[quote]therajraj wrote:
I picked up it was fake when I saw Robin Williams. Pretty sure him being in the movie would have been leaked ages ago with the other actors.[/quote]
LOL. The Blade 2 clips should have clued everyone in. I doubt they will step back about 7 years in CGI effects for this.
Now having saw the trailer in a non-pirated version, I guarantee Bruce is in a wheelchair in the hospital next to Gordon. My theory, Gordon discovers Bruce after he has been defeated by Bane, discovers who he truly is, and swears to keep it a secret and then is likely injured by Bane himself or one of the many criminals that are roaming the streets after the Arkham breakout.
Any word on the possibility of the Jean-Paul Valley/Azrael storyline being touched on in DKR? I remember liking the Knightfall storyline a lot when it was released, more so for Batman’s return than anything. It was really cool the way they did it in the book.
[quote]CC wrote:
Any word on the possibility of the Jean-Paul Valley/Azrael storyline being touched on in DKR? I remember liking the Knightfall storyline a lot when it was released, more so for Batman’s return than anything. It was really cool the way they did it in the book.[/quote]
Fuck no. Keep that bullshit out of the movie. That storyline was fucking horrid. Knightfall wasn’t even that great of a storyline either, really. It won’t happen (unless Nolan has managed to keep quiet about a whole shitload of characters being in the film), but I wish that this storyline would loosely follow the Hush storyline, perhaps with Bane playing the part of Hush. Of course, this is essentially what Knightfall was anyways, but for some reason Knightfall was just too much. I think it had to do with all the different titles that you had to buy to get the WHOLE story, especially the post-Knightfall shit that tied into it.
Fuck, I’ve gotta stop jerking off to thoughts of this movie…
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]CC wrote:
Any word on the possibility of the Jean-Paul Valley/Azrael storyline being touched on in DKR? I remember liking the Knightfall storyline a lot when it was released, more so for Batman’s return than anything. It was really cool the way they did it in the book.[/quote]
Fuck no. Keep that bullshit out of the movie. That storyline was fucking horrid. Knightfall wasn’t even that great of a storyline either, really. It won’t happen (unless Nolan has managed to keep quiet about a whole shitload of characters being in the film), but I wish that this storyline would loosely follow the Hush storyline, perhaps with Bane playing the part of Hush. Of course, this is essentially what Knightfall was anyways, but for some reason Knightfall was just too much. I think it had to do with all the different titles that you had to buy to get the WHOLE story, especially the post-Knightfall shit that tied into it.
Fuck, I’ve gotta stop jerking off to thoughts of this movie…[/quote]
I agree with you to an extent about having to buy different books to get the whole story, though it was really no different than the Death of Superman saga (which most people shat on) or Marvel: Civil War (which most people liked). So, that’s not always necessarily a deal breaker.
Maybe it was a sign of my age at the time, but I personally liked Azrael. I thought all of the “subliminal message training,” “ancient order of warrior monks” stuff was pretty cool. But again, I was only 12-13 at the time. I know it wouldn’t sit well with most Batman fans, regardless (though I have a feeling that, if he really wanted to, Nolan could do it in a way that people would really like; the guy is just an unstoppable genius). To each his own, I guess.
This is going to be brilliant. Really really brilliant. Although I still think Batman Begins was better than TDK (heretic I know :P)
[quote]Bambi wrote:
This is going to be brilliant. Really really brilliant. Although I still think Batman Begins was better than TDK (heretic I know :P)[/quote]
I’m actually in the same boat. I was pretty sure I was the only one.
Disclaimer: TDK is still one of the most incredible pictures of all time. I just happened to personally like BB ever so slightly better.
[quote]CC wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
This is going to be brilliant. Really really brilliant. Although I still think Batman Begins was better than TDK (heretic I know :P)[/quote]
I’m actually in the same boat. I was pretty sure I was the only one.
Disclaimer: TDK is still one of the most incredible pictures of all time. I just happened to personally like BB ever so slightly better.
[/quote]
Oh definitely. I think TDK is one of the best movies of the last 10 years. But BB I prefer. glad to see I’m not the only one though 
[quote]Bambi wrote:
[quote]CC wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
This is going to be brilliant. Really really brilliant. Although I still think Batman Begins was better than TDK (heretic I know :P)[/quote]
I’m actually in the same boat. I was pretty sure I was the only one.
Disclaimer: TDK is still one of the most incredible pictures of all time. I just happened to personally like BB ever so slightly better.
[/quote]
Oh definitely. I think TDK is one of the best movies of the last 10 years. But BB I prefer. glad to see I’m not the only one though :D[/quote]
I’m sorry, but I can’t make any sense of any of what you two are saying. Could you please explain with some detail and clarity exactly why it is you liked Batman Begins more than TDK? This isn’t quite registering in my brain.
