The first thing I said to my buddy after watching TDKR in theaters was how perfect it would've been if
"Robin" was actually revealed to be Terry McGuiness.
I've wanted a Batman Beyond movie (and continue to hope the next Arkham game is BB) for ages but I sure as shit don't want the current filmmakers to touch that property.
TKDR just didn't work for me. It felt like it was trying to tackle too many things at once - the return of the League of Shadows, the retirement of Batman, the Gotham police state, the backbreaking battle with Bane, Bruce's relationships to Talia and Selina, Robin - and in the end it didn't do justice to any one of them.
Not to mention that it just sort of tosses out any of the history of all the characters it used and filled them in with whatever it felt like. Technically a Batman movie, but change the names and it could've been a film about any vigilante completely unrelated to the Batman franchise.
Seeing as Batman Beyond relies pretty solidly on the Batman history for a number of its beats, the Nolan trilogy and the way it just throws out almost the entirety of Bat-history would not have made a good place to build a Beyond film from.
The first thing I said to my buddy after watching TDKR in theaters was how perfect it would've been if
"Robin" was actually revealed to be Terry McGuiness.
I've wanted a Batman Beyond movie (and continue to hope the next Arkham game is BB) for ages but I sure as shit don't want the current filmmakers to touch that property.
TKDR just didn't work for me. It felt like it was trying to tackle too many things at once - the return of the League of Shadows, the retirement of Batman, the Gotham police state, the backbreaking battle with Bane, Bruce's relationships to Talia and Selina, Robin - and in the end it didn't do justice to any one of them.
My biggest issue with it was that it felt like batman wasn't even the protagonist.
The first thing I said to my buddy after watching TDKR in theaters was how perfect it would've been if
"Robin" was actually revealed to be Terry McGuiness.
I've wanted a Batman Beyond movie (and continue to hope the next Arkham game is BB) for ages but I sure as shit don't want the current filmmakers to touch that property.
TKDR just didn't work for me. It felt like it was trying to tackle too many things at once - the return of the League of Shadows, the retirement of Batman, the Gotham police state, the backbreaking battle with Bane, Bruce's relationships to Talia and Selina, Robin - and in the end it didn't do justice to any one of them.
My biggest issue with it was that it felt like batman wasn't even the protagonist.
The bad guy's whole plan was dumb and pointlessly convoluted.
Batman being retired for 8 years is unnecessary and it seems like they did it just so they could give Blake that backstory about seeing Bruce as an orphan.
Plus, the way the way Batman Begins ended with that Joker card suggests that The Dark Knight takes place a relatively short time after Begins. So Bruce would have only been Batman for a few months at most. And he just retires after that? So he's been retire for like 10 times longer than he was Batman?
Huh, Google agrees with ya! Weird, coulda sworn it opened with a "two years ago" thing.
I believe it does actually, a brief scene of Gordon giving a speech on Harvey Dent day two years after TDK, then picks up the story proper six years later, also on Harvey Dent Day.
Having rewatched the film recently, everybody is crazy and it's an excellent Batman flick and all-around very fine film.
Huh, Google agrees with ya! Weird, coulda sworn it opened with a "two years ago" thing.
I believe it does actually, a brief scene of Gordon giving a speech on Harvey Dent day two years after TDK, then picks up the story proper six years later, also on Harvey Dent Day.
Having rewatched the film recently, everybody is crazy and it's an excellent Batman flick and all-around very fine film.
As a movie... I feel about it much like I do Iron Man 3.
If I knew nothing about the characters other than what I saw in the movies, I would like it more.
Bane is supposed to be strong, intelligent, fiercely cunning. A real match for the Bat. The breaking was a long and well thought out plan by Bane to wear him down and exhaust him.
TDKR Bane is a lacky. Strong, a bit cunning, sure. But still an underling.
The Talia reveal was... meh.
The plan, such as it was, made no sense for Bane as a character, but it did for the League.
And so I watch it, and I can't enjoy it as much, because I'm seeing the character of Bane reduced to a bodyguard for someone that had no real screen time earning their place as the big bad.
Sure, we have the story of her making it out of the prison, but that doesn't make her any kind of threat, just an athletic young girl desperate to escape from a literal hell hole.
