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

[Mr. Earle]

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.

Its a matter of set pieces and directional style. Apart from the whole Hong Kong scene, Bruce's sailing boat, and the Joker's makeup, i found nothing visually engaging in that movie. And Nolan's direction of the action pieces feels heavy, like the camera is as heavy as his Batman. Favs' camera is always running around, getting wider and more awesome shots.

Or am i supposed to be thrilled by seeing batman standing like a log on the Sears Towers, the most boring building in the whole world (its a huge box) with nothing in the background (how about other skyscrapers?).

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.

His penthouse was empty. It looked like a car dealership without the cars. And yes obviously Wayne is more reserved than Stark but shouldnt the penthouse be more appealing for us viewers? Lets not apply real life logic into comics because first and foremost Bruce would have covered his mouth as Batman.

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.

It was the amount of politics that was the problem. TDK clearly focused on Gotham with Batman being one of it's characters but not THE character. I wouldnt mind a few issues like that, but when i get a Batman movie every 4-5 years (if i am lucky), i'd like them to focus on Batman if possible. I could care less about where Dent got his coin.

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?

OK, wrong choice of words. But the fight scenes still look heavy as if Batman is wearing iron boots and the camera is tied to the ground. Scarlett Johanson's Black Widow fights better than the goddamn Batman.

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.

But they did help didnt they?

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?

Because they are irrelevent to those movies you mentioned but they would add to a Batman movie. We re talking about Batman, i.e superhero movies right? Shouldnt they be... oh i dunno... superheroic?

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.

Yes i am weird for asking better visuals in movies. Those pitch dark alleys and that blown up warehouse were so beautiful, i wonder why Pfeister didnt get an Oscar for TDK.

 

[weezerspider]

Because they are irrelevent to those movies you mentioned but they would add to a Batman movie. We re talking about Batman, i.e superhero movies right? Shouldnt they be... oh i dunno... superheroic?

The Dark Knight showed Batman's heroism better than any other non-comic ever has. Better than any Batman show, movie, animated movie. The Dark Knight's plot shows off the relationship between Batman and Joker perfectly. The Dark Knight made Gotham a "character", one of the greatest aspects of Batman Comics. And while the fight scenes may not be flashy, they are solid and fairly realistic. Not to mention fight scenes don't make movies. Also Nolan improved drastically in that category from BB to TDK. If he improves as much as he did between BB and TDK, then B3 will have epic fight scenes to go with great storytelling. And I hate when people say Nolan's Batman films have terrible "ACTION SCENES". They have GREAT ACTION SCENES! The chase scenes in both films are greatly done. Fight scenes don't automatically equal all action scenes.

 

[Phaser]

But they did help didnt they?

Whatever floats your boat. Facts of the matter are these - TDK was more successful, more critically acclaimed, more influential and simply an all-round better made movie than Iron Man all things considered.

Because they are irrelevent to those movies you mentioned but they would add to a Batman movie.

Do explain how, because The Dark Knight proved that a comic book superhero has more than enough substance to stand on its own due to its strong weighty characters and compelling storyline alone without an overemphasis on chintzy visuals or cartoonish action sequences, and succeed with the general audience. The fact that it is the highest grossing superhero film of all time adjusted for inflation has defied conventional wisdom of what a tentpole big budget comic book film can be.

We re talking about Batman, i.e superhero movies right? Shouldnt they be... oh i dunno... superheroic?

Well, if you want to play semantics, aren't superheroes supposed to have...oh I dunno...superpowers? And what was so 'superheroic' about Batman stories like Arkham Asylum, Year One, Broken City or the Killing Joke? It's almost hilarious how you constantly seem to avoid directly addressing this point, as if you're deliberately pretending that they do not exist.

Yes i am weird for asking better visuals in movies. Those pitch dark alleys and that blown up warehouse were so beautiful, i wonder why Pfeister didnt get an Oscar for TDK.