Oh God. A debate with DB Cooper. Here goes:
It’s first to point out as a qualifier that both films are absolutely excellent, in my opinion each was the best film to come out in their respective year, with standout performances from most actors and actresses.
Batman Begins is really a film about the nature of fear. The Dark Knight is weightier, grander: a state of the nation address if you will. I believe that in the final scene on the ships Nolan overextends himself. The whole setpiece, designed to prove that the nature of man is innately good as a contrast to Harvey Dent’s fall, to me seems pompous, not quite preaching, but it feels disjointed from the film as a whole. The moralising about the nature of man to do good or evil is at that point too overt. This may seen as a minor quibble. But the film is not as contained as Batman Begins. Nolan allows himself a little indulgence.
Batman Begins is not without its flaws. The way it deals with Scarecrow, and Katie Holmes’ distinctly average acting (though better than Maggie Gylenhaal) are the two that spring to mind. But we see Batman with more emotional clarity than The Dark Knight in that we understand his fears and terrors. Yes he has overcome these by the end, so maybe they are not as relevant for The Dark Knight. But I think Christian Bale’s performance is slightly lessened because Batman in TDK does not have the range of emotional complexity as in BB. Yes his bat-voice has been mocked a million times but his actions in TDK make him seem like the spoiled little rich kid he was slapped for being after revealing he was intending to kill his parent’s murderer, thinking to jump in and make all right without any consequence for his actions. In BB the ‘justice’ against the mob comes as a release after near an hour of build up. There is no such release in The Dark Knight; at the start we are straight into comic book action and Nolan should have used the minute he saved from the boat scene extending Batman and Joker’s interrogation/interaction in general, as it felt rushed and was the part of the movie I wished had gone on for longer.
I can go into more detail if required but I’m going to go actually watch the two films again, as I haven’t seen them all the way through since about January (I keep catching bits of them at times on TV though). I am a huge fan of the Batman series - I still remember fanboys on the Rotten Tomatoes forums saying Heath Ledger wouldn’t be up to the job when he was cast as the role! HA! I just want to say that despite what I have said TDK still is an absolutely brilliant movie, and I am aware that me telling possibly one of the most successful directors ever he’s wrong
might come across as ridiculous, but hey, you wanted an answer.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Oh God. A debate with DB Cooper. Here goes:
It’s first to point out as a qualifier that both films are absolutely excellent, in my opinion each was the best film to come out in their respective year, with standout performances from most actors and actresses.
Batman Begins is really a film about the nature of fear. The Dark Knight is weightier, grander: a state of the nation address if you will. I believe that in the final scene on the ships Nolan overextends himself. The whole setpiece, designed to prove that the nature of man is innately good as a contrast to Harvey Dent’s fall, to me seems pompous, not quite preaching, but it feels disjointed from the film as a whole. The moralising about the nature of man to do good or evil is at that point too overt. This may seen as a minor quibble. But the film is not as contained as Batman Begins. Nolan allows himself a little indulgence.
Batman Begins is not without its flaws. The way it deals with Scarecrow, and Katie Holmes’ distinctly average acting (though better than Maggie Gylenhaal) are the two that spring to mind. But we see Batman with more emotional clarity than The Dark Knight in that we understand his fears and terrors. Yes he has overcome these by the end, so maybe they are not as relevant for The Dark Knight. But I think Christian Bale’s performance is slightly lessened because Batman in TDK does not have the range of emotional complexity as in BB. Yes his bat-voice has been mocked a million times but his actions in TDK make him seem like the spoiled little rich kid he was slapped for being after revealing he was intending to kill his parent’s murderer, thinking to jump in and make all right without any consequence for his actions. In BB the ‘justice’ against the mob comes as a release after near an hour of build up. There is no such release in The Dark Knight; at the start we are straight into comic book action and Nolan should have used the minute he saved from the boat scene extending Batman and Joker’s interrogation/interaction in general, as it felt rushed and was the part of the movie I wished had gone on for longer.
I can go into more detail if required but I’m going to go actually watch the two films again, as I haven’t seen them all the way through since about January (I keep catching bits of them at times on TV though). I am a huge fan of the Batman series - I still remember fanboys on the Rotten Tomatoes forums saying Heath Ledger wouldn’t be up to the job when he was cast as the role! HA! I just want to say that despite what I have said TDK still is an absolutely brilliant movie, and I am aware that me telling possibly one of the most successful directors ever he’s wrong
might come across as ridiculous, but hey, you wanted an answer.
[/quote]
Relax. I wasn’t looking for a debate, simply an explanation for what I view to be an impossibility. You explained yourself well. I agree that the boat scene in TDK didn’t quite mesh with the rest of the movie. But I think by that point, in my opinion, that TDK had already far outclassed Batman Begins.