All in all, still not terrible. But just not great.
And as a series, the Nolan Trilogy just doesn't work with the DCU they are building, so it makes sense to just ignore most of it and let it stand on its own.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
As much as I like all the Nolan Batman films, I agree they're not good foundations for the DCU's current batshittery, nor would they would have made sense connecting to a Batman Beyond--at least not a BB as fancifully advanced as it probably should be.
TDKR Bane is a lacky. Strong, a bit cunning, sure. But still an underling.
Bane wasn't an underling (not that smart underling's can't be cool - RE: Red Grant in From Russia With Love), he was essentially her second and even that is debatable. They did not have a traditional "master/apprentice" dynamic, they were more like equals and
he disobeyed her orders like killing Batman without flinching.
While Talia may have laid out the overall scheme, the details and getting it done seemed to fall on Bane, and I don't think his crew knew about her to begin with.
That's why she keeps up the charade as being Miranda Tate after being captured.
He was a worthy adversary, outwitted and outmuscled Batman on his own turf and he was the brains behind his organization, or at least played a huge role with how to implement it.
Saying he was a "bit cunning" feels like you're underselling what he was doing, and his strength (while notable) wasn't what made him a threat - his strategic mind did. He managed to do what Joker couldn't to both Batman and Gotham at the same time without breaking a sweat.
TDKR Bane is basically the Mutant Leader from...TDKR...um...
In that the defeat of Batman is basically due to him being old and out of shape.
What's amusing is that the film lays out several outs both characters could have taken over each other in one on one fights. For instance, in their first fight Bane's minions surround the area, are heavily armed and essentially could murder Batman at any time. However, when it's shown Batman has knockout Batarangs it renders any physical confrontations he has with Bane as being reckless and stupid - just hit him with that and the fight's done. Yet he only uses these briefly and against nameless thugs. At no point does the film explain or imply why Batman doesn't use them on Bane.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Huh, Google agrees with ya! Weird, coulda sworn it opened with a "two years ago" thing.
I believe it does actually, a brief scene of Gordon giving a speech on Harvey Dent day two years after TDK, then picks up the story proper six years later, also on Harvey Dent Day.
Having rewatched the film recently, everybody is crazy and it's an excellent Batman flick and all-around very fine film.
As a movie... I feel about it much like I do Iron Man 3.
If I knew nothing about the characters other than what I saw in the movies, I would like it more.
Bane is supposed to be strong, intelligent, fiercely cunning. A real match for the Bat. The breaking was a long and well thought out plan by Bane to wear him down and exhaust him.
TDKR Bane is a lacky. Strong, a bit cunning, sure. But still an underling.
The Talia reveal was... meh.
The plan, such as it was, made no sense for Bane as a character, but it did for the League.
And so I watch it, and I can't enjoy it as much, because I'm seeing the character of Bane reduced to a bodyguard for someone that had no real screen time earning their place as the big bad.
Sure, we have the story of her making it out of the prison, but that doesn't make her any kind of threat, just an athletic young girl desperate to escape from a literal hell hole.
All in all, still not terrible. But just not great.
And as a series, the Nolan Trilogy just doesn't work with the DCU they are building, so it makes sense to just ignore most of it and let it stand on its own.
I disagree with the plan making much sense. Heck, the League didn't make much sense period in either of the movies. They're motivation, as stated by the head honcho, is to restore balance when civilization gets all decadent. Which, sure, I guess. But their plan in the first movie is to wipe out Gotham because it's become a crime ridden craphole or something (never mind that their first run at Gotham involved using economic weapons, which probably didn't help the crime ridden crapholeness level any), which seems more like just being a bunch of dicks and leaving the rest of western civilization intact because everyone else is fine, it's just Gotham. Then in the third movie, they're looking to wipe out Gotham despite the fact that it's no longer a crime ridden craphole.
Talia's motivation made sense, but the third movie was basically a derpy revenge plot that tied back to the first movie for no particular good reason. And by good reason I mean something that was meaningful or resonated with me. The tieback was absolutely required for the thing to make any sort of sense.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
TDKR Bane is basically the Mutant Leader from...TDKR...um...
In that the defeat of Batman is basically due to him being old and out of shape.
