Batman Begins Who still likes/thinks Begins is better than TDK?

[The Joker]

You're doing splendidly on your own, Payaso. But I'd just like to add to this point you made.

And Batman has a tradition of trying to quit his mission for love. Mask of the Phantasm, Batman Returns etc

Love was not the only reason Bruce wanted to quit. People were being murdered because of him. Specifically because of him, Joker was murdering innocents in order to get Batman to turn himself in.

And even though he wanted to quit, he didn't. He endured, as Alfred said he should.

 

[El Payaso]

You're doing splendidly on your own, Payaso. But I'd just like to add to this point you made.



Love was not the only reason Bruce wanted to quit. People were being murdered because of him. Specifically because of him, Joker was murdering innocents in order to get Batman to turn himself in.

And even though he wanted to quit, he didn't. He endured, as Alfred said he should.

And then there's Harvey Dent which is a kind of hero that would benefit Gotham the most. A maskless hero wouldn't bring dangerous copycats or an escalation in new kind of flashy more dangerous villiains.

 

[Travesty]

Wait. Being a serious movie and being more serious than the TV series or having been commented as serious (by comparisomn) are two differeent things. In Burton’s words (from the Batman89 dvd commentary) he intended a “semi-serious” tone. And that you can tell. But if you compare both B89/BR and BB/TDK it is clear which franchise aspired to be serious and realistic (this last term being an aspect I mentioned in my post that you decided to ignore).

No, I see both as serious in tone, it just that Nolans style is more "realistic", while Burtons has more of a "fantasy" style to it. We're talking about Batman here, if it were that "realistic" then Dent's transformation wouldn't be possible, Batman wouldn't be able to glide with his cape, The Tumbler wouldn't be able to jump and ride on buildings, and a masked vigilante probably wouldn't last long in the real-world. Yes, Nolan's style is more realistic, but that doesn't mean B89 isn't a serious movie just because of its style. Watchmen's style is more fantasy based, but it's tone is still serious in nature. Just because Watchmen isn't as realistic as TDK, doesn't make its tone any less serious.

Then I’d have to ask you to stop ignoring things. Like the fact that I did refer to 'the way the Joker was portrayed in the movie.'

I'm not ignoring anything, I don't have to to comment on every word that you type out. I think it's kind of ridiculous, seeing as how we've already said most of this stuff already. If I don't feel like responding to something, then that's my prerogative. I'm not asking you to respond to everything I've written out, I'm just asking you to stop chicken picking my quotes, and using what I said out of context, just so you can get your point across. If you want to have a discussion, then let's do it, but don't stoop to cheap tactics.

It was anything but lackluster. And if you personally didn’t feel it like the Joker then the word you should use is not ‘lackluster’ because that’s not accurate. And in order to tell you that, I have to include some actual definitions of the word, see?

No, I think "lackluster" is a perfect word for me, because I was talking about the portrayal, not the way Heath played the character(like I've already said), and yes, I think the portrayal was mediocre(lackluster, dull, etc). And again, I'm talking about the character, not how Heath played him.

I know that The Joker blew up buildings, and killed a guy with a pencil, but that wasn't "brilliant" or "amazing" to me. I didn't feel like I was watching The Joker when he was on the screen, I felt like it was some other kind of villain. So if his interpretation didn't peek my interest, then I guess it was lackluster to me, and I can use that word to describe him if I want. If you liked him, and thought it was brilliant, then more power to you, but I didn't like it, and I can use whatever word that best describes him TO ME! Don't try to tell me what opinion I should have on a character, just because you liked it so much! Are you gonna also tell me when I can/can't use the restroom, as well? Jeesh.....

Then again, the word “horrible” doesn’t describe that. One reads horrible and thinks “Well, it looked as a cool modern city not horrible at all.”

Why do you keep telling me what words I can use to describe something? I was talking about Gotham-friggin-City! I NEVER said, "Chicago is a crap city, so now Gotham sucks". I said, "Gotham looks horrible", as in, it didn't feel like Gotham, because it didn't look like it. Why don't you actually think about what I meant, then turning every word I say into something so literal. If Gotham City was on a prairie out in the country, I would say, "that's a horrible Gotham City". I'm not saying the beautiful, open, bright, sunny, prairie is ugly or crap, I'm talking about the interpretation of Gotham City. Gotham City isn't real, remember?

I must have missed the scene where Batman goes out in daylight. Hong Kong scene (specially when he’s fighting) or the club scene were quite dark. Everything around Batman was dark except the interrogation scene.

When the building just blew up, the sun was coming up, and there are firefighters around Batman. Also, when he goes to see Harvey in the Hospital, it's daylight outside, as you can see through the window. Also, the parking lot scene was well lit, the dinner party scene, and when he was on The Bat-pod, he was in well lit areas, as well. And yes, the interrogation scene was well lit too. So that's, what, 5/7 scenes where Batman is in easy to see, well lit areas? I just don't like Batman being exposed by light, I like him being more in the shadows. That's my opinion on it.

