This version is not said to be a philanthropist. THe mayor says he is anything but. There's no Bruce Wayne, there is only Batman.
He puts on a Bruce Wayne disguise to go to a funeral just so he can carry on an investigation. He's not the Batman we know either, this is a Batman who is completely consumed by his rage and is out beating up anyone and everyone hoping it's gonna make him feel better about the punk who killed his parents, and making criminals afraid of the shadows,
This film is all about how he's been completely blind to the real problems, the high end criminals and the socio-economic problems. He wasn't even involved in the takedown of Maroni in this universe, that was Falcone, he didn't even know about the secret club within a club or that the DA, police chief, and all the top tier people meant to uphold the system were frequenting it. He just wants to punch the problem and the problem is people hurting other people.
He's been as blind as a bat.
The film is about showing that he has been having an influence on the city but not the one he intended. Riddler would have probably done something with or without Batman after coming across that Renewal file because he has the same rage and anger inside, Batman just showed him how to efficiently spread fear. And in turn Batman learns he needs to become something more because he's not been doing what he intended, he's just been venting his rage 24/7 for 2 years.
I don't agree he was reactive, he was actively doing investigations, if not for him the police probably solve those cyphers and riddles far too late. But it's interesting because the Riddler out thinks him, which is what the Riddler should be doing, and ultimately that's how Batman learns. Bale's Batman was always on top, this Batman solves the puzzles but he misses the point of the last riddle and thinks Riddler is after Batman, mistaking the intent that he is, but not for the reasons he thinks.
I like that, Batman always being prepared is a boring version of the character. I don't think it's fair to blame the bomb/flooding deaths on him, the cops didn't solve the last puzzle, Batman did just too late, but he was able to use the knowledge to get out and save what he could. Could he have saved randoms in the narrows? Yes, but he went to stop Riddler's goons very definitively shooting citizens like fish in a barrel.
I like that he's not perfect, he's still learning and doing what one man can do.
Him being ineffectual and not heroic is kind of the whole point? He goes into it being Mr. I Am Vengeance and it doesn't actually do anything, punching people in the face doesn't fix any of Gotham's problems. The whole realization he has at the end of the movie is that he needs to actually, you know, help people and be a figure of justice if he wants to inspire hope in the people of Gotham and improve anything even a little bit.
It was billed as 'not an origin story' but it's absolutely an origin story, we're just not seeing the Waynes get shot in an alley for the 950th time.
This actually leads to my biggest problem with the film, ie the ending.
The end is basically "Batman failed, but he learned a lesson." and somehow framing that as a win seems really weird. Like, earlier in the film Selina is pretty on the nose when she says "I don't care about Riddler. Everyone he's targeting had it coming, and I'm sick of this town revolving around the feelings of rich white people." and I found that to be a really good point. I figured that from there we'd go with Bruce deciding that helping regular people was more important than saving his family's name or something along those lines. But instead Riddler's bombs go off and thousands of regular folks die while Batman rushes to save the Mayor, and yeah he helps some folks there, but having the film say at the end 'well, thousand are dead and homeless, but the rich white guy came to terms with his issues' and frame that as a win felt really off to me.
Sort of agree.
One of the big issues with Batman is that at the core, he is a rich white guy that spends his time and money by going down to the worst slums of Gotham and beating up poor people. Sure, we get told he is a huge philanthropist, but for all that, its the Batman persona we spend time watching. It undermines the character.
If they decide to focus him on going after the real bad guys of Gotham, I can see it work. As Pratchett says: Living in a slum property is 9/10 proof that you are a devious criminal. Owning a dozen slum Properties makes you a member of high society. Batman even has a villain group to fight: The Court of Owls.
If you go into any superhero story of any kind with axes to grind against vigilantism, you are just gonna come up short every time. It's like going to a Star Wars/Trek film and complaining about the physics. And basically the same thing for going into a film thinking it's ok for different vigilantes to murder people.
Him being ineffectual and not heroic is kind of the whole point? He goes into it being Mr. I Am Vengeance and it doesn't actually do anything, punching people in the face doesn't fix any of Gotham's problems. The whole realization he has at the end of the movie is that he needs to actually, you know, help people and be a figure of justice if he wants to inspire hope in the people of Gotham and improve anything even a little bit.