What's amusing is that the film lays out several outs both characters could have taken over each other in one on one fights. For instance, in their first fight Bane's minions surround the area, are heavily armed and essentially could murder Batman at any time. However, when it's shown Batman has knockout Batarangs it renders any physical confrontations he has with Bane as being reckless and stupid - just hit him with that and the fight's done. Yet he only uses these briefly and against nameless thugs. At no point does the film explain or imply why Batman doesn't use them on Bane.
Or why he never uses his leg prosthetic that gives him brick-wall-breaking kick power.
Can we comment on how perfectly amazing Batman's Batcave password is?
Also I loved how full of references the movie was, to other SF/fantasy staples especially to other Batman/DC movies. "I'm not going to recruit a bunch of villains to fight other villains, that would be stupid."
TDKR Bane is a lacky. Strong, a bit cunning, sure. But still an underling.
Bane wasn't an underling (not that smart underling's can't be cool - RE: Red Grant in From Russia With Love), he was essentially her second and even that is debatable. They did not have a traditional "master/apprentice" dynamic, they were more like equals and
he disobeyed her orders like killing Batman without flinching.
While Talia may have laid out the overall scheme, the details and getting it done seemed to fall on Bane, and I don't think his crew knew about her to begin with.
That's why she keeps up the charade as being Miranda Tate after being captured.
He was a worthy adversary, outwitted and outmuscled Batman on his own turf and he was the brains behind his organization, or at least played a huge role with how to implement it.
Saying he was a "bit cunning" feels like you're underselling what he was doing, and his strength (while notable) wasn't what made him a threat - his strategic mind did. He managed to do what Joker couldn't to both Batman and Gotham at the same time without breaking a sweat.
Eh... the implication at the end was that he was her underling. He didn't stand next to her as an equal. She said what to do, and he listened, kneeling on the floor in subservience.
And while it was true that Bane disobeyed her without seeming too broken up about it... she was also heading off to nuke the whole city, so it didn't even matter. He could kill batman, or both be killed by the bomb, the assumption was they were all dead anyways.
The comic version of Bane never would have done such a thing unless he was playing some part of a larger scheme. This Bane was not. I don't dismiss his capabilities, but they are sorely lacking from what I expected.
He fought an aging Batman who was only recently returned to the job. He had no real fire or passion, and Bane was handily beat when Batman came back. The original bat breaking by Bane was done by Bane to deliberately wear him down, they could have done something similar in this, and not needed the League or bomb plot at all, and I think the movie would have been better for it.
I disagree with the plan making much sense. Heck, the League didn't make much sense period in either of the movies. They're motivation, as stated by the head honcho, is to restore balance when civilization gets all decadent. Which, sure, I guess. But their plan in the first movie is to wipe out Gotham because it's become a crime ridden craphole or something (never mind that their first run at Gotham involved using economic weapons, which probably didn't help the crime ridden crapholeness level any), which seems more like just being a bunch of dicks and leaving the rest of western civilization intact because everyone else is fine, it's just Gotham. Then in the third movie, they're looking to wipe out Gotham despite the fact that it's no longer a crime ridden craphole.
Talia's motivation made sense, but the third movie was basically a derpy revenge plot that tied back to the first movie for no particular good reason. And by good reason I mean something that was meaningful or resonated with me. The tieback was absolutely required for the thing to make any sort of sense.
In terms of the Ras League I'd agree.
But this isn't the Ras league.
It's his daughter finishing what her father set out to do (without regard for if it was needed or not) and also getting revenge on the one who killed him.
It makes perfect sense in that regard because they are a bunch of zealots who are committed to a cause even if it means their death... Talia simply used that to her advantage. Was it dumb she was going to kill herself while going through with the plan? Sure... but obviously she wasn't the most well adjusted person in the world.
So, could it have been better planned? Absolutely. I feel either Talia OR Bane could have had a much better movie and story, just that both together was a bit of a muddled mess.
DC’s Extended Universe will rely on flashbacks and flash-forwards to interweave individual superhero stories following Justice League.