Absurd. We see Joker is already killing at the end of BB. It’d be nonsensical to pretend that 2-3 years after that Joker has done nothing relevant. Or worse, that he has but we didn’t get to see it because the director decided to make a leap in time.

How is that absurd? Writers can make whatever they want in a story, just like we didn't have to have a horrible looking Bat-suit, if they didn't write-in that dogs tore his suit up. See how that works? If he didn't mention that he needed to be more mobile or that his suit tore, then we would just assume he is fine in the suit, because that's how it was written into the story. The same could be said about Joker. Yes, he could have been running loose for a few years. How is that impossible or totally absurd to think about?

But if you feel that Wayne Manor is essential then you’ll have to agree that destroying it is one of the worst ideas ever. I admit and acknowledge the symbolic perpective of it, but once you burnt it up, no matter if Bruce can re-build it it will NEVER be what the Wayne Manor is supposed to be in comics and in Batman’s history: the house of his parents, the site where his family traditions and ghosts live. Because what made Wayne Manor that is the story caught between its walls, all the big and little things that were bought and collected throughout years by several Waynes generations. And that’s irremediably gone once it is destroyed.

Wow, ok.... No, I don't think it was that bad of an idea, and it was something that actually took me by surprise. I'm not worried about it being the original Manor that Bruce grew up in, as we should all know, is burnt up. I know this, and I understand this. If that was an issue for me, then I would say that was something that I didn't like about Begins. I just don't like how he wasn't in a Manor, and that there wasn't any cave. I don't like a spare Bunker that is totally bright. Sure, it's cool, but it doesn't give me a Batman-vibe at all, and the same could be said about the Penthouse. I understand why the Penthouse and the Bunker are there, I'm not an idiot. I just don't like them, because they diminish more to the Batman-vibe, which is barely there to begin with. I understand you like it, and you think there is a Bat-vibe there, but I don't: Bottom line.

Mh, quite a bad example. There was nothing un-Batman about Batman himself. Cape, cowl, belt and such were the same. So it’s nothing like Vader dressed in white or any of the like.

I never said Vader didnt wear his cape helmet and gloves, those were all the same. You just don't agree with it, because you think there was a bat-vibe there. I like a Batman to stay in the shadows, to use Batarangs, to mention his parents, to live in a manor, to work in his cave, etc. And that was what I was talking about when comparing to Vader. Sure, Batman looks like Batman(kinda), but he doesn't come off like a Batman for those things I just listed.

 

[El Payaso]

No, I see both as serious in tone, it just that Nolans style is more "realistic", while Burtons has more of a "fantasy" style to it. We're talking about Batman here, if it were that "realistic" then Dent's transformation wouldn't be possible, Batman wouldn't be able to glide with his cape, The Tumbler wouldn't be able to jump and ride on buildings, and a masked vigilante probably wouldn't last long in the real-world. Yes, Nolan's style is more realistic, but that doesn't mean B89 isn't a serious movie just because of its style. Watchmen's style is more fantasy based, but it's tone is still serious in nature. Just because Watchmen isn't as realistic as TDK, doesn't make its tone any less serious.

I agree.

Which makes me go back to my original statement: “B89 and BR never pretended to feel serious or realistic; or at the very least not at the level BB wanted. A comic-like dialogue therefore doesn’t sound too out of place.”

So now you admit that Nolan style is “more realistic” you’ll have to get my point: if you’re being more serious/realistic some cheesey lines won’t sound as natural as if you’re less serious/realistic. And that’s why the cheesey dialogues of BB didn’t work.

I'm not ignoring anything, I don't have to to comment on every word that you type out. I think it's kind of ridiculous, seeing as how we've already said most of this stuff already. If I don't feel like responding to something, then that's my prerogative. I'm not asking you to respond to everything I've written out, I'm just asking you to stop chicken picking my quotes, and using what I said out of context, just so you can get your point across. If you want to have a discussion, then let's do it, but don't stoop to cheap tactics.

So you can ask me to stop quoting/chicken picking/etc but I can’t ask you to stop ignoring my points because that’s your prerogative?

I’ll tell you what: I can quote/reply you all I want the same you can ignore my points all you want. If someone’s uncomfortable with our respective prerogatives he’s free to stop replying.

If you ignore what you want the discussion starts losing its point. Why are we bothering on replying when the points won’t be addressed?

No, I think "lackluster" is a perfect word for me, because I was talking about the portrayal, not the way Heath played the character(like I've already said), and yes, I think the portrayal was mediocre(lackluster, dull, etc). And again, I'm talking about the character, not how Heath played him.