For me, the character study and the in-depth examination of what drives Wayne was overkill in Batman Begins, mostly because I’ve been a huge fan of the comic since I was a child and to hear this whole part of the Batman story rehashed yet again is redundant. I understand that the casual Batman fan has to be reminded of this sort of thing (I’m not lumping you in w/ that crowd) and so his origins at the beginning are probably a necessity for any director revisiting the character.
But for me personally, given my extensive familiarity with what drives Wayne and where the Batman persona comes from, the first 45 minutes or so of Batman Begins could have been done away with. I think a lot of what was covered in the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins in terms of Wayne’s motivation could have been addressed as the movie unfolded in Gotham, meaning that there would have been more Batman screentime and less Wayne screentime. Because really, it is WAYNE that is the alter-ego and BATMAN is the real identity.
I also felt that Ra’s al Ghul was a poor villain to introduce in the first of a trilogy without intending to feature him in any of the others and that his character wasn’t done the justice it deserved. Dennis O’Neill established al Ghul as a worthy (if not superior) opponent for Batman, both physically and mentally. I don’t think that this is the character Nolan created. Batman would never had stood a chance against al Ghul and the League of Assassins so close to the beginning of his career. Hell, he barely stacked up against them when he had firmly established himself as Batman and fully knew how to use all of his resources against al Ghul. And part of what makes al Ghul such a compelling character in the comics, especially the Dennis O’Neill-written ones from the 70’s, is the fact that he is almost a father figure of sorts to Batman. There is a difference between being a mentor of sorts and being a father figure. I think Nolan erred in this respect as well.
But all of this is really nothing more than nitpicking. It’s like saying I didn’t like The Godfather because Coppola doesn’t go further in depth into the character of Sonny Corleone.
I was nervous because I still have no idea what Rapeaxe is!
Ah well I loved the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins though I do see what you mean that it could be seen as redundant. I disagree though. Your idea that Wayne is the alter ego is certainly true in the Dark Knight, but in Batman Begins it’s a bit more fluid and I thougth Nolan captured his shifting identity perfectly. And I will agree that I thought Neeson’s character had a certain fatherly aspect at the start that was not present at the finale.
I also see your point about Ras being very strong for an early Batman but I always thought that he only offset a branch, rather than the whole of Ras, maybe I misread that.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Oh God. A debate with DB Cooper. Here goes:
It’s first to point out as a qualifier that both films are absolutely excellent, in my opinion each was the best film to come out in their respective year, with standout performances from most actors and actresses.
Batman Begins is really a film about the nature of fear. The Dark Knight is weightier, grander: a state of the nation address if you will. I believe that in the final scene on the ships Nolan overextends himself. The whole setpiece, designed to prove that the nature of man is innately good as a contrast to Harvey Dent’s fall, to me seems pompous, not quite preaching, but it feels disjointed from the film as a whole. The moralising about the nature of man to do good or evil is at that point too overt. This may seen as a minor quibble. But the film is not as contained as Batman Begins. Nolan allows himself a little indulgence.
Batman Begins is not without its flaws. The way it deals with Scarecrow, and Katie Holmes’ distinctly average acting (though better than Maggie Gylenhaal) are the two that spring to mind. But we see Batman with more emotional clarity than The Dark Knight in that we understand his fears and terrors. Yes he has overcome these by the end, so maybe they are not as relevant for The Dark Knight. But I think Christian Bale’s performance is slightly lessened because Batman in TDK does not have the range of emotional complexity as in BB. Yes his bat-voice has been mocked a million times but his actions in TDK make him seem like the spoiled little rich kid he was slapped for being after revealing he was intending to kill his parent’s murderer, thinking to jump in and make all right without any consequence for his actions. In BB the ‘justice’ against the mob comes as a release after near an hour of build up. There is no such release in The Dark Knight; at the start we are straight into comic book action and Nolan should have used the minute he saved from the boat scene extending Batman and Joker’s interrogation/interaction in general, as it felt rushed and was the part of the movie I wished had gone on for longer.
I can go into more detail if required but I’m going to go actually watch the two films again, as I haven’t seen them all the way through since about January (I keep catching bits of them at times on TV though). I am a huge fan of the Batman series - I still remember fanboys on the Rotten Tomatoes forums saying Heath Ledger wouldn’t be up to the job when he was cast as the role! HA! I just want to say that despite what I have said TDK still is an absolutely brilliant movie, and I am aware that me telling possibly one of the most successful directors ever he’s wrong
might come across as ridiculous, but hey, you wanted an answer.
[/quote]
Relax. I wasn’t looking for a debate, simply an explanation for what I view to be an impossibility. You explained yourself well. I agree that the boat scene in TDK didn’t quite mesh with the rest of the movie. But I think by that point, in my opinion, that TDK had already far outclassed Batman Begins.
For me, the character study and the in-depth examination of what drives Wayne was overkill in Batman Begins, mostly because I’ve been a huge fan of the comic since I was a child and to hear this whole part of the Batman story rehashed yet again is redundant. I understand that the casual Batman fan has to be reminded of this sort of thing (I’m not lumping you in w/ that crowd) and so his origins at the beginning are probably a necessity for any director revisiting the character.