It was billed as 'not an origin story' but it's absolutely an origin story, we're just not seeing the Waynes get shot in an alley for the 950th time.
This actually leads to my biggest problem with the film, ie the ending.
The end is basically "Batman failed, but he learned a lesson." and somehow framing that as a win seems really weird. Like, earlier in the film Selina is pretty on the nose when she says "I don't care about Riddler. Everyone he's targeting had it coming, and I'm sick of this town revolving around the feelings of rich white people." and I found that to be a really good point. I figured that from there we'd go with Bruce deciding that helping regular people was more important than saving his family's name or something along those lines. But instead Riddler's bombs go off and thousands of regular folks die while Batman rushes to save the Mayor, and yeah he helps some folks there, but having the film say at the end 'well, thousand are dead and homeless, but the rich white guy came to terms with his issues' and frame that as a win felt really off to me.
Sort of agree.
One of the big issues with Batman is that at the core, he is a rich white guy that spends his time and money by going down to the worst slums of Gotham and beating up poor people. Sure, we get told he is a huge philanthropist, but for all that, its the Batman persona we spend time watching. It undermines the character.
If they decide to focus him on going after the real bad guys of Gotham, I can see it work. As Pratchett says: Living in a slum property is 9/10 proof that you are a devious criminal. Owning a dozen slum Properties makes you a member of high society. Batman even has a villain group to fight: The Court of Owls.
If you go into any superhero story of any kind with axes to grind against vigilantism, you are just gonna come up short every time. It's like going to a Star Wars/Trek film and complaining about the physics. And basically the same thing for going into a film thinking it's ok for different vigilantes to murder people.
I've been struggling a lot with superhero media in general lately, as well as anything that could be called "copaganda".
Batman in the general sense is not just some rich guy going into the slums to beat up poor people. A huge portion of his rogue's gallery is made up of people who are powerful and privileged and trying to blow up/take over the city and hurt the people in it. To act like all he does is run around in the narrows punching purse snatchers and bike thieves is a deliberately bad take on the character.
Batman in the general sense is not just some rich guy going into the slums to beat up poor people. A huge portion of his rogue's gallery is made up of people who are powerful and privileged and trying to blow up/take over the city and hurt the people in it. To act like all he does is run around in the narrows punching purse snatchers and bike thieves is a deliberately bad take on the character.
That's true of the general Batman mythos since... oh... probably the Adam West era.
Adam West Batman kinda codified that Batman didnt spend his non-Bruce Wayne time hanging around in alleys, but rather was focused on taking down high profile individuals that the police couldn't, or wouldn't, take down. In the 60s depiction he was essentially a consultant on call for specialist situations via the bat phone, and this set the stage for Batman targeting individuals rather than generalized "crime fighting".
Post-60s Batman milled around a bit, but in general settled for mobsters and crimelords when an explicit "supervillain" wasn't running around. Batman's interest in street crime was more for interrogation and informants (his powers of interrogation getting locked into the mythos) and essentially working his way up the chain. Nolan's version touched on this, where as part of the "finding his inner Batman" journey he mentions the first time he had to steal food because he was hungry, and how that molded his view of people who commit crime out of desperation or circumstance.
Batman hasn't been about fighting crime via purse snatchers and bike thieves for about 50 years. If anything, focusing on neighborhood crime is Spiderman's gig. A Batman who spends his time trying to punch crime into submission is very much a deviation from the norm.
Him being ineffectual and not heroic is kind of the whole point? He goes into it being Mr. I Am Vengeance and it doesn't actually do anything, punching people in the face doesn't fix any of Gotham's problems. The whole realization he has at the end of the movie is that he needs to actually, you know, help people and be a figure of justice if he wants to inspire hope in the people of Gotham and improve anything even a little bit.
It was billed as 'not an origin story' but it's absolutely an origin story, we're just not seeing the Waynes get shot in an alley for the 950th time.
This actually leads to my biggest problem with the film, ie the ending.