And again, tell me what’s so un-Joker about what Heath did.

I know that The Joker blew up buildings, and killed a guy with a pencil, but that wasn't "brilliant" or "amazing" to me.

You’ll have to excuse me if I make a big noise by rolling my eyes at that statement. Then show me anything that was more amazing/brilliant about any of the BB villians.

I didn't feel like I was watching The Joker when he was on the screen, I felt like it was some other kind of villain. So if his interpretation didn't peek my interest, then I guess it was lackluster to me, and I can use that word to describe him if I want. If you liked him, and thought it was brilliant, then more power to you, but I didn't like it, and I can use whatever word that best describes him TO ME! Don't try to tell me what opinion I should have on a character, just because you liked it so much! Are you gonna also tell me when I can/can't use the restroom, as well? Jeesh.....

If you read carefully what I said I was just wanting you to use the proper word, not to change your opinion.

Why do you keep telling me what words I can use to describe something? I was talking about Gotham-friggin-City! I NEVER said, "Chicago is a crap city, so now Gotham sucks". I said, "Gotham looks horrible", as in, it didn't feel like Gotham, because it didn't look like it. Why don't you actually think about what I meant, then turning every word I say into something so literal. If Gotham City was on a prairie out in the country, I would say, "that's a horrible Gotham City". I'm not saying the beautiful, open, bright, sunny, prairie is ugly or crap, I'm talking about the interpretation of Gotham City. Gotham City isn't real, remember?

Nolan brought realism to the franchise , remember?

But we agreed on what BB’s Gotham had over TDK’s so further fight over this seems pointless.

When the building just blew up, the sun was coming up, and there are firefighters around Batman. Also, when he goes to see Harvey in the Hospital, it's daylight outside, as you can see through the window. Also, the parking lot scene was well lit, the dinner party scene, and when he was on The Bat-pod, he was in well lit areas, as well. And yes, the interrogation scene was well lit too. So that's, what, 5/7 scenes where Batman is in easy to see, well lit areas? I just don't like Batman being exposed by light, I like him being more in the shadows. That's my opinion on it.

Well, I mentioned the interrogation scene. Now the blown up building and the hospital scene can’t last more than 5-10 seconds.

And yes, cities have lights on streets. Just like that monorail in which Batman fought Ra’s, that was all lit and it was the climatic confrontation.

How is that absurd? Writers can make whatever they want in a story, just like we didn't have to have a horrible looking Bat-suit, if they didn't write-in that dogs tore his suit up. See how that works? If he didn't mention that he needed to be more mobile or that his suit tore, then we would just assume he is fine in the suit, because that's how it was written into the story. The same could be said about Joker. Yes, he could have been running loose for a few years. How is that impossible or totally absurd to think about?

That if they can write whatever they could have started by NOT destroying the mansion.

I’ll give you this also: the new bat-suit’s cowl looked bad. That has not much to do with writing as with design.

Wow, ok.... No, I don't think it was that bad of an idea, and it was something that actually took me by surprise. I'm not worried about it being the original Manor that Bruce grew up in, as we should all know, is burnt up. I know this, and I understand this. If that was an issue for me, then I would say that was something that I didn't like about Begins. I just don't like how he wasn't in a Manor, and that there wasn't any cave. I don't like a spare Bunker that is totally bright. Sure, it's cool, but it doesn't give me a Batman-vibe at all, and the same could be said about the Penthouse. I understand why the Penthouse and the Bunker are there, I'm not an idiot. I just don't like them, because they diminish more to the Batman-vibe, which is barely there to begin with. I understand you like it, and you think there is a Bat-vibe there, but I don't: Bottom line.

So you’re okay with having the mansion destroyed but you’re not okay with the consequences of it. You’re okay with having a (rebuilt) Wayne manor that is nothing of what it is in comic books (the house where Bruce’s childhood and Waynes traditions and objects reside), but you’re not okay with a Joker because it was not enough like the comic book Joker.

I never said Vader didnt wear his cape helmet and gloves, those were all the same. You just don't agree with it, because you think there was a bat-vibe there. I like a Batman to stay in the shadows, to use Batarangs, to mention his parents, to live in a manor, to work in his cave, etc. And that was what I was talking about when comparing to Vader. Sure, Batman looks like Batman(kinda), but he doesn't come off like a Batman for those things I just listed.

To me, Batman doesn’t come off to much as the Batman I was used to mainly because of Nolan’s style. I mean, when I saw the Tumbler I was “that’s NOTHING like the Batmobile. So much that it’s not even called Batmobile.” Once I accepted that it wasn’t going to be the comics on the big screen, I saw myself immerse in Nolan’s vision. But that runs for both BB and TDK.

 

[Travesty]

I agree.