But for me personally, given my extensive familiarity with what drives Wayne and where the Batman persona comes from, the first 45 minutes or so of Batman Begins could have been done away with. I think a lot of what was covered in the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins in terms of Wayne’s motivation could have been addressed as the movie unfolded in Gotham, meaning that there would have been more Batman screentime and less Wayne screentime. Because really, it is WAYNE that is the alter-ego and BATMAN is the real identity.
I also felt that Ra’s al Ghul was a poor villain to introduce in the first of a trilogy without intending to feature him in any of the others and that his character wasn’t done the justice it deserved. Dennis O’Neill established al Ghul as a worthy (if not superior) opponent for Batman, both physically and mentally. I don’t think that this is the character Nolan created. Batman would never had stood a chance against al Ghul and the League of Assassins so close to the beginning of his career. Hell, he barely stacked up against them when he had firmly established himself as Batman and fully knew how to use all of his resources against al Ghul. And part of what makes al Ghul such a compelling character in the comics, especially the Dennis O’Neill-written ones from the 70’s, is the fact that he is almost a father figure of sorts to Batman. There is a difference between being a mentor of sorts and being a father figure. I think Nolan erred in this respect as well.
But all of this is really nothing more than nitpicking. It’s like saying I didn’t like The Godfather because Coppola doesn’t go further in depth into the character of Sonny Corleone.[/quote]
For a guy not looking for a debate, you wrote one hell of a reply. Fuck! This is like a fucking thesis. Cliff Notes!
[quote]Bambi wrote:
I was nervous because I still have no idea what Rapeaxe is!
Ah well I loved the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins though I do see what you mean that it could be seen as redundant. I disagree though. Your idea that Wayne is the alter ego is certainly true in the Dark Knight, but in Batman Begins it’s a bit more fluid and I thougth Nolan captured his shifting identity perfectly. And I will agree that I thought Neeson’s character had a certain fatherly aspect at the start that was not present at the finale.
I also see your point about Ras being very strong for an early Batman but I always thought that he only offset a branch, rather than the whole of Ras, maybe I misread that.[/quote]
You never know what RAPEAXE!!! is until it’s too late…
My idea that Wayne is the alter-ego was meant as a general statement, in that Wayne was always the alter-ego and that Batman (or rather, the side of Wayne that fomented Batman) is the REAL Wayne. I suppose that at some point there is a transition from one identity to the other since Wayne wasn’t ALWAYS Batman, but my point is that at some point Wayne the public figure becomes the alter-ego and vice versa. So I think there should have been more focus on this transition without spending a lot of time on his actual origin. I also don’t want to know a whole lot about how Batman affects Wayne’s life and relationships. I want to see more of the Batman/Gordon/GCPD dynamic than Rachel fucking Dawes and her relationship with Wayne.
I think that Wayne ceases to be anything other than a false veneer once Batman comes into existence, but this process happens slowly. It happens before Wayne is ever inspired to become Batman specifically and it’s hard to say when this transition ends, but I think the process continues as Batman grows as a vigilante. I think a lot more of this part of the character could have been explored while Wayne had already become Batman, thereby removing some of the redundancy involved in revisiting Wayne’s past and spending more time examining this aspect of the character as Batman. I like Batman, not Bruce Wayne, so I think as much of this dynamic as possible should be examined when Wayne has already become Batman. It just makes for more Batman and less pre-Batman Wayne, which is a period in his history that I don’t find interesting anymore, simply because everyone who’s ever written Batman for an extended period has addressed this part of his history in the comics.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Oh God. A debate with DB Cooper. Here goes:
It’s first to point out as a qualifier that both films are absolutely excellent, in my opinion each was the best film to come out in their respective year, with standout performances from most actors and actresses.
Batman Begins is really a film about the nature of fear. The Dark Knight is weightier, grander: a state of the nation address if you will. I believe that in the final scene on the ships Nolan overextends himself. The whole setpiece, designed to prove that the nature of man is innately good as a contrast to Harvey Dent’s fall, to me seems pompous, not quite preaching, but it feels disjointed from the film as a whole. The moralising about the nature of man to do good or evil is at that point too overt. This may seen as a minor quibble. But the film is not as contained as Batman Begins. Nolan allows himself a little indulgence.