I wonder why whatshisface didn't get a single nomination for the amazing visuals in Iron Man when Wally Pfister got 10 for best cinematography and won 6 of them for merely shooting 'dark alleys and a blown up warehouse'.

 

[Crook]

Its a matter of set pieces and directional style. Apart from the whole Hong Kong scene, Bruce's sailing boat, and the Joker's makeup, i found nothing visually engaging in that movie.

Ok, moving on...

And Nolan's direction of the action pieces feels heavy, like the camera is as heavy as his Batman. Favs' camera is always running around, getting wider and more awesome shots.

Favreau has more utility with dynamic shots because he's working with cg characters/backgrounds. I'm all for better action, but this isn't a fair comparison. When Favreau successfully live-directs action with person/objects that are physically there, then we can talk.

Or am i supposed to be thrilled by seeing batman standing like a log on the Sears Towers, the most boring building in the whole world (its a huge box) with nothing in the background (how about other skyscrapers?).

The Willis Tower is the tallest building in Chicago. If you're on the tallest anything, you're not going to have anything in the background. Do you think people climb Mount Everest, get to the top, and say, "what the hell? There's nothing up here!"?

His penthouse was empty. It looked like a car dealership without the cars. And yes obviously Wayne is more reserved than Stark but shouldnt the penthouse be more appealing for us viewers? Lets not apply real life logic into comics because first and foremost Bruce would have covered his mouth as Batman.

Again I would like to point out how stupid of a critique this is. But I'll play: are you blaming Nolan for following the internal logic of the film and its character? Phaser already described the purpose of the penthouse, and I've already told you how it suits Bruce's bland and empty personal life. You do realize film, even as a visual medium, can tell a story with its aesthetics, right? Visuals aren't all about pretty colors.

It was the amount of politics that was the problem. TDK clearly focused on Gotham with Batman being one of it's characters but not THE character. I wouldnt mind a few issues like that, but when i get a Batman movie every 4-5 years (if i am lucky), i'd like them to focus on Batman if possible. I could care less about where Dent got his coin.

I have my own reservations on that, so I won't completely disagree with you. But I will say that Batman's story was being told without him being shown. The corruption, political pressure, public image, pretty much any theme that was covered, are all tied back to Batman's own personal demons. But yes, Bruce most definitely lacked screen time regardless of this fact.

Yes i am weird for asking better visuals in movies. Those pitch dark alleys and that blown up warehouse were so beautiful, i wonder why Pfeister didnt get an Oscar for TDK.

Pfister got Oscar nominations for both Batman films. Iron Man's cinematographer got none. So there's that. And I would recommend looking up 'Mise en scene'. The level of craftsmanship behind Nolan and Wally's cinematography work is leagues beyond whatever Favreau and co. did. Though I suspect this is something only cinephiles can truly appreciate.

 

[MacLeod]

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.

I don't see the source material there for Batman. Maybe it's just me, but when the origin of the story in Begins was tweaked I lost interest in the Batman aspects of things. Add to that the costume, the lack of "bat" gadgets, fight scenes, etc. in Begins and I just didn't feel it as Batman. For TDK it was worse, he became even less mystical and more cop like. I know he does get that way but he still has the legend behind him and I just didn't get that either. For these reasons, and others, I feel like the character of Batman was missed. Again, I'm know I'm in the minority.

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'.

Fair enough, let me try to clarify then. You're right, Schumacher's films were Batman films, but they were horrible. Nolan's film was a Batman film, but it was missing something for my liking. Both were Batman movies but neither had the Batman I was hoping for, and for that I didn't see Batman in them. Obviously, this is totally opinion based.

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 fellow nitpicker, I guess I do, however I'm still not sold on him as a director of this franchise. And not to beat a dead horse here, I'm in the minority and it's just my opinion.

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?

Ok, I know this one's not meant for me but I wanted to respond. I was totally bored watching TDK. I saw it multiple times because it's a Batman movie and each time I was looking for something different to shine a light on my distaste, and every time I was waiting for the end to occur. Dispite my pro's and con's, I like Begins a lot as a movie, but TDK had more flaws than positives and was just long and drawn out to me.