The end is basically "Batman failed, but he learned a lesson." and somehow framing that as a win seems really weird. Like, earlier in the film Selina is pretty on the nose when she says "I don't care about Riddler. Everyone he's targeting had it coming, and I'm sick of this town revolving around the feelings of rich white people." and I found that to be a really good point. I figured that from there we'd go with Bruce deciding that helping regular people was more important than saving his family's name or something along those lines. But instead Riddler's bombs go off and thousands of regular folks die while Batman rushes to save the Mayor, and yeah he helps some folks there, but having the film say at the end 'well, thousand are dead and homeless, but the rich white guy came to terms with his issues' and frame that as a win felt really off to me.
Sort of agree.
One of the big issues with Batman is that at the core, he is a rich white guy that spends his time and money by going down to the worst slums of Gotham and beating up poor people. Sure, we get told he is a huge philanthropist, but for all that, its the Batman persona we spend time watching. It undermines the character.
If they decide to focus him on going after the real bad guys of Gotham, I can see it work. As Pratchett says: Living in a slum property is 9/10 proof that you are a devious criminal. Owning a dozen slum Properties makes you a member of high society. Batman even has a villain group to fight: The Court of Owls.
If you go into any superhero story of any kind with axes to grind against vigilantism, you are just gonna come up short every time. It's like going to a Star Wars/Trek film and complaining about the physics. And basically the same thing for going into a film thinking it's ok for different vigilantes to murder people.
Not really. Its only Batman that has this particular angle. Spider-Man doesn't. Tony Stark doesn't. A big part of the Iron Man character in MCU is that Tony Stark isn't doing the Iron Man thing because he is on a crusade. He is Iron Man because he thinks its fun. He enjoys being Iron Man. When he feels its no longer fun, he starts to look for a way out. He almost quits several times, only staying Iron Man to fiks his previous mistakes or to fight a real danger.
Spider-Man started becoming a hero because he felt that his powers forced him to be responsible for the protection of others. Its probably an undercurrent in all Spider-Man movies that Peter Parker would be happier/Richer if he feel responsible to be Spider-Man. If he could help the world in another way, he would. If he could give up being Spider-Man without people getting hurt he would.
Batman would still travel to the slums. If Batman's Rogues gallery wasn't there, he would find a mugger to beat up. If Crime vanished from Gotham, he would move to Bludhaven and continue there.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Rewatched Grosse Pointe Blank and its just a charming movie about an amoral killer who might turn a leaf but probably not? For a mid 90's pseudo rom com the fight scenes are surpringly well shot and acted. Like Cusack's fight with Benny the Jet feels full of weight for the short fight it is.
A Benny Urquidez/Cusack fight having weight being labelled surprising is a bit like calling rain on your wedding day ironic.
Well for the way the movie is up until that point, and how 90's fights are like choreographed. Like each blow in the fight looks like it hurts and was delivered with purpose.
The fight works for me because of how limited it is, as far as how short is and now few punches and kicks are actually thrown. I'm not sure how exactly in the choreography they did it, but for whatever reason the way they handled themselves just when guarding really sold the idea that the first person who landed a solid hit was going to win, which let them focus more on defense and feints while still keeping it interesting.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+2
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
I think what makes films from the 90s visceral is how physical they are, especially when you use practical effects, or most importantly, non-human characters in costumes, make up, or top shelf puppetry.
You can feel that slap, because Shredder literally slaps Splinter across the jaw. You could never hit a real actor like that.
+4
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
This whole thing just goes to show something I said earlier, and I will now make the convoluted and unconvincing case why.
Or a computer image.
+11
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Mocking people with disabilities or conditions is good.
I watched Four Rooms for the first time all the way through. I watched the Tarantino portion years back but watching it I learned:
a) this came out in '95, not '99 or '00 like I thought
b) Guy Ritchie wasn't a part of this like I thought
It suffers from that quintessential mid 90's Grunge/Fruitopia/Lane Smith art of rebelling just to rebel, where things are wacky just cuz gawsh, mom, because we eat what we like! But there is good there, it just takes until the last half to really work. Allison Anders did the first part, which was meh, instead of Ritchie like I thought (I think it was because of the Madonna connection that made me think that like it was proto-Swept Away), the second part by Alexandre Rockwell is the weakest, Robert Rodriguez does dark comedy well and kids actually beating each other up like kids do is appreciated and a good shock of a reveal at the end, and Tarantino's really felt 90's Tarantino, almost to the point of Whedon-esque Bendis speak parody. I think what really made the Tarantino part weak was Kathy Griffin talking on the phone. You just come off Marissa Tomei really selling the stoner being insightful, but then Griffin is really robotic and relying too much on the "cool" of Tarantino's dialogue to sell the bit, which just doesn't work. For the issues I had with Jungle Julia in Death Proof she was much better in delivery. It really shows that the snappy dialogue doesn't work if it's not sold by the actor.