Batman Begins is not without its flaws. The way it deals with Scarecrow, and Katie Holmes’ distinctly average acting (though better than Maggie Gylenhaal) are the two that spring to mind. But we see Batman with more emotional clarity than The Dark Knight in that we understand his fears and terrors. Yes he has overcome these by the end, so maybe they are not as relevant for The Dark Knight. But I think Christian Bale’s performance is slightly lessened because Batman in TDK does not have the range of emotional complexity as in BB. Yes his bat-voice has been mocked a million times but his actions in TDK make him seem like the spoiled little rich kid he was slapped for being after revealing he was intending to kill his parent’s murderer, thinking to jump in and make all right without any consequence for his actions. In BB the ‘justice’ against the mob comes as a release after near an hour of build up. There is no such release in The Dark Knight; at the start we are straight into comic book action and Nolan should have used the minute he saved from the boat scene extending Batman and Joker’s interrogation/interaction in general, as it felt rushed and was the part of the movie I wished had gone on for longer.
I can go into more detail if required but I’m going to go actually watch the two films again, as I haven’t seen them all the way through since about January (I keep catching bits of them at times on TV though). I am a huge fan of the Batman series - I still remember fanboys on the Rotten Tomatoes forums saying Heath Ledger wouldn’t be up to the job when he was cast as the role! HA! I just want to say that despite what I have said TDK still is an absolutely brilliant movie, and I am aware that me telling possibly one of the most successful directors ever he’s wrong
might come across as ridiculous, but hey, you wanted an answer.
[/quote]
Relax. I wasn’t looking for a debate, simply an explanation for what I view to be an impossibility. You explained yourself well. I agree that the boat scene in TDK didn’t quite mesh with the rest of the movie. But I think by that point, in my opinion, that TDK had already far outclassed Batman Begins.
For me, the character study and the in-depth examination of what drives Wayne was overkill in Batman Begins, mostly because I’ve been a huge fan of the comic since I was a child and to hear this whole part of the Batman story rehashed yet again is redundant. I understand that the casual Batman fan has to be reminded of this sort of thing (I’m not lumping you in w/ that crowd) and so his origins at the beginning are probably a necessity for any director revisiting the character.
But for me personally, given my extensive familiarity with what drives Wayne and where the Batman persona comes from, the first 45 minutes or so of Batman Begins could have been done away with. I think a lot of what was covered in the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins in terms of Wayne’s motivation could have been addressed as the movie unfolded in Gotham, meaning that there would have been more Batman screentime and less Wayne screentime. Because really, it is WAYNE that is the alter-ego and BATMAN is the real identity.
I also felt that Ra’s al Ghul was a poor villain to introduce in the first of a trilogy without intending to feature him in any of the others and that his character wasn’t done the justice it deserved. Dennis O’Neill established al Ghul as a worthy (if not superior) opponent for Batman, both physically and mentally. I don’t think that this is the character Nolan created. Batman would never had stood a chance against al Ghul and the League of Assassins so close to the beginning of his career. Hell, he barely stacked up against them when he had firmly established himself as Batman and fully knew how to use all of his resources against al Ghul. And part of what makes al Ghul such a compelling character in the comics, especially the Dennis O’Neill-written ones from the 70’s, is the fact that he is almost a father figure of sorts to Batman. There is a difference between being a mentor of sorts and being a father figure. I think Nolan erred in this respect as well.
But all of this is really nothing more than nitpicking. It’s like saying I didn’t like The Godfather because Coppola doesn’t go further in depth into the character of Sonny Corleone.[/quote]
For a guy not looking for a debate, you wrote one hell of a reply. Fuck! This is like a fucking thesis. Cliff Notes!
[/quote]
If a guy who willingly chooses “Bambi” as his screen name can read it all, I’m sure an esteemed, intelligent person like yourself can read it as well. It’s not like I don’t write with clarity.
And to be honest, I’m sick and fucking tired of people complaining about my long posts. If you don’t want to read it, then don’t. You all are wasting your time requesting that I shorten things up because I won’t. I’m not trying to ridicule or berate you personally, WolBarrett. But in general, it means nothing to me that some people on here don’t like to read through long posts, so when someone complains about them I don’t care because I don’t place any import whatsoever on the opinion or desires of someone who can’t read a post that literally takes about 2 minutes to read. No one is forcing any of you to do so, so if you don’t want to, then don’t. There are plenty of people on here with an attention span long enough to read a post for three minutes straight and it is those people whose opinions regarding my posts that I hold in esteem, even if we disagree.
If everything I wrote at length about here was pure drivel filled with nonsensical bullshit that was entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I would understand your complaints. But I do not write in this manner.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Oh God. A debate with DB Cooper. Here goes:
It’s first to point out as a qualifier that both films are absolutely excellent, in my opinion each was the best film to come out in their respective year, with standout performances from most actors and actresses.
Batman Begins is really a film about the nature of fear. The Dark Knight is weightier, grander: a state of the nation address if you will. I believe that in the final scene on the ships Nolan overextends himself. The whole setpiece, designed to prove that the nature of man is innately good as a contrast to Harvey Dent’s fall, to me seems pompous, not quite preaching, but it feels disjointed from the film as a whole. The moralising about the nature of man to do good or evil is at that point too overt. This may seen as a minor quibble. But the film is not as contained as Batman Begins. Nolan allows himself a little indulgence.