 

[MacLeod]

The Dark Knight showed Batman's heroism better than any other non-comic ever has. Better than any Batman show, movie, animated movie. The Dark Knight's plot shows off the relationship between Batman and Joker perfectly. The Dark Knight made Gotham a "character", one of the greatest aspects of Batman Comics. And while the fight scenes may not be flashy, they are solid and fairly realistic. Not to mention fight scenes don't make movies. Also Nolan improved drastically in that category from BB to TDK. If he improves as much as he did between BB and TDK, then B3 will have epic fight scenes to go with great storytelling. And I hate when people say Nolan's Batman films have terrible "ACTION SCENES". They have GREAT ACTION SCENES! The chase scenes in both films are greatly done. Fight scenes don't automatically equal all action scenes.

When the main character trains for seven years to fight and the car was just painted black, the fight scenes should be a lot better and hold more weight. Also, the audience may know how to fight, or at least understand what a fight is, where as no one will understand how to drive a made up vehicle, so the fight scenes should sell it more than the driving scenes. Also, Batman may be best known for his fighting skills, or at least known for it in the sense that you can see it more then being a detective, so you again should hope to see that the best not the worst.

As far as the rest of your "facts," they are kind of circumstantial. Batman's heroism is up for debate depending on what movie you liked. I for one didn't like the Batman in TDK so I would never think this was his heroic moment. Batman and the Joker only had one other movie together, so to say this was perfect compared to the other is a little strong. Personally, I thought the Joker was annoying and not really that Joker like, so their chemistry is already flawed for me. Finally, Gotham was a character in Burton's films too, they built the sets that way on purpose. Different opinions see different things, that's why no one should come on here stating their opinions as fact.

 

[Crook]

I don't see the source material there for Batman. Maybe it's just me, but when the origin of the story in Begins was tweaked I lost interest in the Batman aspects of things. Add to that the costume, the lack of "bat" gadgets, fight scenes, etc. in Begins and I just didn't feel it as Batman. For TDK it was worse, he became even less mystical and more cop like. I know he does get that way but he still has the legend behind him and I just didn't get that either. For these reasons, and others, I feel like the character of Batman was missed. Again, I'm know I'm in the minority.

I would say Nolan's covered the foundations of Bruce, it's the details which are arguable. Again, his Batman didn't do it for me either, but I definitely see the inspirations from the source material, all throughout both films.

Personally, I thought the Joker was annoying and not really that Joker like, so their chemistry is already flawed for me.

OUCH. Ahh...the Joker fan inside me is hurting.

 

[MacLeod]

I would say Nolan's covered the foundations of Bruce, it's the details which are arguable. Again, his Batman didn't do it for me either, but I definitely see the inspirations from the source material, all throughout both films.

I can't argue that he tried to use the source material, but the origin still bothered me greatly. For me, Bruce became Batman the night his parents died, for Nolan Bruce was a lost puppy for twenty years and stumbled upon the League of Assasins. The not knowing what to make of my life is not Batman to me.

 

[Crook]

I would've much preferred that take too, but the only true difference is the point in Bruce's life that he decides to commit. The more important part is the dedication and the mission, so having a lapse in a few years isn't damaging to the character (of Batman). After all, in the comics Bruce may have wanted to fight crime during all those years, but he was never Batman until he put on that cape and cowl. It's from that point and forward that I'd be more concerned with.

 

[weezerspider]

When the main character trains for seven years to fight and the car was just painted black, the fight scenes should be a lot better and hold more weight. Also, the audience may know how to fight, or at least understand what a fight is, where as no one will understand how to drive a made up vehicle, so the fight scenes should sell it more than the driving scenes. Also, Batman may be best known for his fighting skills, or at least known for it in the sense that you can see it more then being a detective, so you again should hope to see that the best not the worst.

