenarios. You deem it appropriate to personally blame Nolan for not making the movie you like, while I simultaneously praise him for producing a film that I adore. On one end of the spectrum, we have him being condemned (yeah, the word might be a tad harsh) and on the other, we have him being praised. My question is whether or not blame is the right word in this situation? If one builds an idea of a film in their mind, one that they absolutely desire to see made, and then it doesn't come to fruition, is it right to blame the director? Is it the director's job to make the movie you specifically want to see? Is it his duty to ensure that his film caters to the specific needs of all movie-goers? If we flip things, and you got a Batfilm you hailed as an absolute masterpiece, yet I despised it because it's not something I wanted to see, would you tell me that I'm justified in blaming the director for not producing a product I desire? Like you said, it's a double edged sword. Most of the questions I pose are rhetorical and obviously have no set answer, but I just find it such an interesting, almost borderline psychological topic. What is the true extent and effect of our opinions in the most subjective of situations? Cool stuff.

(Yes...I'm aware that was incredibly off-topic. LOL. What can I say? News is slow. )

Again, I think it's very valid to blame the director. Just look at Burton's Bat-flicks. I know a TON of people who LOVE B89, but despise Returns, and they always blame Burton, and rightfully so if you didn't like that movie. Me personally, I like both B89 and Returns, but I can see why people don't like Returns. And for me, it's almost the same scenario, but with a different directors universe. I like Begins, but I hate TDK. I can see why people like TDK, although, it's just not my cup of tea, and feels like such a departure from Begins, ala, how B89 and Returns must have felt to B89 "lovers". Again, I get it, and always have. I just try to present my thoughts/opinions, where others can see where I'm coming from(hopefully), when this feels like history repeating itself.

Hopefully this makes some kind of sense, as I'm getting kinda tired.

 

[batman11]

Again, I think it's very valid to blame the director. Just look at Burton's Bat-flicks. I know a TON of people who LOVE B89, but despise Returns, and they always blame Burton, and rightfully so if you didn't like that movie. Me personally, I like both B89 and Returns, but I can see why people don't like Returns. And for me, it's almost the same scenario, but with a different directors universe. I like Begins, but I hate TDK. I can see why people like TDK, although, it's just not my cup of tea, and feels like such a departure from Begins, ala, how B89 and Returns must have felt to B89 "lovers". Again, I get it, and always have. I just try to present my thoughts/opinions, while others can see where I'm coming from, when this feels like history repeating itself.

Hopefully this makes some kind of sense, as I'm getting kinda tired.

I see where you're coming from. You know that. I always do. I'm just not sure I can agree with the sentiments of blaming the director. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe because I don't feel it right to put the blame on someone for telling their story, even if it's not my cup of tea. In that case, I simply acknowledge the fact this isn't for me, and I can move on. I can, however, find grounds to blame directors and screenwriters for flaws, holes, inconsistencies, etc. But personal taste...I dunno. It's just so damn subjective. Which is of course the theme of this conversation. LOL t:

I guess this would make me a terrible movie critic. Hehehe.

 

[Travesty]

I see where you're coming from. You know that. I always do. I'm just not sure I can agree with the sentiments of blaming the director? Why? I'm not sure. Maybe because I don't feel it right to put the blame on someone for telling their story, even if it's not my cup of tea. In that case, I simply acknowledge the fact this isn't for me, and I can move on. I can, however, find grounds to blame directors and screenwriters for flaws, holes, inconsistencies, etc. But personal taste...I dunno. It's just so damn subjective. Which is of course the theme of this conversation. LOL t:

Which is why this subject gets so heated.

On a side note: If not to blame the director for your opinion on a movie, than who are you to blame? I mean, if someone doesn't like a movie, then there is probably reasons for it. But overall, I see the director making all the final calls. Even when I'm debating about how much I like Begins, if someone challenges that, I say to blame Nolan if you didn't like that, cause it was his final call, as he's the director, he has final say.

 

[The Joker]

Spider-Man 3 is a good example of a controversial "Who to blame".

 

[Travesty]

Spider-Man 3 is a good example of a controversial "Who to blame".

Don't you do it.....don't even think of doing it!!!


But seriously, don't do it.t:

 

[Crook]

Since Marvel is setting up its franchises in the same universe, i doubt that they will stop making Ironman movies after IM3 and the Avengers movie. They already went into too much trouble for them to drop it all and reboot. If Favreau leaves the franchise, they'll probably find someone else to carry on. Same with Thor and Cap. I prefer this to a trilogy with a more confined take on the characters, followed by another trilogy with its own continuity and its own spin on the characters. For once i want to see the characters evolve and mature throughout many films. I want to see Batman holding Jason's body, Tim Drake, etc...