Ambitious but half rubbish, I'd like to see something similar done these days with less 'tude from the likes of Lord & Miller, Paul King, maybe Matt & Trey.
Can't believe people are talking about this while the [bad thing elsewhere] is still ongoing. This makes you trivial and me wise.
Only thing I remember about Four rooms is Anthony Banderas appearing with his wife like being drug by the leg to a room on fire and he says dead pan "Did they misbehave?" That and the end of the movie with the lighter flicking roth chopping that dudes finger off and taking off with the money.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Can't believe people are talking about this while the [bad thing elsewhere] is still ongoing. This makes you trivial and me wise.
I mean I don't want performers to get legit injured for a stupid take either, but there's a middle ground here.
I do remember for Fight club they threw that stunt guy down the stairs like 3 or 4 times? And then Fincher admitted they took the first take, just brutal.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I mean I don't want performers to get legit injured for a stupid take either, but there's a middle ground here.
I do remember for Fight club they threw that stunt guy down the stairs like 3 or 4 times? And then Fincher admitted they took the first take, just brutal.
or the case of that xXx stunt which the person parasailing under a bridge
They gotit in one take. Director wanted a second one and the stuntperson died doing it
I mean I don't want performers to get legit injured for a stupid take either, but there's a middle ground here.
I do remember for Fight club they threw that stunt guy down the stairs like 3 or 4 times? And then Fincher admitted they took the first take, just brutal.
or the case of that xXx stunt which the person parasailing under a bridge
They gotit in one take. Director wanted a second one and the stuntperson died doing it
Seriously? Jesus christ
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Him being ineffectual and not heroic is kind of the whole point? He goes into it being Mr. I Am Vengeance and it doesn't actually do anything, punching people in the face doesn't fix any of Gotham's problems. The whole realization he has at the end of the movie is that he needs to actually, you know, help people and be a figure of justice if he wants to inspire hope in the people of Gotham and improve anything even a little bit.
It was billed as 'not an origin story' but it's absolutely an origin story, we're just not seeing the Waynes get shot in an alley for the 950th time.
This actually leads to my biggest problem with the film, ie the ending.
The end is basically "Batman failed, but he learned a lesson." and somehow framing that as a win seems really weird. Like, earlier in the film Selina is pretty on the nose when she says "I don't care about Riddler. Everyone he's targeting had it coming, and I'm sick of this town revolving around the feelings of rich white people." and I found that to be a really good point. I figured that from there we'd go with Bruce deciding that helping regular people was more important than saving his family's name or something along those lines. But instead Riddler's bombs go off and thousands of regular folks die while Batman rushes to save the Mayor, and yeah he helps some folks there, but having the film say at the end 'well, thousand are dead and homeless, but the rich white guy came to terms with his issues' and frame that as a win felt really off to me.
Sort of agree.
One of the big issues with Batman is that at the core, he is a rich white guy that spends his time and money by going down to the worst slums of Gotham and beating up poor people. Sure, we get told he is a huge philanthropist, but for all that, its the Batman persona we spend time watching. It undermines the character.
If they decide to focus him on going after the real bad guys of Gotham, I can see it work. As Pratchett says: Living in a slum property is 9/10 proof that you are a devious criminal. Owning a dozen slum Properties makes you a member of high society. Batman even has a villain group to fight: The Court of Owls.
If you go into any superhero story of any kind with axes to grind against vigilantism, you are just gonna come up short every time. It's like going to a Star Wars/Trek film and complaining about the physics. And basically the same thing for going into a film thinking it's ok for different vigilantes to murder people.
Not really. Its only Batman that has this particular angle. Spider-Man doesn't. Tony Stark doesn't. A big part of the Iron Man character in MCU is that Tony Stark isn't doing the Iron Man thing because he is on a crusade. He is Iron Man because he thinks its fun. He enjoys being Iron Man. When he feels its no longer fun, he starts to look for a way out. He almost quits several times, only staying Iron Man to fiks his previous mistakes or to fight a real danger.