As far as the rest of your "facts," they are kind of circumstantial. Batman's heroism is up for debate depending on what movie you liked. I for one didn't like the Batman in TDK so I would never think this was his heroic moment. Batman and the Joker only had one other movie together, so to say this was perfect compared to the other is a little strong. Personally, I thought the Joker was annoying and not really that Joker like, so their chemistry is already flawed for me. Finally, Gotham was a character in Burton's films too, they built the sets that way on purpose. Different opinions see different things, that's why no one should come on here stating their opinions as fact.

In that case, its YOUR opinion the fight scenes should hold more weight, its your opinion Batman's fighting should be a bigger part of the story and its your opinion TDK's fight scenes weren't good.

 

[Bruce Malone]

This thread is a lost cause and should be renamed "why can't i make a batman film?!".


Overall I am glad that my favorite comic character has now appeared in two world class movies this past few years and for the few batman fans (mostly in this thread) who don't feel that way i feel bad for you that you can't appreciate that batman has been able to appear is such great movies finally.

 

[Bruce Malone]

double post

 

[IBRAH08]

No, but many train with masters in the Asia for more years than Bruce did which says more to me as a martial artist than Ras Al Ghul ever could. Also, any beat cop has more criminology schooling under his belt than Bruce does, let alone any technology or science that he hasn't studied in Nolan's version. I used to train with someone who trained in Okinawa for nine years and then came back to be a cop. That alone is more than Nolan's Batman and that's sad.

flawed.

Well he trained for much longer than 7 years in the comics too

 

[returntovoid]

The underlying themes in The Dark Knight deal with many contemporary issues

Contemporary issues like terrorism get shoved down people's throat a lot in news channel's these days that I don't need it to be in a Batman film, the message of lying to the public didn't seem morally right to me, I didn't like Batman blaming himself for the inability of saving some innocents, I mean he's only human that can't save everyone but those he humanly can possibly be able to save and the murder of these innocents is a sin committed by The Joker not Batman.

I think a Batman film should have comic-booky escapism from reality, atmospherically spooky/iconic but yet still have strong real-life psychological themes/issues and have a great story depending on the villain that's chosen.

Bill Finger/Bob Kane's original vision of the character, was a dark, grim and mysterious vigilante but yet was a swashbuckling adventurer that had a sense of joy in fighting crime as dark as he was.

The Dark Knight showed Batman's heroism better than any other non-comic ever has. Better than any Batman show, movie, animated movie.

I really thought Batman seemed out of character in TDK, he was willing give up being Batman (that's like him throwing away his soul) and took the blame to keep the name good of a golden boy turned psychopath instead of letting the truth out.

Batman didn't even try to scare criminal the way he did in Batman Begins and his costume lacked a Battish-vibe.

The Dark Knight made Gotham a "character" one of the greatest aspects of Batman Comics.

I thought it only had a political/moderate corruption character but otherwise it looked/felt like any real city but not hell on earth corrupt/Gothic spookiness the way creators of Batman Bill Finger/Bob Kane envisioned it originally and most of the dark comics portrayed Gotham as such except the graphic novel Year One, that revamped it to become more real. Tim Burton's Batman films, BTAS were 100% accurate to the original Bill Finger/Bob Kane vision of Gotham and Batman Begins came partially close to that due to the art-deco buildings inspired by Blade Runner plus misty fog/heavy rain but it lacked the gargoyles/other Gothic aspects.

With TDK, they took the bland inspiration of Heat and it became a real city with no iconic characteristic.

 

[Mr. Earle]

And I hate when people say Nolan's Batman films have terrible "ACTION SCENES". They have GREAT ACTION SCENES! The chase scenes in both films are greatly done. Fight scenes don't automatically equal all action scenes.

Ok, you got a point there.

Whatever floats your boat. Facts of the matter are these - TDK was more successful, more critically acclaimed, more influential and simply an all-round better made movie than Iron Man all things considered.

TDK was the better film but does that mean that there is nothing in IM that was better than in TDK? Fanboy much?