Batman Begins is not without its flaws. The way it deals with Scarecrow, and Katie Holmes’ distinctly average acting (though better than Maggie Gylenhaal) are the two that spring to mind. But we see Batman with more emotional clarity than The Dark Knight in that we understand his fears and terrors. Yes he has overcome these by the end, so maybe they are not as relevant for The Dark Knight. But I think Christian Bale’s performance is slightly lessened because Batman in TDK does not have the range of emotional complexity as in BB. Yes his bat-voice has been mocked a million times but his actions in TDK make him seem like the spoiled little rich kid he was slapped for being after revealing he was intending to kill his parent’s murderer, thinking to jump in and make all right without any consequence for his actions. In BB the ‘justice’ against the mob comes as a release after near an hour of build up. There is no such release in The Dark Knight; at the start we are straight into comic book action and Nolan should have used the minute he saved from the boat scene extending Batman and Joker’s interrogation/interaction in general, as it felt rushed and was the part of the movie I wished had gone on for longer.
I can go into more detail if required but I’m going to go actually watch the two films again, as I haven’t seen them all the way through since about January (I keep catching bits of them at times on TV though). I am a huge fan of the Batman series - I still remember fanboys on the Rotten Tomatoes forums saying Heath Ledger wouldn’t be up to the job when he was cast as the role! HA! I just want to say that despite what I have said TDK still is an absolutely brilliant movie, and I am aware that me telling possibly one of the most successful directors ever he’s wrong
might come across as ridiculous, but hey, you wanted an answer.
[/quote]
Relax. I wasn’t looking for a debate, simply an explanation for what I view to be an impossibility. You explained yourself well. I agree that the boat scene in TDK didn’t quite mesh with the rest of the movie. But I think by that point, in my opinion, that TDK had already far outclassed Batman Begins.
For me, the character study and the in-depth examination of what drives Wayne was overkill in Batman Begins, mostly because I’ve been a huge fan of the comic since I was a child and to hear this whole part of the Batman story rehashed yet again is redundant. I understand that the casual Batman fan has to be reminded of this sort of thing (I’m not lumping you in w/ that crowd) and so his origins at the beginning are probably a necessity for any director revisiting the character.
But for me personally, given my extensive familiarity with what drives Wayne and where the Batman persona comes from, the first 45 minutes or so of Batman Begins could have been done away with. I think a lot of what was covered in the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins in terms of Wayne’s motivation could have been addressed as the movie unfolded in Gotham, meaning that there would have been more Batman screentime and less Wayne screentime. Because really, it is WAYNE that is the alter-ego and BATMAN is the real identity.
I also felt that Ra’s al Ghul was a poor villain to introduce in the first of a trilogy without intending to feature him in any of the others and that his character wasn’t done the justice it deserved. Dennis O’Neill established al Ghul as a worthy (if not superior) opponent for Batman, both physically and mentally. I don’t think that this is the character Nolan created. Batman would never had stood a chance against al Ghul and the League of Assassins so close to the beginning of his career. Hell, he barely stacked up against them when he had firmly established himself as Batman and fully knew how to use all of his resources against al Ghul. And part of what makes al Ghul such a compelling character in the comics, especially the Dennis O’Neill-written ones from the 70’s, is the fact that he is almost a father figure of sorts to Batman. There is a difference between being a mentor of sorts and being a father figure. I think Nolan erred in this respect as well.
But all of this is really nothing more than nitpicking. It’s like saying I didn’t like The Godfather because Coppola doesn’t go further in depth into the character of Sonny Corleone.[/quote]
For a guy not looking for a debate, you wrote one hell of a reply. Fuck! This is like a fucking thesis. Cliff Notes!
[/quote]
If a guy who willingly chooses “Bambi” as his screen name can read it all, I’m sure an esteemed, intelligent person like yourself can read it as well. It’s not like I don’t write with clarity.
And to be honest, I’m sick and fucking tired of people complaining about my long posts. If you don’t want to read it, then don’t. You all are wasting your time requesting that I shorten things up because I won’t. I’m not trying to ridicule or berate you personally, WolBarrett. But in general, it means nothing to me that some people on here don’t like to read through long posts, so when someone complains about them I don’t care because I don’t place any import whatsoever on the opinion or desires of someone who can’t read a post that literally takes about 2 minutes to read. No one is forcing any of you to do so, so if you don’t want to, then don’t. There are plenty of people on here with an attention span long enough to read a post for three minutes straight and it is those people whose opinions regarding my posts that I hold in esteem, even if we disagree.
If everything I wrote at length about here was pure drivel filled with nonsensical bullshit that was entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I would understand your complaints. But I do not write in this manner.[/quote]
I skimmed the first sentence, but I’m not skimming the rest. walks away
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
I was nervous because I still have no idea what Rapeaxe is!