Which makes me go back to my original statement: “B89 and BR never pretended to feel serious or realistic; or at the very least not at the level BB wanted. A comic-like dialogue therefore doesn’t sound too out of place.”

But there aren't to many "slap stick" over the top "High Freeze, I'm Batman" kind of quotes from the movie. Hell, I've already admitted to you that I'm not the biggest fan of BB script. I know that TDK has a better quality script, but this was never my point. What I'm saying, is that the script for B89 or Returns is serious in tone, and if you dismiss BB because of it's tone, then you dismiss B89 too. I have a feeling you don't even remember why we're arguing over this silly point?

This is still Batman here. It doesn't matter if Begins was "realistic", because that was it's style, but that doesn't mean the entire movie is compromised because of a few lines and an obvious theme. If it is for you, then maybe you need to remember that you're watching Batman.

So now you admit that Nolan style is “more realistic” you’ll have to get my point: if you’re being more serious/realistic some cheesey lines won’t sound as natural as if you’re less serious/realistic. And that’s why the cheesey dialogues of BB didn’t work.

I NEVER said his style wasn't...ever! To me, it doesn't matter how serious the movie is or not, because in the end, I'm watching some guy dress up in a bat-costume, and doing things that can't happen in real life. If the style is more "realistic" then others, then it doesn't change the fact that this is still Batman.

So you can ask me to stop quoting/chicken picking/etc but I can’t ask you to stop ignoring my points because that’s your prerogative?

If you want quote me out of context, and come off like I said things I didn't, just so you can be lazy and come off with your ideas, then sure, go right ahead. Be lazy, and quit the rules of an actual debate. This was, I think, the 2-3 time you've done that IN THIS THREAD, let alone other threads. If you keep doing this, then it's just a waist of time to even engaged in a discussion with someone who skews peoples words, so they not only make that person look bad, but so they can get their point across. It's cheap, lazy, and stupid. I can say something like, "the boss is always angry if he doesn't get his coffee", and if you leave off the last few words, which was the full idea of the reasoning behind it, and tell the boss I said, "That Travesty said you're always angry", then it takes away from what I said, and isn't actually true.

If you ignore what you want the discussion starts losing its point. Why are we bothering on replying when the points won’t be addressed?

For the love of god, it's like you don't even read what I wrote, and when you do, it's out of context. I said, the reason why I didn't address that, was because it's already been discussed to death. I've said my peace on it, you've said you're peace on it, and others have said their peace on it. Why do I have to keep saying it? And overall, it brings nothing new, or hides anything from my point. The reason why I didn't bring it up, was because it wasn't necessary. Listening to records is fun, until they're broken.....

You’ll have to excuse me if I make a big noise by rolling my eyes at that statement. Then show me anything that was more amazing/brilliant about any of the BB villians.

You're kind of putting words/ideas into my mouth now. And again, we've already been over this, so if you want to know, then look back in this thread.

If you read carefully what I said I was just wanting you to use the proper word, not to change your opinion.

People can have different opinions on a TON of different things. If you ask someone who loves to skydive, if he wants to go race some go-karts, and he looks at you and says, "that's a little lackluster don't you think?", then that's his opinion on the subject. You may think go-karts is a huge rush, and it's exciting and fun, but to him, it's dull and lackluster. I think the Joker is lackluster, get over it.

Nolan brought realism to the franchise , remember?

And I seemed to actually like the Gotham in BB. And last I checked, Nolan did that movie too.

So you’re okay with having the mansion destroyed but you’re not okay with the consequences of it. You’re okay with having a (rebuilt) Wayne manor that is nothing of what it is in comic books (the house where Bruce’s childhood and Waynes traditions and objects reside), but you’re not okay with a Joker because it was not enough like the comic book Joker.

To tell you the truth, the mansion is the least of my worries. I wanted to see Batman working in the cave more then anything. Yes, the mansion would have helped, but it doesn't matter, because without one, you can't have the other. The reason why it didn't bother me in Begins, was simple, and that's because we actually saw it, and we saw Batman in a cave. How is this hard to understand? It was there! I understand the consequences of what happens when a house burns down, but I was kind of expecting for it to be rebuilt for the sequel. Get it?

To me, Batman doesn’t come off to much as the Batman I was used to mainly because of Nolan’s style. I mean, when I saw the Tumbler I was “that’s NOTHING like the Batmobile. So much that it’s not even called Batmobile.” Once I accepted that it wasn’t going to be the comics on the big screen, I saw myself immerse in Nolan’s vision. But that runs for both BB and TDK.

The reason why I don't buy low-fat stuff, is because it taste like a watered down version of that food. If something doesn't taste right to me, then it's not the real thing. And like I've said THOUSANDS of times already, TDK was a good movie, but it wasn't a good Batman movie. You may disagree with this, and that's fine with me.