Spider-Man started becoming a hero because he felt that his powers forced him to be responsible for the protection of others. Its probably an undercurrent in all Spider-Man movies that Peter Parker would be happier/Richer if he feel responsible to be Spider-Man. If he could help the world in another way, he would. If he could give up being Spider-Man without people getting hurt he would.
Batman would still travel to the slums. If Batman's Rogues gallery wasn't there, he would find a mugger to beat up. If Crime vanished from Gotham, he would move to Bludhaven and continue there.
All the heroes have this angle. Basically all superheroes are fundamentally vigilante fantasies. Often with the hero in question using violence to solve petty crime problems.
You say Spiderman doesn't and that's just completely wrong. Spiderman wanders the streets beating up random muggers and whatever. That's always been a part of his character. Tony Stark is a rich guy who uses his fancy technology to declare himself publicly above the law (with variations on how this plays out depending on the story) This is part of the superhero fantasy. Batman is no different.
Iron Man 2 openly deals with the idea that Tony Stark is keeping his advanced technology to himself and working outside the control of democratically elected governments. If Elon Musk was running around in real life in a supersuit conducting his own foreign policy people would think that was terrible and he should be subject to the law. If someone was wandering the streets beating up criminals like Spiderman does we'd call them a cop.
But in a comic-book story, we are cheering Tony Stark and Spiderman and Batman on. That's just part of what you have to accept going into these stories. That's part of the setup of the genre that you buy into by going to see anything in that genre. Or at least anything that's not trying to deconstruct that element of the genre.
I have no take, unlike the rest of you stupid peasants, you disordered rabble, you celebrity-obsessed rubes.
Interestingly I think the MCU has wisely side-stepped a lot of this by avoiding the whole thing where superheroes fight crime. And especially low-level crime. Their superpowered heroes are mostly running around fighting world-threatening dangers instead. It's a good choice for the kind of mood they are aiming for.
Can't believe people are talking about this while the [bad thing elsewhere] is still ongoing. This makes you trivial and me wise.
I like super hero media because its less dour than most of hollywood's standard faire. Its hard to just find a good person doing good things movie outside of Tom Hanks and Marvel
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think there's a very pointed Batman film you could make were Batman isn't fighting street crime or mobsters, he's fighting the corrupt cops, politician, and other rich white folks who rule Gotham. Gordan is literally the only decent cop in whole city and even he's mostly given up before finding Batman. He uses Bruce Wayne as his way to hobnob with all these monsters and find out their secrets because he's one of them, of course they'll chat about the horrible shit they've done at the country club over brandy.
Both Nolan and Reeve have hints of it in their Batman but they never go all the way.
I think there's a very pointed Batman film you could make were Batman isn't fighting street crime or mobsters, he's fighting the corrupt cops, politician, and other rich white folks who rule Gotham. Gordan is literally the only decent cop in whole city and even he's mostly given up before finding Batman. He uses Bruce Wayne as his way to hobnob with all these monsters and find out their secrets because he's one of them, of course they'll chat about the horrible shit they've done at the country club over brandy.
Both Nolan and Reeve have hints of it in their Batman but they never go all the way.
didn't DKR basically have a climax where Batman and his cop allies beat up Occupy Wall Street protesters?
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I think there's a very pointed Batman film you could make were Batman isn't fighting street crime or mobsters, he's fighting the corrupt cops, politician, and other rich white folks who rule Gotham. Gordan is literally the only decent cop in whole city and even he's mostly given up before finding Batman. He uses Bruce Wayne as his way to hobnob with all these monsters and find out their secrets because he's one of them, of course they'll chat about the horrible shit they've done at the country club over brandy.
Both Nolan and Reeve have hints of it in their Batman but they never go all the way.
didn't DKR basically have a climax where Batman and his cop allies beat up Occupy Wall Street protesters?
I honestly couldn't tell you because that was such a disappointing film to end that trilogy that my brain erased virtually all memory of it.