Do explain how, because The Dark Knight proved that a comic book superhero has more than enough substance to stand on its own due to its strong weighty characters and compelling storyline alone without an overemphasis on chintzy visuals or cartoonish action sequences, and succeed with the general audience. The fact that it is the highest grossing superhero film of all time adjusted for inflation has defied conventional wisdom of what a tentpole big budget comic book film can be.

Revenge of the Fallen made almost just as much money. Does that mean that it was a good film?
In any case, i am asking for better fight scenes and visuals which admittedly were found lacking. Your response is "but TDK was a succcess. Why improve?"
I dont know what to respond to that. Enjoy your fanboyism.

Well, if you want to play semantics, aren't superheroes supposed to have...oh I dunno...superpowers? And what was so 'superheroic' about Batman stories like Arkham Asylum, Year One, Broken City or the Killing Joke? It's almost hilarious how you constantly seem to avoid directly addressing this point, as if you're deliberately pretending that they do not exist.

Of course these stories exist. Like i said about Year One, they are relatively realistic stories in the Batman canon which spans from those stories to fighting alien gods. The nolanverse on the other hand has closed the door to anything above the levels of realism of TDK.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Ok, moving on...

I didnt mean the chicks. I actually meant the beautiful image of a white sailing boat in the Carribean or wherever that was.

Favreau has more utility with dynamic shots because he's working with cg characters/backgrounds. I'm all for better action, but this isn't a fair comparison. When Favreau successfully live-directs action with person/objects that are physically there, then we can talk.

New Batsuit or not, Batman felt kinda heavy in TDK. Perhaps they could have used some wires and CGI to augment Batman's moves their fighting scenes. I am not asking for Snyder type fight scenes, but for Batman to defy the laws of physics just a bit, like in BTAS.

The Willis Tower is the tallest building in Chicago. If you're on the tallest anything, you're not going to have anything in the background. Do you think people climb Mount Everest, get to the top, and say, "what the hell? There's nothing up here!"?

From that shot you couldnt tell that it was the tallest building since we couldnt see the shorter ones bellow. It might as well have been in the Sahara desert.

Again I would like to point out how stupid of a critique this is. But I'll play: are you blaming Nolan for following the internal logic of the film and its character? Phaser already described the purpose of the penthouse, and I've already told you how it suits Bruce's bland and empty personal life. You do realize film, even as a visual medium, can tell a story with its aesthetics, right? Visuals aren't all about pretty colors.

I know, but i found it too empty for my tastes. I dont think Bruce actually built it. It was probably already built for him. In any case, bland shouldnt equal empty car dealership.

I have my own reservations on that, so I won't completely disagree with you. But I will say that Batman's story was being told without him being shown. The corruption, political pressure, public image, pretty much any theme that was covered, are all tied back to Batman's own personal demons. But yes, Bruce most definitely lacked screen time regardless of this fact.

Agreed.

Pfister got Oscar nominations for both Batman films. Iron Man's cinematographer got none. So there's that. And I would recommend looking up 'Mise en scene'. The level of craftsmanship behind Nolan and Wally's cinematography work is leagues beyond whatever Favreau and co. did. Though I suspect this is something only cinephiles can truly appreciate.

I suppose that speaks for itself. I loved Begins. The glacier, the monastery, the manor, the aerial shots of Gotham, the monorrail, the Narrows...
TDK on the other hand disappointed me. I already cited the few scenes that i liked.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Guys..what part of " the BB3 Batsuit Discussion Thread" didn't you understand?

We need a TDK *****ing thread dont we?

Ok, I know this one's not meant for me but I wanted to respond. I was totally bored watching TDK. I saw it multiple times because it's a Batman movie and each time I was looking for something different to shine a light on my distaste, and every time I was waiting for the end to occur. Dispite my pro's and con's, I like Begins a lot as a movie, but TDK had more flaws than positives and was just long and drawn out to me.

No problem. I feel the same way btw.

