Some of my issues with the Nolan Batman films

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is why we can take a break from all this. I'm Batmanned out.

Reboot it and try something different, more comic-like without being cheesy. More interesting villains again.

And alot more of Batman kicking ***.
 
^^ i was referring to Devilof06 (something like that) and his comments

They just seemed a tad too defensive and offered no input into the subject other than 'my time is too important to debate such things'

Just seems a little arrogant and arrogance frustrates me. Nothing to say? Then simply don't say anything

Yes, it's arrogant. I don't care what other people thought of The Dark Knight Rises. At all.

And, I'll say so.

I'm not being defensive, and I'm sure as hell not being aggressive towards those with criticisms.
 
^^ i was referring to Devilof06 (something like that) and his comments

They just seemed a tad too defensive and offered no input into the subject other than 'my time is too important to debate such things'

Just seems a little arrogant and arrogance frustrates me. Nothing to say? Then simply don't say anything

Oxymoronic. :lecture:lecture:lecture:exactly:
 
Curiosity as to whether there are people who saw the same movie I did.

We all saw "the same movie" you did in the most literal interpretation of that phrase. If you mean you're curious to see if they saw "the same movie" as in they have the same opinion of what they saw as you do...well then that opinion is subjective, and whether it is in line with your opinion or not...it IS "what they thought about The Dark Knight Rises"...which you

"don't care about. At all."

so on some level you've just contradicted yourself.
 
Telling someone not to post because you don't like what he said isn't arrogant? :cuckoo:

Well, no. I was stating that folk in general shouldn't post if thete's no point or nothing to say, otherwise, why post?

It seems logical to me really. Like folk yave said, why come into a thread to say you're not interested? At least offer a counter argument.

I suppose we won't agree
 
I think the points you raised are simply not important to the overall story arc that Nolan created.

It was never his purpose to create a cinematic analog of the Batman comic universe.

I understand that and I posted originally that I knew it was Nolan's Universe. But some character actions were inconsistant.

Schedule conflict. She was already filming another film

This I was not aware of. After BB most peoples opinions of Katie seemed to be negative. I thought that is why they went with another actress. If that was not the case then I can't fault the film makers but man I wish Katie was in it instead.

That's pretty much the approach I'm taking to criticisms of the trilogy. You didn't like it? I'm sorry to hear that, and no, I don't want to hear why.

Thats fine but I have to ask. Whay even enter the thread? If I felt that strongly I would never even click on a thread with the title I have. Rather silly if you ask me. I also stated my love for the films so it's not like I am dumping all over them. Just things that every time I watch it bother me. Just wondering how others felt.

You hated that they recast Rachel, but you would be ok with it if he had recast Joker?:cuckoo: ( Heaths performance as the joker will never be forgotten and recasting him would be disrespectful imo) ..and I always though Katie not being in tdk was not Nolan's choice but all to do with her husband taking control and not allowing her.( although I could very well be wrong about that)

I thought that Katie was the fault of the film makers. Turns out it was not. My problem also was not so much as the recast but who they recast. Chick is fugly.

I have no issue with recasting the recasting The Joker. Guy did drugs and Died. That is to bad. But as I said the Joker character is bigger then any one actor. Plus I really did not have to have him in the movie. Just talk about him or show something in flashback or have someone explain why he is not a part of the issue.

Not in my book.

Art is too personal for me to kvetch (is that the right word?) about it. Nine times out of ten, I have zero interest in humoring anyone else's opinion of what I watch. I don't know what it accomplishes, other than to waste my time.

I understand what you are saying but again why even click on the thread. Again it's not like I attacked and tore down these films. I did not try and say that the things I posted ruined the films. I just posted some issues I had with an otherwise great trilogy.

I feel the same way. I know what I like and what I don't. I don't feel the need to try and prove others wrong. Beside, we have more than enough people here who already do that.

Hope everyone is aware I was not trying to prove anyone wrong. I did not say I did not care what anyone else thought. I respect opinions and thought my post was very respectful to all the fans.

I also don't mind bite-sized opinions. I'm always curious.

Wall of text? Not so curious.


Again I ask why click? Why post? There must be a "Nolan's Batman films are the greatest thing ever and are impervious to criticism" thead. Which by the way I would have no problems reading.



I did not mean to start a war. I was just posting my feelings on what could have been a perfect series but just had a few missteps.

Oh well no hard feelings. I still love all you freaks :)
 
I think you're taking it too personally, my friend.

My statement was a personal revelation that I experienced upon finishing this film. I was just sharing that.
 
First let me say that's a well thought-out post. It's refreshing to see a break-down like that, whether it is a favorable or unfavorable opinion of aspects of these films.

Here's my response as a fan of these films, but I think we have a lot of common ground on the individual points.

1. Yes, besides his first year out from BB to the end of TDK, he is rarely seen. But we know from the dialogue in the beginning of TDK "I don't like it, not tonight" when the criminal (drug dealer?) sees the batsignal, he has ALREADY had enough of an impact on the city become a legend in that short time. Heck, even the organized crime bosses are too scared of him to have a meeting at night. After he takes the blame for "killing" the city's "hero"-- Harvey Dent, his legend status is further cemented. Not as a good legend by any means, but who in Gotham can ever forget about the guy that killed the white knight. His dark legend is tied inextricable to Harvey's positive legend (at least for the next 8 years). Finally, after all of Gotham (and the world, no doubt watching on TV) apparently witnesses him go up in a nuclear explosion to save the city...his permanent legend is solidified. No one will ever forget the day that Batman gave his life for the city.