Ah well I loved the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins though I do see what you mean that it could be seen as redundant. I disagree though. Your idea that Wayne is the alter ego is certainly true in the Dark Knight, but in Batman Begins it’s a bit more fluid and I thougth Nolan captured his shifting identity perfectly. And I will agree that I thought Neeson’s character had a certain fatherly aspect at the start that was not present at the finale.
I also see your point about Ras being very strong for an early Batman but I always thought that he only offset a branch, rather than the whole of Ras, maybe I misread that.[/quote]
You never know what RAPEAXE!!! is until it’s too late…
My idea that Wayne is the alter-ego was meant as a general statement, in that Wayne was always the alter-ego and that Batman (or rather, the side of Wayne that fomented Batman) is the REAL Wayne. I suppose that at some point there is a transition from one identity to the other since Wayne wasn’t ALWAYS Batman, but my point is that at some point Wayne the public figure becomes the alter-ego and vice versa. So I think there should have been more focus on this transition without spending a lot of time on his actual origin. I also don’t want to know a whole lot about how Batman affects Wayne’s life and relationships. I want to see more of the Batman/Gordon/GCPD dynamic than Rachel fucking Dawes and her relationship with Wayne.
I think that Wayne ceases to be anything other than a false veneer once Batman comes into existence, but this process happens slowly. It happens before Wayne is ever inspired to become Batman specifically and it’s hard to say when this transition ends, but I think the process continues as Batman grows as a vigilante. I think a lot more of this part of the character could have been explored while Wayne had already become Batman, thereby removing some of the redundancy involved in revisiting Wayne’s past and spending more time examining this aspect of the character as Batman. I like Batman, not Bruce Wayne, so I think as much of this dynamic as possible should be examined when Wayne has already become Batman. It just makes for more Batman and less pre-Batman Wayne, which is a period in his history that I don’t find interesting anymore, simply because everyone who’s ever written Batman for an extended period has addressed this part of his history in the comics.[/quote]
Couldn’t have said it better.
[quote]devilmanVISA wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
I was nervous because I still have no idea what Rapeaxe is!
Ah well I loved the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins though I do see what you mean that it could be seen as redundant. I disagree though. Your idea that Wayne is the alter ego is certainly true in the Dark Knight, but in Batman Begins it’s a bit more fluid and I thougth Nolan captured his shifting identity perfectly. And I will agree that I thought Neeson’s character had a certain fatherly aspect at the start that was not present at the finale.
I also see your point about Ras being very strong for an early Batman but I always thought that he only offset a branch, rather than the whole of Ras, maybe I misread that.[/quote]
You never know what RAPEAXE!!! is until it’s too late…
My idea that Wayne is the alter-ego was meant as a general statement, in that Wayne was always the alter-ego and that Batman (or rather, the side of Wayne that fomented Batman) is the REAL Wayne. I suppose that at some point there is a transition from one identity to the other since Wayne wasn’t ALWAYS Batman, but my point is that at some point Wayne the public figure becomes the alter-ego and vice versa. So I think there should have been more focus on this transition without spending a lot of time on his actual origin. I also don’t want to know a whole lot about how Batman affects Wayne’s life and relationships. I want to see more of the Batman/Gordon/GCPD dynamic than Rachel fucking Dawes and her relationship with Wayne.
I think that Wayne ceases to be anything other than a false veneer once Batman comes into existence, but this process happens slowly. It happens before Wayne is ever inspired to become Batman specifically and it’s hard to say when this transition ends, but I think the process continues as Batman grows as a vigilante. I think a lot more of this part of the character could have been explored while Wayne had already become Batman, thereby removing some of the redundancy involved in revisiting Wayne’s past and spending more time examining this aspect of the character as Batman. I like Batman, not Bruce Wayne, so I think as much of this dynamic as possible should be examined when Wayne has already become Batman. It just makes for more Batman and less pre-Batman Wayne, which is a period in his history that I don’t find interesting anymore, simply because everyone who’s ever written Batman for an extended period has addressed this part of his history in the comics.[/quote]
Couldn’t have said it better.
[/quote]
Well, I suppose it could’ve been shorter. But that isn’t really my style and I won’t change in order to placate the lowest common denominator.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Oh God. A debate with DB Cooper. Here goes:
It’s first to point out as a qualifier that both films are absolutely excellent, in my opinion each was the best film to come out in their respective year, with standout performances from most actors and actresses.
Batman Begins is really a film about the nature of fear. The Dark Knight is weightier, grander: a state of the nation address if you will. I believe that in the final scene on the ships Nolan overextends himself. The whole setpiece, designed to prove that the nature of man is innately good as a contrast to Harvey Dent’s fall, to me seems pompous, not quite preaching, but it feels disjointed from the film as a whole. The moralising about the nature of man to do good or evil is at that point too overt. This may seen as a minor quibble. But the film is not as contained as Batman Begins. Nolan allows himself a little indulgence.