I think there's a very pointed Batman film you could make were Batman isn't fighting street crime or mobsters, he's fighting the corrupt cops, politician, and other rich white folks who rule Gotham. Gordan is literally the only decent cop in whole city and even he's mostly given up before finding Batman. He uses Bruce Wayne as his way to hobnob with all these monsters and find out their secrets because he's one of them, of course they'll chat about the horrible shit they've done at the country club over brandy.
Both Nolan and Reeve have hints of it in their Batman but they never go all the way.
didn't DKR basically have a climax where Batman and his cop allies beat up Occupy Wall Street protesters?
If by "Occupy Wall Street protestors" you mean "mercenaries and Arkham inmates armed with assault weapons and tanks", then yes. It's almost a meme in itself how hilariously outgunned the cops are for that scene.
DKR got caught up in some weird timing, because OWS was happening and Bane was using generic "Rise up!" rhetoric as a cover for his real agenda (similar to how Hans Gruber etc posed as terrorists when they were really thieves). Nolan and Goyer are on record that the faux uprising was already in the script when OWS happened, and none of the scenes was intended to be commentary on actual events.
The difference between Batman and Spider-Man is that Peter has to fight criminals and Bruce gets to.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Both of them choose to be vigilantes with their power and go around beating up common criminals. It ain't like Spiderman is doing it to pay the fucking bills or something. In fact the most common Spiderman story is that his vigilantism actively impedes the rest of his life. And of course Tony Stark, the other example given, is independently wealth like Batman.
You can't get around the bedrock of superhero stories. They inherently accept the idea that vigilantes using violence are the good guys or they are actively subverting that because it's a bedrock assumption of the genre.
I think there's a very pointed Batman film you could make were Batman isn't fighting street crime or mobsters, he's fighting the corrupt cops, politician, and other rich white folks who rule Gotham. Gordan is literally the only decent cop in whole city and even he's mostly given up before finding Batman. He uses Bruce Wayne as his way to hobnob with all these monsters and find out their secrets because he's one of them, of course they'll chat about the horrible shit they've done at the country club over brandy.
Both Nolan and Reeve have hints of it in their Batman but they never go all the way.
didn't DKR basically have a climax where Batman and his cop allies beat up Occupy Wall Street protesters?
No. They were faux-populist terrorists. Bane says a lot of shit about fighting oppression and what not but in the end his "revolution" is just a ton of violence and he's planning to kill everyone anyway. He just wants to make everyone suffer, on TV for everyone to see, first.
Within the themes of the film he is the false messiah. Possessing the same powers as Batman and promising salvation but it's all bullshit and he brings nothing but death.
The difference between Batman and Spider-Man is that Peter has to fight criminals and Bruce gets to.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Both of them choose to be vigilantes with their power and go around beating up common criminals. It ain't like Spiderman is doing it to pay the fucking bills or something. In fact the most common Spiderman story is that his vigilantism actively impedes the rest of his life. And of course Tony Stark, the other example given, is independently wealth like Batman.
You can't get around the bedrock of superhero stories. They inherently accept the idea that vigilantes using violence are the good guys or they are actively subverting that because it's a bedrock assumption of the genre.
It's the difference in their mens rea. Spider-Man fights crime as a compulsion. He's afraid that if he doesn't, he will be complicit to the crimes he doesn't stop. He's the embodiment of guilt and obsessive compulsive thinking.
Batman fights crime to slake his thirst for vengeance. He's the avatar of RAGE. Helping Gotham is his excuse to do what he does, not his goal.
Ironman is trying to undo his own sins. He legally made a fortune selling weapons to horrible people, now he's using his fortune to illegally reverse the damage he's done. Tony is corporate responsibility.
Everybody is on board that you have to accept the vigilantes in these movies, that's not especially insightful. The Batman is interesting because it examines the part of the character that's usually glossed over, which brings him up to parity with the other examples.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That's not actually why Batman does anything, that's just generally his impetus for becoming Batman. Most Batman media that's about that is about how that is neither particularly helpful or effective.
+4
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Violence whenever someone says something we don't like is good.
The difference between Batman and Spider-Man is that Peter has to fight criminals and Bruce gets to.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Both of them choose to be vigilantes with their power and go around beating up common criminals. It ain't like Spiderman is doing it to pay the fucking bills or something. In fact the most common Spiderman story is that his vigilantism actively impedes the rest of his life. And of course Tony Stark, the other example given, is independently wealth like Batman.