 

[El Payaso]

But there aren't to many "slap stick" over the top "High Freeze, I'm Batman" kind of quotes from the movie.

No, but given the more serious (than B&R, or was B&R considered “serious” too?) tone of BB it took less than that to ruin some scenes completely.

Hell, I've already admitted to you that I'm not the biggest fan of BB script. I know that TDK has a better quality script, but this was never my point.

Of course not, that was MY point:

TDK had so much better dialogues that it occured to me that a better Batman/comic book movie was possible. And that showed me that I was right about BB; it tried to be serious but things such as some of the dialogues betrayed that purpose. TDK on the other hand was possible to be made Godfather-serious. So I'd keep Jonah Nolan instead of Goyer.

which you tried to refute by bringing Batman89 and Batman Returns up to the conversation.

What I'm saying, is that the script for B89 or Returns is serious in tone, and if you dismiss BB because of it's tone, then you dismiss B89 too.

In no way B89 and B Returns are as serious as BB in tone. The scripts? Can’t be sure, but the tone of movies of course are not.

And I don’t dismiss BB because of the tone but because it kept constantly breaking it with stupid one-liners or cheesey dialogue. Something TDK did not.

I have a feeling you don't even remember why we're arguing over this silly point?

Because BB ruined its serious tone and TDK did not. But since you agree that TDK script is better I, once again, see no need to discuss this point any further.

This is still Batman here. It doesn't matter if Begins was "realistic", because that was it's style, but that doesn't mean the entire movie is compromised because of a few lines and an obvious theme. If it is for you, then maybe you need to remember that you're watching Batman.

I NEVER said his style wasn't...ever! To me, it doesn't matter how serious the movie is or not, because in the end, I'm watching some guy dress up in a bat-costume, and doing things that can't happen in real life. If the style is more "realistic" then others, then it doesn't change the fact that this is still Batman.

Fantasy being inherent to a character hardly justify cheesey dialogues. Maybe Batman is fantasy, but the tone Nolan gave to BB made difficult to swallow some of the one-liners and some dialogues (like the fake-sounding with-great-power-type of moral wannabes).

And you can’t be thinking that just because Batman is in a movie, that makes every Bat-movie the same. Nolan’s franchise is barely comparable with Burton’s. True, many things are still there – darkness, the black armoured suit – but the tone is completely different, even if both can be labelled as “serious.”

And as a proof that a Batman movie can be fantastic and cheese-less, we have TDK.

If you want quote me out of context, and come off like I said things I didn't, just so you can be lazy and come off with your ideas, then sure, go right ahead. Be lazy, and quit the rules of an actual debate. This was, I think, the 2-3 time you've done that IN THIS THREAD, let alone other threads. If you keep doing this, then it's just a waist of time to even engaged in a discussion with someone who skews peoples words, so they not only make that person look bad, but so they can get their point across. It's cheap, lazy, and stupid. I can say something like, "the boss is always angry if he doesn't get his coffee", and if you leave off the last few words, which was the full idea of the reasoning behind it, and tell the boss I said, "That Travesty said you're always angry", then it takes away from what I said, and isn't actually true.


For the love of god, it's like you don't even read what I wrote, and when you do, it's out of context. I said, the reason why I didn't address that, was because it's already been discussed to death. I've said my peace on it, you've said you're peace on it, and others have said their peace on it. Why do I have to keep saying it? And overall, it brings nothing new, or hides anything from my point. The reason why I didn't bring it up, was because it wasn't necessary. Listening to records is fun, until they're broken.....

Well, I’m hesitant as to whether I should keep this personal thing you created here or ignore it for the sake of a proper discussion. But the quote button is there to use it and you can reply if you think you’ve been misquoted or something. Many people – you included – multi-quote lines from others and reply to them one by one. You think you were misunderstood? Say so. But forget about telling other people how can/should they reply or not expecting them to obey you. It’s not happening.

Now if you don’t think it’s fun or that the record is broken, why keep replying?

People can have different opinions on a TON of different things. If you ask someone who loves to skydive, if he wants to go race some go-karts, and he looks at you and says, "that's a little lackluster don't you think?", then that's his opinion on the subject. You may think go-karts is a huge rush, and it's exciting and fun, but to him, it's dull and lackluster. I think the Joker is lackluster, get over it.

I just ask why. You said it’s because Joker’s not like the one of the comic books (which is highly arguable anyways). But according to the dictionaries, “lackluster” means lacking of brilliance and/or vitality; something you cannot say about Ledger’s Joker in any way. In fact you said you think Ledger “did a GREAT job playing a villain, it's just that villain, didn't feel like the Joker to me.” I can understand the “I want my Joker more like the comic books’ one” but that is not being lackluster.

That being said, it is funny that you should complain about Joker not being like the comic books and skip how different – and truly lackluster – Murphy’s Scarecrow was.