Well see, here's the thing. You cannot compare any of these guys to Bats because no comic book character has gone through as much stylistic and creative elasticity as he has since his inception. No one. If you think about it, it's pretty amazing how Batman has covered every end of the spectrum. There's too many interpretations of the character to logistically mix into one satisfactory amalgamation.

So yes, Marvel can make as many sequels as they want without having to 'reset' after a creative team leaves. But that's their liberty alone. Societal and historical shifts aside, the tone hasn't changed drastically from their original creation.

No so with Bats. He has very distinctive eras, and even there, he'll have subcategories under them. BTAS and AA (the game) are the two closest interpretations of Bats that I like, and these two styles clash in many ways, in spite of the latter borrowing heavily from the former. No director is ever going to escape the alienation of the fanbase. Maybe when Nolan is gone, and the next director fulfills your every hope and dream, you'll realize this. Rest assured you'll have plenty of people b****ing against your favorite depiction.

Good post. Yes TDK has many great scenes and shots, its just some others are very disappointing, like the Sears Towers i mentioned. And this specific shot is so easy and yet it came off as very bland. As you said, no one is infallible.

Like I said, I find you focus way too much on the negative. It's very easy to dismiss all the good he's done, because there's nothing to comment on. I've been guilty of this myself, when I've highly favored Burton over Nolan in certain areas. But truth be told, if Burton were the current director and Nolan was the one that moved on, I'd probably be b****ing just as frequently. Only it'd be about other things.

All I'm saying is take things into perspective. We're incredibly fortunate to have Nolan on this franchise. I have a gut feeling we won't be getting his talent for a while, so frankly I'm savoring the time we have now.

-Heath Ledger's Joker may have been well acted/unique and I liked some bits like the pencil trick and bazooka but to be honest, overall I didn't enjoy this Joker as much as the one played by Jack Nicholson, this Joker didn't hysterically laugh that much, didn't use any iconic deadly toys/gags to kill people or use laughing gas, his humor didn't hit my laughter nerves and just was too much of a terrorist that I might as well call him Osama Bin Joker

Joker laughed plenty:

[YT]KVo8oUlyH8A[/YT]

It was just the length of his laughs weren't as long as previous actors. I also think it was a creative decision to carefully inject when and where Joker laughs. We're used to him laughing every other sentence, but it does desensitize us to his craziness. I suspect Ledger/Nolan toned down the frequency so as to make those moments, when they do show up, have more impact. Ditto for any other traditional Joker trait.

As for the terrorist bit, well...he is. Every interpretation depicts him as a madman who leaves a long trail of destruction, many times with no rhyme or reason. Only difference is Heath didn't "play it up" with camp in a overt or incessant manner.

We're basically saying the same thing. When I say he became Batman the night his parents died I don't actually mean he chose the bat costume. Instead I'm saying he decided to fight crime and injustice from that moment on. He started training from that moment on, the costume was just a final decision. My problem is that in Nolan's version this never ever happened. He was lost for 10-15 years and did nothing to prepare himself for his future role.

Well see, choosing to be Batman and choosing to fight injustice are two mutually exclusive things.

that's where we get to the rail car question!
ok, picture this there's a rail car speeding down the track with no brakes. it's coming to a fork and you're the only person close enough to decide which path it goes down. on one side is ra's and on the other ra's potential future victims. now there's no telling how many victims could be there, could be zero could be a billion, there's no way of telling. now, do you let the train hit ra's or his potential victims? given that ra's had more or less given a guarantee that there would be more should he survive and was in full control of his mental faculties, YES I FULLY SUPPORT BATMAN'S DECISION NOT TO SAVE RA'S IN THAT SITUATION. it sounds like you have a different outlook and that's what makes philosophy funt:

How would you address Batman saving Joker?

i can understand that, and when problems like this arise for me i think 2 things
1- if it wasn't mentioned then there's nothing to say it isn't there. lazurus pits and perma-white joker fall into this category. if it helps your enjoyment simply imagine that the joker is wearing 2 layers of make-up. flesh on white and the white on flesh.

2- there's nothing to say that he can't have bleached skin in a sequel

The issue with either of those scenarios is that the first is an extreme reach on the behalf of the viewer. There's nothing to suggest such a convoluted procedure (nor is there a point). The second also lacks poignancy and becomes convenient. As much as I prefer the bleached skin, I wouldn't sacrifice narrative/creative logic because of it.

