Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
TDK's sins are forgiven because the story and characters are sound. Same with BB. Having Bruce quit 8 years at the beginning of TDKR and then quit *again* permanently was too much. If the story picked up with us learning that he'd been eluding cops but still kicking *** against criminals for 8 years and then he went out in a blaze glory at the end people wouldn't be nitpicking things like cops in the sewers. It'd just be remembered as an awesome movie and a great trilogy. But when you lose so many people on account of such basic actions of the main hero then everything else comes to light as well.

TDKR was sound, too, though, with the story that Begins and TDK built. For one thing, the entire foundation of Batman and Gordon's plan was built on the notion that Batman snapped and murdered 6 people, including the District Attorney. Now, if you're telling me that you think Batman can go back to operating as he always did without casting a shadow of doubt over their plan and, in turn, risking everything for Gordon, who he coerced into going through with this plan, in the first place, then, that's fine, and I concede, but if you think there's even the slightest inkling of truth to what I'm saying, then I'd say to accept the notion that Batman's self-imposed exile was forced in order to preserve Jim Gordon's reputation. It was either that or become a murderer.

Plus, like I said before, Bruce says in Begins that the people need something dramatic to shake them from apathy; that he needs to become more than a man, that he needs to become a symbol, and that a symbol can be everlasting. He tells Rachel at the end that this isn't really me. He tells her in The Dark Knight that he feels like Harvey Dent is his way out. The fact is that Nolan's Batman just isn't the same as traditional Batman, in that he isn't very committed. I said it before and I'll say it again, he's like therapy for Bruce Wayne and Gotham. For Bruce Wayne, in that it allowed him an outlet for all the pent-up emotions he was feeling after his parents' death, and, for Gotham, in that, with such a corrupt infrastructure, the people needed someone who existed outside the law to draw attention to all of the flaws in the system.

Point is: I'm not saying people can't be pissed that Batman's a quitter. I'm just saying that they should also accept that it's consistent with the first two movies, and that he's always been a quitter.:lol
 
This nothing to do with anything but there are times when I watch the bank robbery scene from the TDK and just turn the movie off. I really love that part of the movie.
 
TDKR was sound, too, though, with the story that Begins and TDK built. For one thing, the entire foundation of Batman and Gordon's plan was built on the notion that Batman snapped and murdered 6 people, including the District Attorney. Now, if you're telling me that you think Batman can go back to operating as he always did without casting a shadow of doubt over their plan and, in turn, risking everything for Gordon, who he coerced into going through with this plan, in the first place, then, that's fine, and I concede, but if you think there's even the slightest inkling of truth to what I'm saying, then I'd say to accept the notion that Batman's self-imposed exile was forced in order to preserve Jim Gordon's reputation. It was either that or become a murderer.

Plus, like I said before, Bruce says in Begins that the people need something dramatic to shake them from apathy; that he needs to become more than a man, that he needs to become a symbol, and that a symbol can be everlasting. He tells Rachel at the end that this isn't really me. He tells her in The Dark Knight that he feels like Harvey Dent is his way out. The fact is that Nolan's Batman just isn't the same as traditional Batman, in that he isn't very committed. I said it before and I'll say it again, he's like therapy for Bruce Wayne and Gotham. For Bruce Wayne, in that it allowed him an outlet for all the pent-up emotions he was feeling after his parents' death, and, for Gotham, in that, with such a corrupt infrastructure, the people needed someone who existed outside the law to draw attention to all of the flaws in the system.

Point is: I'm not saying people can't be pissed that Batman's a quitter. I'm just saying that they should also accept that it's consistent with the first two movies, and that he's always been a quitter.:lol

Yup, pretty much. Nolan's Batman was already looking for a way out in TDK....people like to ignore that, because..you know TDK is perfect :lol He knew he couldn't do it forever...and I like how in Rises the doctor reads the list of injuries to remind people of the long term effects of crime fighting, and why he can't do it forever.
 
TDKR was sound, too, though, with the story that Begins and TDK built. For one thing, the entire foundation of Batman and Gordon's plan was built on the notion that Batman snapped and murdered 6 people, including the District Attorney. Now, if you're telling me that you think Batman can go back to operating as he always did without casting a shadow of doubt over their plan and, in turn, risking everything for Gordon, who he coerced into going through with this plan, in the first place, then, that's fine, and I concede, but if you think there's even the slightest inkling of truth to what I'm saying, then I'd say to accept the notion that Batman's self-imposed exile was forced in order to preserve Jim Gordon's reputation. It was either that or become a murderer.

I guess I'm not following how Batman continuing to apprehend criminals would make him "become a murderer." Would you mind clarifying that notion because I have a feeling any response I make will be out of my own misunderstanding of your point.