And I seemed to actually like the Gotham in BB. And last I checked, Nolan did that movie too.

Again: we agreed on what BB’s Gotham had over TDK’s so further fight over this seems pointless

To tell you the truth, the mansion is the least of my worries. I wanted to see Batman working in the cave more then anything. Yes, the mansion would have helped, but it doesn't matter, because without one, you can't have the other. The reason why it didn't bother me in Begins, was simple, and that's because we actually saw it, and we saw Batman in a cave. How is this hard to understand? It was there!

Until Goyer decided to destroy them. You want to point your guns to the right guy, point them to what Goyer did in BB.

I understand the consequences of what happens when a house burns down, but I was kind of expecting for it to be rebuilt for the sequel. Get it?

I get you want a sequel where the consequences of what happened on the first movie are just skipped somehow.

The reason why I don't buy low-fat stuff, is because it taste like a watered down version of that food. If something doesn't taste right to me, then it's not the real thing.

The reason why people don't buy low-fat stuff, is because it lacks of what is unhealthy and bad for you.

And like I've said THOUSANDS of times already, TDK was a good movie, but it wasn't a good Batman movie. You may disagree with this, and that's fine with me.

TDK was a better movie than BB; Batman being in it well-portrayed by Bale makes it a better Batman movie. Sure it could have had the dead parents etc etc. But the problem was that all of that was seen in full detail in BB and the Nolans - god bless them - didn't want to go the average sequel route by being repetitive (as Goyer was way too repeptitive in BB).

 

[Travesty]

Well, I’m hesitant as to whether I should keep this personal thing you created here or ignore it for the sake of a proper discussion. But the quote button is there to use it and you can reply if you think you’ve been misquoted or something. Many people – you included – multi-quote lines from others and reply to them one by one. You think you were misunderstood? Say so. But forget about telling other people how can/should they reply or not expecting them to obey you. It’s not happening.

Yes, I know I mulit-quote different lines. That's not the point! If you want to mulit-quote certain lines, then be my guest, BUT, if my overall point was explained in either that sentence or paragraph, yet, you ignored it on purpose, just to get your point across, making what I said look false, then there is no point in debating with someone who can't even see my overall point. And I've asked you to PLEASE stop quoting me out of context, multiple times in this thread. I never said you can't ever do that I again, I've asked you nicely already. So again, if you want to quote me out of context, and try to make me look like a fool, or go around my points, then I wont engage in any more discussion with someone who performs cheap tactics. If it's "not happening", then it's been nice having chats with you, but if these practices continue, then it's no more debates from me. And I know you probably don't care that much, but just know the reasons for it.

Now if you don’t think it’s fun or that the record is broken, why keep replying?

I didn't reply to your original statement, and the reason for that, was because we(you and I personally) already went over that exact same issue. I was just explaining that if I don't respond to something, then it's either unimportant to my overall point, or it has already been debated, hence, making it a broken record. I was merely explaining how I wasn't "dodging the issue", because there is nothing to dodge, as we went over that EXACT same thing already.

I just ask why. You said it’s because Joker’s not like the one of the comic books (which is highly arguable anyways). But according to the dictionaries, “lackluster” means lacking of brilliance and/or vitality; something you cannot say about Ledger’s Joker in any way. In fact you said you think Ledger “did a GREAT job playing a villain, it's just that villain, didn't feel like the Joker to me.” I can understand the “I want my Joker more like the comic books’ one” but that is not being lackluster.

The definition for "lackluster" also means "dull or mediocre", which you seem to be forgetting. There are different connotations for many definitions, and reading that sentence gave you the answer. TDK-Joker portrayal/interpretation felt mediocre or dull to me. And like I've said, Heath played a good villain, but that villain didn't feel like The Joker to me. Since he didn't feel like The Joker, then I can say safely that the interpretation was lackluster to me. Just because the villain in the movie performed acts of imaginable proportions, which showed signs of "brilliance and vitality", doesn't mean the interpretation followed suit. Two-Face in Forever showed many signs of vitality, but the interpretation was lackluster to me, as well. So are you saying, since Two-Face in Forever was so energetic and crazy, that the portrayal wasn't mediocre(lackluster) to you?

That being said, it is funny that you should complain about Joker not being like the comic books and skip how different – and truly lackluster – Murphy’s Scarecrow was.

And again, we've already been over this. I already said Scarecrow wasn't the best of villains either. That's why I didn't respond, because it's been debated between you and I.

Until Goyer decided to destroy them. You want to point your guns to the right guy, point them to what Goyer did in BB.