You can't get around the bedrock of superhero stories. They inherently accept the idea that vigilantes using violence are the good guys or they are actively subverting that because it's a bedrock assumption of the genre.
I understand the sentiment. Peter wants a normal life where he gets to have fun. But he has his powers, which means that his is obliged to help people. "With great power comes great responsibility." At the end of the day Peter is who he is and Spider-man is the mask.
Batman wants to go around beating up thugs. He wants to get violent and beat the shit out of criminals. This is who he is. He transformed himself into a weapon through the power of money, money, money, and perseverance. At the end of the day, Batman is who he is and Bruce is the mask.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Can't believe people are talking about this while the [bad thing elsewhere] is still ongoing. This makes you trivial and me wise.
In the end it doesn't matter why Batman or Spiderman do what they do. They're a force for good. Not to mention the why will change all the time, even in the same story.
+3
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Mocking people with disabilities or conditions is good.
Shin Godzilla was 7/10 but it is definitely parts better than the whole and it feels really lost in the first thirty minutes, like an SNL skit gone on too long that messes up the cleverness (from when the show was funny mind you, not now, we're talking 1992 season or something). And as the director is Hideaki Anno way too much is borrowed from his Evangelion work, to the point where I was associating the characters with their animoo counterparts (main guy is Gendo before going crazy, Misato is American envoy, nerd girl is Ritsuko). But I do give the movie major props for nailing the ending, it actually worked and considering this comes from the guy who wet farted the Rebuild Eva movies after a ten year delay, well looking back I guess Shin Godzilla used up Anno's good ending card he was holding a radioactive dab.
Obvious connections to the 2011 tsunami and Fukushima, it did feel like it was lashing out too much at everyone in the beginning. And that's somewhat understandable if this was made in 2012, but in 2016, nah brah, do some push ups and get some sun, even though I do appreciate the tone of Japan trying to shake off the paralysis of being this vassal state for everyone else. The satire of the bureaucracy is too obvious and loses the punch, and you can't really blame the US on this one but you kinda try in the beginning even as we help out in the end. There's also the sense of Godzilla just cheating halfway through the film like the little armed bitch he is because he's scared of of how kawaii B-2's are. And I'm gonna say this, the new design was hella weak in trying to copy but then fail to stand alone against the original design. The mentioned Evangelion connections get too much too; there's a part after the second Godzilla phase where it copies this wonderfully perfect scene from Eva 2.0, and the military firing and having no effect, while supposed to be an homage to the old movies, also felt too much like when Angels would show up. It also doesn't help that Decisive Battle is played about 6 times with a different version each time, you could've at least used Misato's theme or Barefoot In the Park.
But the ending is great, totally nails it, and the main cast is solid. American envoy lady has the necessary swagger but the issue of speaking english well but never the way an actual American-raised half japanese person would speak, especially from a political family, but that's an issue across every foreign film when they need english speakers. The camerawork is good and doesn't feel cheap like is the case with most japanese movies, and the use of first person perspective really worked here to add tension and save on money. The special effects range from solid, Pacific Rim smart and use of dust to hide detail to "damn yo, China does better flame effects." Oh, and they actually show Godzilla without being p-word teasing twats about it. Easily the best recent Godzilla movie, take some pride Japan, stand out on your own and out of our shadow, just don't try anything again
In the end it doesn't matter why Batman or Spiderman do what they do. They're a force for good. Not to mention the why will change all the time, even in the same story.
The best part of The Batman - and the further I get from it, the more I appreciate it, though I still think it was an hour too long - is how Batman, at least in the beginning, specifically isn't a force for good. He's a rich weirdo who goes around beating up petty thugs because beating up thugs feels good. He tells himself he's doing good as justification, but the movie goes out of it's way to show that he just likes punching people he sees as subhuman. The citizens he's ostensibly saving don't feel particularly saved, he's not really preventing crimes, he's just taking his rage out on bad guys.
It's telling that the one time he's conspicuously heroic is when he's leading people out of a flood in a manner that could be done by just about anyone.