I can't argue that he tried to use the source material, but the origin still bothered me greatly. For me, Bruce became Batman the night his parents died, for Nolan Bruce was a lost puppy for twenty years and stumbled upon the League of Assasins. The not knowing what to make of my life is not Batman to me.

I disagree with you on this. I prefer Begins to every other Batman origin, including "Year One" and "Mask of the Phantasm".
Nolan's Batman was scarred by his parents death and was commited to do something about it, he just didnt know what. How could a kid know anyway? How can a kid know about justice, about what to do with its life, about what would work and what wouldnt work as a life mission?
Nolan's Bruce discovered all that by himself. He didnt just say "i dont kill because killing is bad", he became Batman after a long spiritual journey around the world which i found mesmerizing and was perhaps the better part of Begins.

 

[returntovoid]

We need a TDK *****ing thread dont we?

Yeah... We do...

The last thread to get infected with TDK *****ing was the "Who still likes/think Batman Begins is better than TDK" thread.

 

[Phaser]

Contemporary issues like terrorism get shoved down people's throat a lot in news channel's these days that I don't need it to be in a Batman film.

Well, not all of us roll that way. Those of us who liked TDK welcomed that a comic book film can have more than superfluous and shallow adventurism. It had depth, it had relevance and the parallels to reality made it all the more immersive. And judging from the money the film made, it was the right way to go. A lot of people weren't expecting a film about a man in tights to be intelligent and have such substance, but still responded positively.

the message of lying to the public didn't seem morally right to me

Moral ambiguity is TDK's middle name. It's not a preachy piece of propaganda like Lions for Lambs. The film's heroes do what they have to do for the greater good and it is left up to the audience to decide. One can produce a convincing argument for either viewpoint.

I didn't like Batman blaming himself for the inability of saving some innocents, I mean he's only human that can't save everyone but those he humanly can possibly be able to save and the murder of these innocents is a sin committed by The Joker not Batman.

But that is quintessential Batman. In 'I am the Night', one of the best TAS episodes, he loses it because he was unable to save Gordon from being shot by Jimmy the jazzman. Likewise, in TDK the Joker was targeting people because of Batman. Bruce feels guilty because despite striving to become a savior of the city, he had now become one of the chief causes of its misery. Gotham and its people were caught in the crossfire between Batman and The Joker's rivalry. It's perfectly reasonable for Bruce to blame himself for some of that.

I think a Batman film should have comic-booky escapism from reality, atmospherically spooky/iconic but yet still have strong real-life psychological themes/issues and have a great story depending on the villain that's chosen.

I think a Batman film can more than an escapist action movie. Great fiction always have parallels to real life. You want your comic book movies to exist in a vacuum, when the truth of the matter is that superheroes in comics have had social commentary in some form or another. Superman is chock full of religious references. Spider-Man is a coming of age story. X-Men has parallels to real-life issues like racial & sexual discrimination and Watchmen, widely considered to be the greatest comic book of all time, simply has way too many to mention here. There is nothing out of place about the social commentary in The Dark Knight. It's what comic books have been doing for ages.

Bill Finger/Bob Kane's original vision of the character, was a dark, grim and mysterious vigilante but yet was a swashbuckling adventurer that had a sense of joy in fighting crime as dark as he was.

Lucky for us, the character has not remained stagnant since then and has evolved immensely through the ages.

 

[Mr. Earle]

***** away my fellow nitpickers!

 

[Mr. Earle]

Lets take our conversation to the new "Batman movies *****ing thread"!

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=18230699#post18230699

Phaser i'm responding to you over there.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Well, not all of us roll that way. Those of us who liked TDK welcomed that a comic book film can have more than superfluous and shallow adventurism. It had depth, it had relevance and the parallels to reality made it all the more immersive. And judging from the money the film made, it was the right way to go. A lot of people weren't expecting a film about a man in tights to be intelligent and have such substance, but still responded positively.