No, because like I said already, I didn't have a big problem with what happened in Begins. I understood that Mansion/Cave burned. Nolan&Co. had a chance to rebuild it, so we could see a new cave in TDK, but they chose not to write that in. Yes, it happened in Begins, but they had a chance to fix it in TDK, which they didn't. I'm pointing blame where blame is due. If I don't like how there wasn't a cave in TDK, then it's because there wasn't a cave in TDK, not because of what happened in Begins. The cave was there in BB, but wasn't in TDK, and I didn't like that: Bottom Line! I'm not crying over the spilled milk, I'm crying because nobody is cleaning it up, and it's spoiling on the ground.

I get you want a sequel where the consequences of what happened on the first movie are just skipped somehow.

You know, these are movies, not TV mini-series? They can have as much time in between the sequels that they desire. They chose to make TDK happen right after BB, which, I'm aware of. It still doesn't change the fact that they chose to do it that way, and I don't like what came of it. I don't understand why this is so hard for you? TDK didn't have a cave: Fact. I wanted there to be a cave for Batman to work: Fact. How is my opinion wrong here? I'm not looking for a scapegoat(BB), and yelling at that movie because of what happened. I know what happened in that movie, but that doesn't change the fact that TDK didn't incorporate a Bat-cave. The writers could have implemented the cave somehow, but they didn't, and that was one area that I happened to hate about TDK.

The reason why people don't buy low-fat stuff, is because it lacks of what is unhealthy and bad for you.

I'm glad you can tell me why I do/don't purchase things. Thanks

TDK was a better movie than BB; Batman being in it well-portrayed by Bale makes it a better Batman movie. Sure it could have had the dead parents etc etc. But the problem was that all of that was seen in full detail in BB and the Nolans - god bless them - didn't want to go the average sequel route by being repetitive (as Goyer was way too repeptitive in BB).

Repetitive? I never said they need to explore the death of the parents, but it wasn't even mentioned or brought up. And just a minute ago, you were saying how brilliant it was that there was no cave, because of what happened in BB, but now, you don't want to bring up anything from BB to make it repetitive. You JUST told me that, "I get you want a sequel where the consequences of what happened on the first movie are just skipped somehow.", yet, his parents WERE skipped somehow. You're not making to much sense here? So are you saying, that since we already saw a Mansion/Cave, a Bat-mobile(Tumbler), or Batarangs, in full detail in BB, that he 3rd movie shouldn't have those, because it's "already been seen in full detail"? My entire point was that not having the Mansion/Cave, mentioning the parents, batarangs, gadgets, lurking in the shadows, etc diminished some of the traits that makes it feel like a Batman movie, which again, is the biggest reason why I don't like TDK, because it doesn't feel like a Batman movie to me.

And to think of it, when I was saying how I didn't like how Bruce was trying to hang up his cape for a women, and you guys tried to refute that by saying it's been done in Forever and MOTP, etc. And you were absolutley right, it WAS done in those movies, but when Bruce was looking back at it all, he realized why he became Batman, and his parents were brought up because of it, making the story come full circle. In TDK, this was never brought up. Bruce wanted to hang up the cape, just for a women, and with no repercussions of becoming "more then just a man", due to his parents death. Weak sauce, if you ask me.


Side note: Anything I didn't respond to, we can just agree to disagree.

 

[returntovoid]

Oh, I'm sure of that. Goyer needs to have input on the final script because he's a comic book fan.

Fixed.

 

[The Joker]

Goyer should never do another Batman script.

His dialogue is awful.

 

[returntovoid]

Goyer should never do another Batman script.

His dialogue is awful.

Goyer suggested that The Joker should be based off his first two appearances in the comics, he was influenced by The Long Halloween and Dark Victory when writing the screenplay for Batman Begins, he used Bruce Wayne's long absence from Gotham (inspired by Year One) and there was nothing wrong with the dialogues in Batman Begins.

 

[The Joker]

Goyer suggested that The Joker should be based off his first two appearances in the comics, he was influenced by The Long Halloween and Dark Victory when writing the screenplay for Batman Begins, he used Bruce Wayne's long absence from Gotham (inspired by Year One)

That's nice.

He still should not write another Batman script. His dialogue was incredibally poor, especially with the constant use of the word fear always being rammed down our throats every two minutes, as if the audience cannot grasp what the theme is. The third act of Begins was weak, too.

No tears were shed when we heard he wasn't doing the script for TDK.

there was nothing wrong with the dialogues in Batman Begins.

I don't share your opinion on that. Especially when you can make threads like this about it: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=330343

 

[El Payaso]

Goyer suggested that The Joker should be based off his first two appearances in the comics, he was influenced by The Long Halloween and Dark Victory when writing the screenplay for Batman Begins, he used Bruce Wayne's long absence from Gotham (inspired by Year One)

Nice suggestions.

But he needs to stay away from writing the dialogues.

and there was nothing wrong with the dialogues in Batman Begins.