Plus, like I said before, Bruce says in Begins that the people need something dramatic to shake them from apathy; that he needs to become more than a man, that he needs to become a symbol, and that a symbol can be everlasting. He tells Rachel at the end that this isn't really me. He tells her in The Dark Knight that he feels like Harvey Dent is his way out. The fact is that Nolan's Batman just isn't the same as traditional Batman, in that he isn't very committed. I said it before and I'll say it again, he's like therapy for Bruce Wayne and Gotham. For Bruce Wayne, in that it allowed him an outlet for all the pent-up emotions he was feeling after his parents' death, and, for Gotham, in that, with such a corrupt infrastructure, the people needed someone who existed outside the law to draw attention to all of the flaws in the system.

Point is: I'm not saying people can't be pissed that Batman's a quitter. I'm just saying that they should also accept that it's consistent with the first two movies, and that he's always been a quitter.:lol

I do recognize that Bruce has wanted "out" since Batman Begins. However, I disagree that he should have gotten his wish. Yes, him living happily ever after with a beautiful girl is what the character wanted *but* I believe it wasn't what he wanted the *most.* I think the best heroes are the ones who have an "out" but don't take it on account of doing what is "right." The charges were set, Han Solo had a great new "child" who wanted him to be her dad, he could have left the base. But he didn't. He stayed on the one in a hundred (or thousand) chance that he could talk his son into coming back too. Or Black Hawk Down where the Delta Force Sniper has his beautiful wife back home that he keeps playing phone tag with but who volunteers to try and secure the one downed Black Hawk when his superiors are telling him he doesn't have to. In fiction or real life those are always the greatest heroes to me. Cap wanted to find the right girl in The First Avenger, and he did, but against her wishes he went down with the ship instead.

And that's what I think should have happened to Bruce. Yeah, he had his "Peggy" waiting for him in France, but he had work to do. Because it's not who he is inside (a guy that wants to retire with his lady) but what he does (sacrifices himself instead of living happily ever after) that defines him. Or at least I think it should have been.
 
The charges were set, Han Solo had a great new "child" who wanted him to be her dad, he could have left the base. But he didn't. He stayed on the one in a hundred (or thousand) chance that he could talk his son into coming back too. Or Black Hawk Down where the Delta Force Sniper has his beautiful wife back home that he keeps playing phone tag with but who volunteers to try and secure the one downed Black Hawk when his superiors are telling him he doesn't have to. In fiction or real life those are always the greatest heroes to me. Cap wanted to find the right girl in The First Avenger, and he did, but against her wishes he went down with the ship instead.

Neither of those are the end of a trilogy. Those are either the first film of a trilogy or individual movies. Yeah, Capt didn't get the girl in the FIRST film....neither did Bruce in BB or TDK. Han Solo "sacrificed" himself in a pointless scene...in the FIRST film of a trilogy. Didn't ROTJ have a happy ending...until 30 years latter of course, but for 30 years until TFA, as far as the cinematic canon went, Solo and Leia lived happily ever after with a bunch of teddy bears. That was a happy ending.
 
Neither of those are the end of a trilogy. Those are either the first film of a trilogy or individual movies. Yeah, Capt didn't get the girl in the FIRST film....neither did Bruce in BB or TDK. Han Solo "sacrificed" himself in a pointless scene...in the FIRST film of a trilogy. Didn't ROTJ have a happy ending...until 30 years latter of course, but for 30 years until TFA, as far as the cinematic canon went, Solo and Leia lived happily ever after with a bunch of teddy bears. That was a happy ending.

None of that counters a single thing I said. If anything your reminder of the "teddy bear party" at the end of ROTJ only further proves my point. There's a reason Harrison Ford didn't care for his character arc in ROTJ and Bale and Nolan should have taken notes.

Depending on the type of character or tone of a film or series sometimes the happy ending is indeed the way to go. I don't think the Nolan trilogy was the right place for it.
 
None of that counters a single thing I said. If anything your reminder of the "teddy bear party" at the end of ROTJ only further proves my point.

You were comparing the events of a single film or the actions of a character in beginning of a series with the events and the actions of a character in the final film of a trilogy. That's was my point...those analogies weren't good to begin with. We haven't seen Capt's last film yet...we haven't seen how his story ends. Even at the end of Iron Man 3, it had a vibe like Tony was retiring...of course, that changed with AOU, but still. Trilogies have a tendency to end things a certain way.

There's a reason Harrison Ford didn't care for his character arc in ROTJ and Bale and Nolan should have taken notes.

So because HF didn't like his character, Nolan should have taken note of something that has nothing to do with his film? What? :lol

Completely different situation...because Ford wanted to die in ESB, so I guess by that logic Batman should have died at the end of TDK. Also, like you said, different character and story. Solo is not the protagonist...that tittle goes to Luke, who doesn't die at the end of ROTJ....and who guess what, he goes into exile not for 8 years, but for 30 years (or a little less), in your new favorite SW film.

Depending on the type of character or tone of a film or series sometimes the happy ending is indeed the way to go. I don't think the Nolan trilogy was the right place for it.

That's fine, but your reason for not liking it has more to do with your preconceived notions of what you think it should have happened.
 
I guess I'm not following how Batman continuing to apprehend criminals would make him "become a murderer." Would you mind clarifying that notion because I have a feeling any response I make will be out of my own misunderstanding of your point.