Batman Begins is not without its flaws. The way it deals with Scarecrow, and Katie Holmes’ distinctly average acting (though better than Maggie Gylenhaal) are the two that spring to mind. But we see Batman with more emotional clarity than The Dark Knight in that we understand his fears and terrors. Yes he has overcome these by the end, so maybe they are not as relevant for The Dark Knight. But I think Christian Bale’s performance is slightly lessened because Batman in TDK does not have the range of emotional complexity as in BB. Yes his bat-voice has been mocked a million times but his actions in TDK make him seem like the spoiled little rich kid he was slapped for being after revealing he was intending to kill his parent’s murderer, thinking to jump in and make all right without any consequence for his actions. In BB the ‘justice’ against the mob comes as a release after near an hour of build up. There is no such release in The Dark Knight; at the start we are straight into comic book action and Nolan should have used the minute he saved from the boat scene extending Batman and Joker’s interrogation/interaction in general, as it felt rushed and was the part of the movie I wished had gone on for longer.
I can go into more detail if required but I’m going to go actually watch the two films again, as I haven’t seen them all the way through since about January (I keep catching bits of them at times on TV though). I am a huge fan of the Batman series - I still remember fanboys on the Rotten Tomatoes forums saying Heath Ledger wouldn’t be up to the job when he was cast as the role! HA! I just want to say that despite what I have said TDK still is an absolutely brilliant movie, and I am aware that me telling possibly one of the most successful directors ever he’s wrong
might come across as ridiculous, but hey, you wanted an answer.
[/quote]
Relax. I wasn’t looking for a debate, simply an explanation for what I view to be an impossibility. You explained yourself well. I agree that the boat scene in TDK didn’t quite mesh with the rest of the movie. But I think by that point, in my opinion, that TDK had already far outclassed Batman Begins.
For me, the character study and the in-depth examination of what drives Wayne was overkill in Batman Begins, mostly because I’ve been a huge fan of the comic since I was a child and to hear this whole part of the Batman story rehashed yet again is redundant. I understand that the casual Batman fan has to be reminded of this sort of thing (I’m not lumping you in w/ that crowd) and so his origins at the beginning are probably a necessity for any director revisiting the character.
But for me personally, given my extensive familiarity with what drives Wayne and where the Batman persona comes from, the first 45 minutes or so of Batman Begins could have been done away with. I think a lot of what was covered in the first 45 minutes of Batman Begins in terms of Wayne’s motivation could have been addressed as the movie unfolded in Gotham, meaning that there would have been more Batman screentime and less Wayne screentime. Because really, it is WAYNE that is the alter-ego and BATMAN is the real identity.
I also felt that Ra’s al Ghul was a poor villain to introduce in the first of a trilogy without intending to feature him in any of the others and that his character wasn’t done the justice it deserved. Dennis O’Neill established al Ghul as a worthy (if not superior) opponent for Batman, both physically and mentally. I don’t think that this is the character Nolan created. Batman would never had stood a chance against al Ghul and the League of Assassins so close to the beginning of his career. Hell, he barely stacked up against them when he had firmly established himself as Batman and fully knew how to use all of his resources against al Ghul. And part of what makes al Ghul such a compelling character in the comics, especially the Dennis O’Neill-written ones from the 70’s, is the fact that he is almost a father figure of sorts to Batman. There is a difference between being a mentor of sorts and being a father figure. I think Nolan erred in this respect as well.
But all of this is really nothing more than nitpicking. It’s like saying I didn’t like The Godfather because Coppola doesn’t go further in depth into the character of Sonny Corleone.[/quote]
For a guy not looking for a debate, you wrote one hell of a reply. Fuck! This is like a fucking thesis. Cliff Notes!
[/quote]
If a guy who willingly chooses “Bambi” as his screen name can read it all, I’m sure an esteemed, intelligent person like yourself can read it as well. It’s not like I don’t write with clarity.
And to be honest, I’m sick and fucking tired of people complaining about my long posts. If you don’t want to read it, then don’t. You all are wasting your time requesting that I shorten things up because I won’t. I’m not trying to ridicule or berate you personally, WolBarrett. But in general, it means nothing to me that some people on here don’t like to read through long posts, so when someone complains about them I don’t care because I don’t place any import whatsoever on the opinion or desires of someone who can’t read a post that literally takes about 2 minutes to read. No one is forcing any of you to do so, so if you don’t want to, then don’t. There are plenty of people on here with an attention span long enough to read a post for three minutes straight and it is those people whose opinions regarding my posts that I hold in esteem, even if we disagree.
If everything I wrote at length about here was pure drivel filled with nonsensical bullshit that was entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I would understand your complaints. But I do not write in this manner.[/quote]
I skimmed the first sentence, but I’m not skimming the rest. walks away[/quote]
Lol! Obviously you read the whole thing.