All your opinion
Most of us think that the Hoffman moments were pretty funny,myself included
So Raimi managed to fulfill the needs of majority of the audience in that department
And so it is the opinion of yours that Brant is best suited outside of Jameson's office as well then, yes? Or are you saying what I say is opinion and what you say is fact?
Whatever you want to call,
My point is,had Nolan removed another character,say Foley,he could have gotten time to explain Blake's knowledge through flashbacks or something and that would have made it better
Blake's explanation doesn't need flashbacks. To only ask for flashbacks is saying you didn't seem to understand his explanation for some apparent reason because it was explained enough, and as I mentioned, I have rarely heard this nitpick. Only from a couple, but those were mostly the same nitpickers that would agree with the entire Honest Trailer stuff.
A dozen things needed explanations,you are kidding yourself if you think they didnt
A dozen? No, not at all. Perhaps a couple and as many things TDK needed explanations with, and you are kidding yourself when you think it's so many. If anything, you're overlooking subtle things or moments that was meant to be a more philosophical meaning than just supposed logic such as a young Talia climbing the Pit.
The appearance time between them differs greatly
Let me rephrase myself,TDK didnt have as many useless/un-needed characters and that was why it was so much better
When you actually rephrase that, then yes, I can agree with you, BUT...only with Jen, the only character I found to be unnecessary. Everything else was fine; TDKR just needed to be longer but it couldn't.
And Bruce came to know all that through telepathy?
He knew the kind of person Blake was, he knew that when he was around Blake, the guy wasn't using any weapons. He knew that the anger Bruce had, Blake has but he's also trying to control the anger and not let the anger control him.
And did the hockey pad guys fire the gun? I dont remember them to
Watch the scene again then.
And an important part in that scene is when one of the guys does start to shoot at Chechen's men and Crane's men, Crane says "That's not him".
The fact remains that Batman contradicts himself when he stops people from playing vigilante in TDK and does the entire opposite in TDKR,and guns was never the reason
Stopping people from playing vigilante that are using hockey pads, not trained and using guns is not contradicting himself. It's amusing that you think so, though.
And don't bring up "Well Blake hasn't trained". We only see Blake finding the cave, so it's only speculation to even say he'll don the Batsuit without taking time to train.
Fair enough
But his logic still never made sense to me
What logic?
LOL How did you get to that conclusion?
He clearly meant that he doesnt want people to ape him and become vigilantes
And if he really meant that then it is an even bigger oxymoron,Blake must have surely used guns a lot of times in the police force,probably a lot more than Hockey pad guys
What got me to that conclusion? When he wants to pass the mantle of the Batman down, but he doesn't want someone having to resort to guns in doing so. Any of those "Sons of Batman" guys could have very well taken up the mantle if Bruce saw any one of those being as brave and as daring as Blake was in TDKR.
And once again with Blake using guns as an officer...no **** he did, but he stopped.
As you yourself said,you need to throw out some amount of Logic when trying to enjoy a superhero movie
So while Nolan's trilogy actually has some consistency with its logic...you want to throw out consistency as well along with logic for Sandman? Interesting.
They CANT be explained,which is what I said,one can never explain the basis of Sandman's powers and the flaw with his clothes and all
While one can easily explain the healing process and all,and despite that Nolan couldnt do it
And yet he did explain it. It was faster than normal, but it was explained of how Bruce's back was healed.