Wonder Woman producer Charles Roven spoke ComicBook.com about the upcoming film and the direction DC and Warner Bros. were headed in regarding the cinematic universe. In an attempt to keep the stories regarding Aquaman, The Flash and Cyborg linear, there will be quite a bit of time jumping to ensure the stories make sense.
“For example, the Justice League movie will take place in a universe that’s post-Batman v Superman, just like Batman v Superman takes place in a universe that’s post-Man of Steel,” Roven said. “When we’re dealing with either The Flash or Aquaman, since they will take place in a universe that has happened after Justice League, the characters and the world will be informed by the movies that preceded them, except that there’s flashbacks or whatever within those particular movies, [and] flashforwards within those particular movies.”
It’s not like flashbacks and flash-forwards are new to the DC Extended Universe. There were a couple of flashbacks in Batman v Superman. The difference, according to Rover, is how the flashbacks are used to tie the characters’ stories into the greater picture. This won’t just be the Flash recalling a time in his childhood. Instead, the Flash will remember his time with the Justice League and that will influence the rest of his narrative in the stand-alone feature.
DC’s Extended Universe will rely on flashbacks and flash-forwards to interweave individual superhero stories following Justice League.
Wonder Woman producer Charles Roven spoke ComicBook.com about the upcoming film and the direction DC and Warner Bros. were headed in regarding the cinematic universe. In an attempt to keep the stories regarding Aquaman, The Flash and Cyborg linear, there will be quite a bit of time jumping to ensure the stories make sense.
“For example, the Justice League movie will take place in a universe that’s post-Batman v Superman, just like Batman v Superman takes place in a universe that’s post-Man of Steel,” Roven said. “When we’re dealing with either The Flash or Aquaman, since they will take place in a universe that has happened after Justice League, the characters and the world will be informed by the movies that preceded them, except that there’s flashbacks or whatever within those particular movies, [and] flashforwards within those particular movies.”
It’s not like flashbacks and flash-forwards are new to the DC Extended Universe. There were a couple of flashbacks in Batman v Superman. The difference, according to Rover, is how the flashbacks are used to tie the characters’ stories into the greater picture. This won’t just be the Flash recalling a time in his childhood. Instead, the Flash will remember his time with the Justice League and that will influence the rest of his narrative in the stand-alone feature.
It's not like they have much wiggle room, after starting with the team up movies. This is pretty much their only recourse.
And, come to think of it, even Man of Steel pulled this stuff. It's a narrative crutch they've been relying on since the start.
There is zero reason why flashbacks, flashforwards, or anything of that ilk would be required. Maybe if they were consistently using flashforwards to setup the evil Superman thing from BvS in order to build to Darkseid or something it might work, but that description just sounds like a hot freaking mess.
Heck, I think the only flashback in the Marvel films was Captain America in The Avengers when they introduced him. The only possible reason I can see for really needing to do this is because they want to do origin stories, and in BvS we're obviously well past everyone's origin.
Bunch of no-talent ass-clowns.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It's not like they have much wiggle room, after starting with the team up movies. This is pretty much their only recourse.
And, come to think of it, even Man of Steel pulled this stuff. It's a narrative crutch they've been relying on since the start.
And it was still considered a pointless addition to the narrative.
Like seriously, let me break this down for people who don't get why this is some advanced film making technique shit that is well above their displayed ability.
When you are building a movie their is a series of events that occur in order to show both the nature of the problem and how it effects the growth of the characters with a clearly defined beginning middle and end. This is called "An Arc", with the events building the drama for the characters and ostensibly provoking an emotional response from the audience.
When you engage in non linear story telling, you need to be able to do this multiple times and also have these timeline arcs match up to form both a coherent narrative and also be fulfilling in their own right; you are now telling 2+stories and you have less time to do it in due to the limitations on film length (typically 90-180 minutes) you have less time for each one.
Like for fucks sakes, have any of these people taken a basic course in film making?
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The nonlinear structure thing is another one of those DC ideas that would actually be very cool and exciting, if only they had not proven themselves to be utterly incapable of doing it well.
Like, in a better world, this idea moves DC further in the direction I always thought they should move--away from Marvel's linear overarching story and more towards their cinematic universe being a place where many different characters, stories, and styles coexist.
Nonlinear storytelling in the right hands can be awesome. It's just that DC isn't the right hands for anything right now.