There was a lot wrong with them. Repetitive to boredom, those hollow 'with great power'-wannabe morals, etc. Not the worst ever but for a serious toned movie it was too much cheese. On the other hand what Jonah did on TDK was so much better that there's no need to go back to Goyer again.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Goyer can write a good plot and story, his strong point aint't dialogue for sure.

 

[Brother Jack]

No tears were shed when we heard he wasn't doing the script for TDK.

As a matter of fact, that was one of the reasons why I think TDK is superior to Begins.

 

[returntovoid]

I am curious to know how much of story ideas came from Nolan and how much of story ideas came from Goyer, for Batman Begins.

 

[Two-Face]

When the film came out I loved everything about it from cast to Tumbler. But since ever TDK came out BB has been pushed back just cos there is Joker & Two-Face in TDK doesn't mean you have to knock down the first movie. Not that I hate TDK or anything I love TDK & BB but I feel BB goes unappreciated sometimes.

 

[El Payaso]

When the film came out I loved everything about it from cast to Tumbler. But since ever TDK came out BB has been pushed back just cos there is Joker & Two-Face in TDK doesn't mean you have to knock down the first movie. Not that I hate TDK or anything I love TDK & BB but I feel BB goes unappreciated sometimes.

The thing is TDK had many of BB's flaws improved. The dialogues, fights and villiains were so much better it's impossible not to realize.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The fights in TDK were dog ****.

People standing there waiting for Batman to hit them. People bracing themselves before getting hit. People falling over before they should of. Batman throwing someones head at a gun that went off in a crowded room. Who is to say that bullet couldn't of hit a civilian? That is not something Batman would do.

The fight with the ninjas at the end was better than anything in TDK. The fight with Ra's on the monorail, although short, in terms of choreography pisses all over anything in TDK.

I mean look at that fight in Hong Kong. It was ridiculous. Notice Lau visibly start to fall over BEFORE Batman hits him.

 

[El Payaso]

The fights in TDK were dog ****.

I didn't say they were good, just that they were improved.

Having you waiting for Batman to appear for 60 minutes and then showing you nothing but chops of fights glued together as in BB doesn't even count as action.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't think they were improved.

As I said, the fight with the ninjas right near the end and the fight with Ra's on the monorail pisses all over anything in TDK for me.

Those fights felt fluid, fast, brutal, REAL.

The fights in TDK were slow and plodding, fake looking. They didn't look natural. And with people falling over before getting hit doesn't help matters.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't think they were improved.

As I said, the fight with the ninjas right near the end and the fight with Ra's on the monorail pisses all over anything in TDK for me.

Those fights felt fluid, fast, brutal, REAL.

The fights in TDK were slow and plodding, fake looking. They didn't look natural. And with people falling over before getting hit doesn't help matters.

Well, I guess than when you have just a bunch of shaky shots put together everything has to happen in your imagination where everything is all right. It's a lot more difficult to make actual fights for your fight scenes.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The first time Batman fights at the docks yea you can't see anything.

But the fights that I just mentioned? You have to have really bad eye sight to not see what is going on there.

In TDK it's like Nolan heard the criticism of the fights in Begins not being clear enough, then went completely over the top with the fights in TDK, trying to make them easy to follow. But they ended up looking fake, forced, blatantly choreographed and robotic.

 

[returntovoid]

As I said, the fight with the ninjas right near the end and the fight with Ra's on the monorail pisses all over anything in TDK for me.

Those fights felt fluid, fast, brutal, REAL.

I completely agree.

Also, in BB you had other memorable scenes for example....

Batman hiding in the shadows and grabbing criminals like a f*****g Predator

Interrogating Flass without lethal force by scaring the s**t out of him

Giving Scarecrow a taste of his own medicine and bam! you see hallucination of mutated Batman

Gliding around in Gotham with determination

etc.

 

[The Joker]

The thing is TDK had many of BB's flaws improved. The dialogues, fights and villiains were so much better it's impossible not to realize.

So true

 

[El Payaso]

The first time Batman fights at the docks yea you can't see anything.

Ironically that's the only fight scene where it works. It makes a point that didn't need to be done again, and yet was done gaain in every fight scene.

But the fights that I just mentioned? You have to have really bad eye sight to not see what is going on there.

Shaky little shots put together, that's what happened. But at many points you couldn't simply see who was punching who. And that editing effect was so persistent that in the end it made the actual fight unimportant. The important thing was that shaky and choppy meant realistic.

In TDK it's like Nolan heard the criticism of the fights in Begins not being clear enough, then went completely over the top with the fights in TDK, trying to make them easy to follow. But they ended up looking fake, forced, blatantly choreographed and robotic.

More than "easy to follow" it's "visible."

What makes me think that had you been able to actually watch the fights in BB they would have looked as fake, forced, blatantly choreographed and robotic as they seemed to you in TDK. But you couldn't tell.