2. I really really agree with this point. "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you." Yes dude, YOU DO HAVE TO SAVE HIM, you're the hero, you're supposed to be better than just letting someone die, even if they are a killer. I absolutely agree with you here. As long as Batman has the ability to save someone, even the villian, he should do it.

3. This is not Nolan's fault. He didn't fire Katie, she made herself unavailable. She had a scheduling conflict. Rumor is Tom Cruise prevented her from signing for the sequel.

4. I believe Batman would have saved Two-Face if he could have. But he had been stabbed by the Joker earlier in the night, then shot (in his armor...but still it powerful enough to knock him down) by Two-Face so he wasn't in top form. Add to that that he also has to save the innocent kid who Two-Face has a 50% chance of shooting if the coin lands bad side up. Batman is not gonna play the odds with a kids life, and there is no time or strength to do some fancy move that both disarms Harvey and saves both him and the kid. So he goes with all he can do, the ugly, brute force tackle. He's got only two arms---one's got to hold on the the 90 lb kid, and one's got to grab the ledge. Or he could have taken his chances and tried to grab the 200lb villianous man with one arm, hoping he would "decide" to also keep holding on to the 90lb kid for Batman (making the total weight on Batman's arm almost 300lb) while trying to hold on to the ledge. He couldn't risk the innocent kid to try to save the non-innocent Harvey.

5. Getting shot by the Batpod cannon may not be as eventful as if there was another big fight like in the sewers and this time Batman was victorious--but we did kind of get that. Batman definitely was beating Bane was about to "win" the fight had Miranda/Talia not surprised him with the old knife to the gut trick. Whether he would have just ripped off his mask or otherwise killed him is debatable. I understand not liking the way he went out, but as for the question of "Why do villains in the films have to die but in the comics they can be allowed to live?" I think it answers itself. In movies, for the most part, there is no intention of telling another story with the villain in a sequel (of course, there are exceptions). Killing off the villain gives finality to a film (or film series) and shows that the specific threat has been vanquished. In serialized comics, you want the villian available in future installments to challenge the hero again and again, endlessly.

6. I agree, this film probably would have benefitted by at least a mention of the Joker. I definitely didn't want to see him recast, whether for a large role or just a cameo as a prisoner though.

8. (there is no #7 above ;)) I kind of agree with you here, but on the other hand, I did get the feeling of ever increasing chaos while Batman was locked up. Cops who were lucky enough not to be trapped undergroud were being hunted like dogs, Scarecrow was running farce trials, and special forces guys were being killed and strung up from the bridges for all the world to see. That's a pretty scary town to be trapped in.

9. Yes I absolutely agree with this point. Blake has definitely shown he has the rage and the heart to be Batman...he is just missing the extensive training necessary. But someone once said "Training is NOTHING. Will is EVERYTHING." ;) Like you said, I'd like to believe Bruce will arrange for Blake's training, if not train him himself.

I agree completely with at least 3 or 3.5 of your 8 points, but I think the rest or part of the rest have good justifications for why they are that way. In any case, that was a great post and I enjoyed engaging with it.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I guess this is the type of discussion I was expecting more of.

I think you make good alternate points to my statements. I can see what you mean by his Ledgend going on. But I really wish he was Batman longer and contined to be Batman. Somehow the two Burton Batman films felt like he was Batman longer (Nolan films are far better I am not comparing).

I see what you say about two face and Batman saving him. I guess I just wish the writters kept a major villian around. He originally said when he first started filming he would not kill the villains. Perhaps this was just fan boy talk but I thought I read that somewhere.

About Bane getting his masked ripped off. I was not aware that that would kill him. I thought it just kept the pain at bay. If it would kill him then No the Batman should not rip it off.

Great response. It will give me a new way to look at some things.
 
I think you're taking it too personally, my friend.

My statement was a personal revelation that I experienced upon finishing this film. I was just sharing that.

That's cool. I just did not want to offend anyone. It was not my intent. I really enjoy all three films. I love TDK and think the other two are excellent films.

The points I made I made because they would have helped make it an almost perfect trilogy.
 
I was pretty bummed with how batman would just willingly give up the cowl just to have a nice life. But now the more I think of it as Nolan's own interpretation of the batman universe and try and put the comic lore aside I'm beginning to feel ok about it.
I'm 100% with you on points 1,3,5 and 9 though :goodpost:

Yes I guess I can except Bruce being Happy. The films were so Dark and Bruce had very little time for true happiness. I guess the film character needed that.
 
That's cool. I just did not want to offend anyone. It was not my intent. I really enjoy all three films. I love TDK and think the other two are excellent films.

The points I made I made because they would have helped make it an almost perfect trilogy.

I was not offended. At all. :duff
 
My only issue with The Dark Knight Rises, it's that it's so much better then ASM. And it kicks it into a hole of suck.

Oh wait, that's a plot hole, not a issue. My bad.
 
I think they are decent films, but not amazingly well paced because I can't stay awake through any of them (laugh), in the theater or DVD. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Definitely not highly re-watchable. It is possible to tell a serious story and not be so damn slow.

I also loathe personally all of the costumes. It takes a lot to make me not want to buy Batman products, and I haven't wanted to buy any of the Nolan films stuff.

A Batman film grounded in "reality" is good, but that doesn't mean the costume designs need to be so mundane. Batman has a chipmunk cheeks, dammit! That's just wrong. :monkey2 (laugh)
 
Wishes hadn't read thread. Spoiled a bunch of things on myself. Interesting topic though given how revered Nolans Batman is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top