But it sounds like they don't really mean nonlinear storytelling.
It sounds more like, "These movies come out after Justice League. Therefore they will be set at that point. So we will flashback to before that movie to show origins and/or early adventures."
Posts
Not to mention that it just sort of tosses out any of the history of all the characters it used and filled them in with whatever it felt like. Technically a Batman movie, but change the names and it could've been a film about any vigilante completely unrelated to the Batman franchise.
Seeing as Batman Beyond relies pretty solidly on the Batman history for a number of its beats, the Nolan trilogy and the way it just throws out almost the entirety of Bat-history would not have made a good place to build a Beyond film from.
My biggest issue with it was that it felt like batman wasn't even the protagonist.
Bane's revenge plan was way too convoluted.
like, just have Bane be Ras' son and the whole story becomes a lot tighter
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Batman being retired for 8 years is unnecessary and it seems like they did it just so they could give Blake that backstory about seeing Bruce as an orphan.
Plus, the way the way Batman Begins ended with that Joker card suggests that The Dark Knight takes place a relatively short time after Begins. So Bruce would have only been Batman for a few months at most. And he just retires after that? So he's been retire for like 10 times longer than he was Batman?
I thought Rises was 8 years after Dent.
I believe it does actually, a brief scene of Gordon giving a speech on Harvey Dent day two years after TDK, then picks up the story proper six years later, also on Harvey Dent Day.
Having rewatched the film recently, everybody is crazy and it's an excellent Batman flick and all-around very fine film.
As a movie... I feel about it much like I do Iron Man 3.
If I knew nothing about the characters other than what I saw in the movies, I would like it more.
Bane is supposed to be strong, intelligent, fiercely cunning. A real match for the Bat. The breaking was a long and well thought out plan by Bane to wear him down and exhaust him.
TDKR Bane is a lacky. Strong, a bit cunning, sure. But still an underling.
The Talia reveal was... meh.
The plan, such as it was, made no sense for Bane as a character, but it did for the League.
And so I watch it, and I can't enjoy it as much, because I'm seeing the character of Bane reduced to a bodyguard for someone that had no real screen time earning their place as the big bad.
Sure, we have the story of her making it out of the prison, but that doesn't make her any kind of threat, just an athletic young girl desperate to escape from a literal hell hole.
All in all, still not terrible. But just not great.
And as a series, the Nolan Trilogy just doesn't work with the DCU they are building, so it makes sense to just ignore most of it and let it stand on its own.
Bane wasn't an underling (not that smart underling's can't be cool - RE: Red Grant in From Russia With Love), he was essentially her second and even that is debatable. They did not have a traditional "master/apprentice" dynamic, they were more like equals and
He was a worthy adversary, outwitted and outmuscled Batman on his own turf and he was the brains behind his organization, or at least played a huge role with how to implement it.
Saying he was a "bit cunning" feels like you're underselling what he was doing, and his strength (while notable) wasn't what made him a threat - his strategic mind did. He managed to do what Joker couldn't to both Batman and Gotham at the same time without breaking a sweat.
In that the defeat of Batman is basically due to him being old and out of shape.
Also using the wrong tactics
What's amusing is that the film lays out several outs both characters could have taken over each other in one on one fights. For instance, in their first fight Bane's minions surround the area, are heavily armed and essentially could murder Batman at any time. However, when it's shown Batman has knockout Batarangs it renders any physical confrontations he has with Bane as being reckless and stupid - just hit him with that and the fight's done. Yet he only uses these briefly and against nameless thugs. At no point does the film explain or imply why Batman doesn't use them on Bane.
I disagree with the plan making much sense. Heck, the League didn't make much sense period in either of the movies. They're motivation, as stated by the head honcho, is to restore balance when civilization gets all decadent. Which, sure, I guess. But their plan in the first movie is to wipe out Gotham because it's become a crime ridden craphole or something (never mind that their first run at Gotham involved using economic weapons, which probably didn't help the crime ridden crapholeness level any), which seems more like just being a bunch of dicks and leaving the rest of western civilization intact because everyone else is fine, it's just Gotham. Then in the third movie, they're looking to wipe out Gotham despite the fact that it's no longer a crime ridden craphole.