 

[weezerspider]

That's a bit of a double edged sword, now isn't it? I agree, TDK IS a good movie, and I've said that time and time again.....BUT, it's not a good Batman movie to me. Doesn't it help for the movie to be in the style of the actual character portrayed within it? Now, I know this is all subjective, but I really don't like TDK from a Bat-fan standpoint, although, you, being another Bat-fan, like it. See, that's the beauty of opinions, it brings the best out of all us individuals. Nolan purposefully made the movie a certain way, so if someone doesn't like it, then who are we to blame? Nobody? We as consumers, get to judge our own experiences in movies, so we give out the final grade to our own individual liking. I know TON of people who dislike a lot of "A-grade" movies, and yet, who am I to say they are wrong? To me, it's very easy to say TDK is one of the worst movies out of all the Bat-flicks(not THE worst, but it's close to me). Why? Because it's my own opinion on the matter! You think it's the greatest, so you think it's "impossible" to think otherwise. I can see where you're coming from, but why is it so hard to see where we are coming from? Are we to not put blame on the director, the very person responsible, for creating the movie that we don't like? Yes, I think we do.

Okay I'm not going to get into the whole Opinion thing. The point is, I'm looking at it as a fan of film, not Batman. Its pretty tough to make a case that TDK isn't light years away from every other film in the series as far as a film. Sure some people don't like it, but there are people who don't like The Godfather, Citizen Cane ex. The point is, I'm saying TDK is a great FILM. Like I said, I love Batman 89, but thats because I love Batman. If I had to critique it I'd probably give it around a 70-75, Nicholson's performance possible bringing it to a flat 80. When I look at it as a Batman film, I have right up there with BB and TDK, which IMO, are easily superior films from a film perspective. I get it that some don't like TDK because it's not their favorite style of Batman, but Nolan is a filmmaker and he strictly was trying to make a great film. Based on the praise from critics and fans alike, I think its safe to say he succeeded. Did he perfect Batman and his universe? Maybe not. Are there movies that have captured Batman better than TDK? IMO no, but I 100% can understand if someone says otherwise. However, I can not understand how, from a purely film perspective, someone can make an argument that TDK isn't the best quality film involving Batman(I won't call it a Batman film since you don't see it that way).I mean lets be honest, its not a very rich franchise when it comes to high quality movies. We all have opinions and yes, someone can rightfully say Howard The Duck is a better movie than The Godfather, but they don't have much of a leg to stand on. If its between The Godfather and Casablanca, instead of Howard The Duck, you can go all day from opinion to opinion, but TDK, from a purely film aspect, doesn't really have another film from the Bat-franchise that can compete. So yes, we all have opinions, but I feel there does need to be a realization that there is a better made movie. The easiest example is I can watch Gone With The Wind and appreciate the work of art, but as far as my personal tastes, it bores me. Or the fact that I find the two newest Punisher movies terrible movies, yet I love them more than half the superhero movies out there. Maybe I'm just weird. For the record, I totally understand if you don't like TDK. I mean if you don't want your Batman like that, who am I to say otherwise. I just don't think the bat-franchise is rich enough to have any film, based purely on the film itself, not comic accuracy or whatever, that can stand with TDK from a quality of the film perspective. This may be really confusing and I'm sorry if I come off as not respecting your opinion

 

[batman11]

Which is why this subject gets so heated.

On a side note: If not to blame the director for your opinion on a movie, than who are you to blame? I mean, if someone doesn't like a movie, then there is probably reasons for it. But overall, I see the director making all the final calls. Even when I'm debating about how much I like Begins, if someone challenges that, I say to blame Nolan if you didn't like that, cause it was his final call, as he's the director, he has final say.

Why must I blame anyone? Moreover, if it's anyone's fault, it's surely mine. Lets say I like the competitive aspect of ballet. I go see a movie about ballet, but the director chooses to tell the story of the hardships that the dancers face. Why should I blame the director for choosing to impart knowledge about that particular side of the story? It's my own personal taste that is causing the dislike. It's my opinion of the subject matter that causes me to feel negatively about the film. Do I curse the director for failing to include my favorite aspect of this type of dance? No. Why should I? That's not what this particular film is about. If I blame anyone for my dislike of the film, it should be only be myself for my disdain for the subject matter. Moral of the story is that I shouldn't go see the movie (that's a bit extreme - let's say not have such unrealistic expectations) when I know what type of film I'm heading into. Why I chose ballet for this example, I'm not quite sure, LOL, but can you see what I'm saying?