I think a Batman film can more than an escapist action movie. Great fiction always have parallels to real life. You want your comic book movies to exist in a vacuum, when the truth of the matter is that superheroes in comics have had social commentary in some form or another. Superman is chock full of religious references. Spider-Man is a coming of age story. X-Men has parallels to real-life issues like racial & sexual discrimination and Watchmen, widely considered to be the greatest comic book of all time, simply has way too many to mention here. There is nothing out of place about the social commentary in The Dark Knight. It's what comic books have been doing for ages.

Lucky for us, the character has not remained stagnant since then and has evolved immensely through the ages.

Why do fantasy films have to be watered down for their message to come across? Did you have any problems with "Mask of the Phantasm", "Return of the Joker", the LOTR movies, the Star War movies, etc?

Why cant a Batman film be like the comics and have deep themes and messages for real life?

 

[Phaser]

TDK was the better film but does that mean that there is nothing in IM that was better than in TDK? Fanboy much?

When did I say Iron Man had nothing better than TDK? Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I said that all things considered, TDK was an overall superior film than Iron Man.

Revenge of the Fallen made almost just as much money. Does that mean that it was a good film?

How is Revenge of the Fallen an appropriate example? I am not talking about box office numbers equating quality, I am talking about the relevance of your criteria to success.

In any case, i am asking for better fight scenes and visuals which admittedly were found lacking.

I don't disagree with you for wanting better fight scenes. I disagree with you over the level of emphasis you place on them and their impact on the overall quality of the film. As for the visuals, it has been stated with sufficient proof that both of Nolan's Batman films had better cinematography than Iron Man, the film you've been championing as an example.

Your response is "but TDK was a succcess. Why improve?"
I dont know what to respond to that. Enjoy your fanboyism.

Who says there is no room for improvement? You're saying that a Batman film must have loud brazen action, chintzy visuals and elaborate fight sequences and I'm saying that no it does not, and it can still be a success. That is not to say tighter fight choreography is not needed, but it does diminishes the importance of your criteria in the overall critique of the film.

Of course these stories exist. Like i said about Year One, they are relatively realistic stories in the Batman canon which spans from those stories to fighting alien gods. The nolanverse on the other hand has closed the door to anything above the levels of realism of TDK.

Again, Nolan has chosen to focus on a very specific set of stories from the source material. And like I said before, a Batman film is under no obligation to give due to every single element of the comics. Burton's films focused excessively on the stylistic elements. Schumacher's can be equated with the 60s camp era and the Adam West show. Nolan's films are centered on the hyper-realistic and gritty aspects of Batman. Considering all of Nolan's films are based on a selective number of stories from the Batman canon, your complaints frankly come off as rather childish and juvenile. Maintaining a tonal consistency is hardly a concern for comic book writers, but in the case of film, it can make or break a franchise. I mean, the Batman films alone are a good example of that.

 

[Phaser]

Why cant a Batman film be like the comics and have deep themes and messages for real life?

I think we have established countless number of times now that both of Nolan's films are very much like the comics. They are like Year One, The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, Broken City, the innumerable issues of Detective Comics that have no likes of mythical gods or scientific experiments gone awry...gritty, grounded, unflashy crime dramas rather tales of superheroic extravagance.

 

[returntovoid]

the LOTR movies, the Star War movies, etc?

Exactly!

The box office success/fan base of Star Wars and box office success/Oscar wins of LOTR prove that general audiences can accept a Batman film that has fantasy elements.

Why cant a Batman film be like the comics and have deep themes and messages for real life?

I actually thought Batman Begins, Batman 1989, Batman Returns and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm accomplished that really well but it fell apart in TDK for me. Not that TDK is a bad, I mean it's good but vastly overrated.

I think we have established countless number of times now that both of Nolan's films are very much like the comics. They are like Year One, The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, Broken City

Those comics you are mentioning are not exactly comics but they are graphic novels but even if some of them were originally released as individual issues and later TPB, it can't be denied that they paved way for the graphic novel format in terms of style/tone. So, they are either un-conventional comics or not in the mainstream continuity.