Or why he never uses his leg prosthetic that gives him brick-wall-breaking kick power.
Can we comment on how perfectly amazing Batman's Batcave password is?
Also I loved how full of references the movie was, to other SF/fantasy staples especially to other Batman/DC movies. "I'm not going to recruit a bunch of villains to fight other villains, that would be stupid."
Eh... the implication at the end was that he was her underling. He didn't stand next to her as an equal. She said what to do, and he listened, kneeling on the floor in subservience.
And while it was true that Bane disobeyed her without seeming too broken up about it... she was also heading off to nuke the whole city, so it didn't even matter. He could kill batman, or both be killed by the bomb, the assumption was they were all dead anyways.
The comic version of Bane never would have done such a thing unless he was playing some part of a larger scheme. This Bane was not. I don't dismiss his capabilities, but they are sorely lacking from what I expected.
He fought an aging Batman who was only recently returned to the job. He had no real fire or passion, and Bane was handily beat when Batman came back. The original bat breaking by Bane was done by Bane to deliberately wear him down, they could have done something similar in this, and not needed the League or bomb plot at all, and I think the movie would have been better for it.
In terms of the Ras League I'd agree.
But this isn't the Ras league.
It's his daughter finishing what her father set out to do (without regard for if it was needed or not) and also getting revenge on the one who killed him.
It makes perfect sense in that regard because they are a bunch of zealots who are committed to a cause even if it means their death... Talia simply used that to her advantage. Was it dumb she was going to kill herself while going through with the plan? Sure... but obviously she wasn't the most well adjusted person in the world.
So, could it have been better planned? Absolutely. I feel either Talia OR Bane could have had a much better movie and story, just that both together was a bit of a muddled mess.
http://www.polygon.com/2017/3/9/14867934/dc-extended-universe-flash-aquaman-justice-league
So yeah, it'll be a convoluted mess from here on out.
They can't even tell a story properly in linear time so what the hell makes them think that they can pull off an eternal sunshine?
Like, Do the folks at WB not realize how poorly recieved their movies are by the general public?
Nooooope.
And, come to think of it, even Man of Steel pulled this stuff. It's a narrative crutch they've been relying on since the start.
He is literally the only successful franchise they've been able to develop for film so...
There is zero reason why flashbacks, flashforwards, or anything of that ilk would be required. Maybe if they were consistently using flashforwards to setup the evil Superman thing from BvS in order to build to Darkseid or something it might work, but that description just sounds like a hot freaking mess.
Heck, I think the only flashback in the Marvel films was Captain America in The Avengers when they introduced him. The only possible reason I can see for really needing to do this is because they want to do origin stories, and in BvS we're obviously well past everyone's origin.
Bunch of no-talent ass-clowns.
And it was still considered a pointless addition to the narrative.
Like seriously, let me break this down for people who don't get why this is some advanced film making technique shit that is well above their displayed ability.
When you are building a movie their is a series of events that occur in order to show both the nature of the problem and how it effects the growth of the characters with a clearly defined beginning middle and end. This is called "An Arc", with the events building the drama for the characters and ostensibly provoking an emotional response from the audience.
When you engage in non linear story telling, you need to be able to do this multiple times and also have these timeline arcs match up to form both a coherent narrative and also be fulfilling in their own right; you are now telling 2+stories and you have less time to do it in due to the limitations on film length (typically 90-180 minutes) you have less time for each one.
Like for fucks sakes, have any of these people taken a basic course in film making?
I'm sure some have read some Cliffs Notes and/or wikipedia articles on it at some point in time.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
This is the worst.
Please stop. Just let it die already. It hurts to live.
Like, in a better world, this idea moves DC further in the direction I always thought they should move--away from Marvel's linear overarching story and more towards their cinematic universe being a place where many different characters, stories, and styles coexist.
Nonlinear storytelling in the right hands can be awesome. It's just that DC isn't the right hands for anything right now.
It sounds more like, "These movies come out after Justice League. Therefore they will be set at that point. So we will flashback to before that movie to show origins and/or early adventures."
It looks alright so far. Though I'm worried it's going to be some excellent action interspersed with incredibly tedious drama akin to BvS.