Spider-Man 3 is a good example of a controversial "Who to blame".

It's a great example. I was definitely thinking about it as I was making my posts. I think there's lots of blame to go around. There's definitely some personally for me, because I hyped it up to the point of totally unrealistic expectations, and I started crafting my own movie in my head. But, there are several issues with the film, in my mind, and I think others will agree, that transcend opinion. This is of course related to the subject of something like a plot hole or departure from tone, or theme, etc. etc.

 

[Travesty]

Why must I blame anyone? Moreover, if it's anyone's fault, it's surely mine. Lets say I like the competitive aspect of ballet. I go see a movie about ballet, but the director chooses to tell the story of the hardships that the dancers face. Why should I blame the director for choosing to impart knowledge about that particular side of the story? It's my own personal taste that is causing the dislike. It's my opinion of the subject matter that causes me to feel negatively about the film. Do I curse the director for failing to include my favorite aspect of this type of dance? No. Why should I? That's not what this particular film is about. If I blame anyone for my dislike of the film, it should be only be myself for my disdain for the subject matter. Moral of the story is that I shouldn't go see the movie (that's a bit extreme - let's say not have such unrealistic expectations) when I know what type of film I'm heading into. Why I chose ballet for this example, I'm not quite sure, LOL, but can you see what I'm saying?

Hehe, "ballet".

Anyways, that goes again to being "subjective", and goes round and round. Clearly someone doesn't like something, and clearly, somebody had a say of what can/can't be in the "thing" you're subjugating. I feel like we're just getting into semantics now. I think blaming someone who has final say of 'said project' should be blamed, but again, this is all subjective.


BAhhh that's probably a hard read. Again, getting more tired. That may be it for me tonight, but we'll see.t:

 

[batman11]

Hehe, "ballet".

Anyways, that goes again to being "subjective", and goes round and round. Clearly someone doesn't like something, and clearly, somebody had a say of what can/can't be in the "thing" you're subjugating. I feel like we're just getting into semantics now. I think blaming someone who has final say of 'said project' should be blamed, but again, this is all subjective.


BAhhh that's probably a hard read. Again, getting more tired. That may be it for me tonight, but we'll see.t:

I thought the ballet would maybe add some light to the subject. I hear that will be Nolan's next movie after Inception actually. A 12 minute doc filmed with the first ever IMAX 3D camera all about the politics of ballet. I must say that I'm planning to skip it, seeing as I'm really only interested in the competitive aspects of ballet. I don't want to end up blaming myself for not liking the movie.

Yeah, I agree. By trying to classify who's to blame, we once again reach the the inevitable realm of subjectivity. And it'll only go in circles unfortunately. I think, the most important thing to grasp from all this is that I clearly have self-esteem issues, due to the fact that I feel it necessary to succumb to personal blame for not liking a fictional ballet movie.

Having said all that...this feels like the batsuit thread all over again. Talk about derailing a topic. LOL t:

 

[Travesty]

I thought the ballet would maybe add some light to the subject. I hear that will be Nolan's next movie after Inception actually. A 12 minute doc filmed with the first ever IMAX 3D camera all about the politics of ballet. I must say that I'm planning to skip it, seeing as I'm really only interested in the competitive aspects of ballet. I don't want to end up blaming myself for not liking the movie.

Yeah, I agree. By trying to classify who's to blame, we once again reach the the inevitable realm of subjectivity. And it'll only go in circles unfortunately. I think, the most important thing to grasp from all this is that I clearly have self-esteem issues, due to the fact that I feel it necessary to succumb personal blame for not liking a fictional ballet movie.

Having said all that...this feels like the batsuit thread all over again. Talk about derailing a topic. LOL t:

................




t:t:..............

 

[lixdexia]

How would you address Batman saving Joker?

in much the same way, but this time the ultimate goal is not only saving gotham, but more importantly proving joker wrong. so no mater how much he may want to let joker fall or how much sense it would make he just can't do it because it would mean abandoning that goal (and subsequently destroying bruce's concept of batman)

The issue with either of those scenarios is that the first is an extreme reach on the behalf of the viewer. There's nothing to suggest such a convoluted procedure (nor is there a point). The second also lacks poignancy and becomes convenient. As much as I prefer the bleached skin, I wouldn't sacrifice narrative/creative logic because of it.

eh, different strokes. just a couple of things i like to keep in the back of mind when i watch them. not really distracting from the narrative for me