I do recognize that Bruce has wanted "out" since Batman Begins. However, I disagree that he should have gotten his wish. Yes, him living happily ever after with a beautiful girl is what the character wanted *but* I believe it wasn't what he wanted the *most.* I think the best heroes are the ones who have an "out" but don't take it on account of doing what is "right." The charges were set, Han Solo had a great new "child" who wanted him to be her dad, he could have left the base. But he didn't. He stayed on the one in a hundred (or thousand) chance that he could talk his son into coming back too. Or Black Hawk Down where the Delta Force Sniper has his beautiful wife back home that he keeps playing phone tag with but who volunteers to try and secure the one downed Black Hawk when his superiors are telling him he doesn't have to. In fiction or real life those are always the greatest heroes to me. Cap wanted to find the right girl in The First Avenger, and he did, but against her wishes he went down with the ship instead.

And that's what I think should have happened to Bruce. Yeah, he had his "Peggy" waiting for him in France, but he had work to do. Because it's not who he is inside (a guy that wants to retire with his lady) but what he does (sacrifices himself instead of living happily ever after) that defines him. Or at least I think it should have been.

I'm saying that the entire plan he and Gordon orchestrated relied on people believing the he killed Harvey Dent and Dent's five victims. You're telling me that, if you're someone in, say, the GCPD, or IA, or the DA's office, and you're investigating Gordon's allegations that Batman snapped and murdered six people, you're not going to doubt his testimony when, all of a sudden, a week later, Batman's back to leaving thugs with broken bones and helping people? All I'm saying is that there was more to his 8 years off the job than "woe is me, my girlfriend's dead."

As for the latter, I guess it all comes down to personal tastes, but, for my money, I dug the ending. We always see loner Batman who can't get over his issues, and I thought it was refreshing to see one that said "you know what, I've saved the city three times. It's been over thirty years since my parents died; it's time to move on," but, again, I'm not saying you should like it, I'm just saying that you should admit that it's, as you put it, "sound" with Begins and TDK.
 
I'm saying that the entire plan he and Gordon orchestrated relied on people believing the he killed Harvey Dent and Dent's five victims. You're telling me that, if you're someone in, say, the GCPD, or IA, or the DA's office, and you're investigating Gordon's allegations that Batman snapped and murdered six people, you're not going to doubt his testimony when, all of a sudden, a week later, Batman's back to leaving thugs with broken bones and helping people? All I'm saying is that there was more to his 8 years off the job than "woe is me, my girlfriend's dead."

See to me the "murder" would just make everyone look at Batman's tactics in a new light (if they hadn't already.) After all it was literally blink luck that prevented various thugs, cops and even innocent bystanders from not being killed by Bruce in BB and TDK. I don't think people would see any of his actions as inconsistent with Dent's murder. People wouldn't look at all the cars he destroyed in the Batpod as reflecting a code against killing, no they'd go "obviously he had no idea if there were people in any of those parked cars, guess he didn't care." They'd probably assume he was actively trying to murder the cops that chased him in BB. And so on.

As for the latter, I guess it all comes down to personal tastes, but, for my money, I dug the ending.

Yep, exactly.

We always see loner Batman who can't get over his issues, and I thought it was refreshing to see one that said "you know what, I've saved the city three times. It's been over thirty years since my parents died; it's time to move on," but, again, I'm not saying you should like it, I'm just saying that you should admit that it's, as you put it, "sound" with Begins and TDK.

Yes, I think both "endings" (death vs. retirement) would be consistent with various aspects of BB and TDK, I just think the death would have been *more* consistent, not to mention much more heroic.

But to each his own and all. :)
 
See to me the "murder" would just make everyone look at Batman's tactics in a new light (if they hadn't already.) After all it was literally blink luck that prevented various thugs, cops and even innocent bystanders from not being killed by Bruce in BB and TDK. I don't think people would see any of his actions as inconsistent with Dent's murder. People wouldn't look at all the cars he destroyed in the Batpod as reflecting a code against killing, no they'd go "obviously he had no idea if there were people in any of those parked cars, guess he didn't care." They'd probably assume he was actively trying to murder the cops that chased him in BB. And so on.



Yep, exactly.



Yes, I think both "endings" (death vs. retirement) would be consistent with various aspects of BB and TDK, I just think the death would have been *more* consistent, not to mention much more heroic.

But to each his own and all. :)

Yeah, but you've got to remember, his new "methods" were pretty out there. Throwing DAs off rooftops, shooting Cops, shooting drivers, I'd assume shooting other people.:lol Come to think of it, I really don't get how Dent killed 5 people. We've got Wuertz, he only knocked Ramirez out, he shot Maroni's driver, which, potentially, could have killed Maroni, as well, but, even then, who were the other victims?
 


Well if you don't like reading words here I went ahead and summarized the recent discussion using gifs instead:

tumblr_mp6xv00BLz1s0teago1_400.gif



:monkey3
 
Back
Top