Arguably, the central conflict of the movie wouldn't even exist if there was no Batman. Riddler is a direct response to the existence of Batman. At best, the fact that Batman exists doesn't cause overt harm in balance, but I think a strong argument could be made that Gotham would be better off if he never existed. It would certainly be better off if he just used his fortune for philanthropy.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
In the end it doesn't matter why Batman or Spiderman do what they do. They're a force for good. Not to mention the why will change all the time, even in the same story.
The best part of The Batman - and the further I get from it, the more I appreciate it, though I still think it was an hour too long - is how Batman, at least in the beginning, specifically isn't a force for good. He's a rich weirdo who goes around beating up petty thugs because beating up thugs feels good. He tells himself he's doing good as justification, but the movie goes out of it's way to show that he just likes punching people he sees as subhuman. The citizens he's ostensibly saving don't feel particularly saved, he's not really preventing crimes, he's just taking his rage out on bad guys.
It's telling that the one time he's conspicuously heroic is when he's leading people out of a flood in a manner that could be done by just about anyone.
Arguably, the central conflict of the movie wouldn't even exist if there was no Batman. Riddler is a direct response to the existence of Batman. At best, the fact that Batman exists doesn't cause overt harm in balance, but I think a strong argument could be made that Gotham would be better off if he never existed. It would certainly be better off if he just used his fortune for philanthropy.
I mean, a main part of the plot is
even if he tried that, it wouldn't actually effect anything
Fencingsax on
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I’m just so over the moon we finally have a Batman movie that acknowledges the major problematic aspects of an insane billionaire beating up the poor and mentally-ill.
I hope in the next installment we see him expand his operational resources a bit. One of the interesting facets of the character in this film is that he just isn’t a serious person; he believes he is, but ultimately he sees he’s just a self-serving person who has convinced themselves they’re serious, as that’s what entitled jerks do.
Can't believe people are talking about this while the [bad thing elsewhere] is still ongoing. This makes you trivial and me wise.
Again, even if Batman gets an orgasm for hitting people he's not beating up random people or people who have mental issues and are just trying to watch TV. He goes after criminals usually in the act.
No ones (on either side) economic status or mental state matters when they're beating etc you. As presented Batman not being there would just leave more victims, not less.
This reads like if Batman was poor then it all be better. Or if his criminals were only rich people.
This whole thing just goes to show something I said earlier, and I will now make the convoluted and unconvincing case why.
I think the issue is that, in the movie, you can just declare that every thug is totally a big jerk who was raised by a loving family and mugs people because he just likes being mean. But in the real world, things are generally more complicated, and it's hard to divorce what we're seeing from how we know the world works.
Much like in copaganda, where the cops are always good guys and they just have to rough up the bad guys because the bad guys definitely know something and it's a good thing they violated their rights because otherwise little Tina wouldn't get saved from the evil kidnapper. Okay, sure, but we know that the real world cops would be bashing the heads of random guys who know fuckall mostly because they just dig power and abuse, and so it comes off a little sour when you really think about it, even if Justified is a really excellent show.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+8
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
From what I can remember, in this latest movie Batman is far from beating up poor people just to get off.
The first fight we see him in, he's clearly fighting several assholes intent on beating up a total nobody who happened to be on the same train as them while also pressuring a recruit into doing it. None of the assholes gets attacked without being the aggressor, and the recruit that won't hurt the man is left unhurt. When entering the club, the twins at the door attack him first. The Riddlerites in the catwalks are all on the verge of committing mass murder when Batman attacks.
Yeah, his original motivations are lousy, but he picks valid targets to fight and he's not causing excessive injury or harm beyond what the situation calls for; the one Riddlerite he ground-pounds on was literally there to murder innocents and was intent on bloodily murdering Selina only moments before, and Batman still held back from killing him. This Batman certainly isn't haunting the alleyways, intent on crippling starving homeless people breaking into stores for food or money.
Posts
This film is all about how he's been completely blind to the real problems, the high end criminals and the socio-economic problems. He wasn't even involved in the takedown of Maroni in this universe, that was Falcone, he didn't even know about the secret club within a club or that the DA, police chief, and all the top tier people meant to uphold the system were frequenting it. He just wants to punch the problem and the problem is people hurting other people.
He's been as blind as a bat.
The film is about showing that he has been having an influence on the city but not the one he intended. Riddler would have probably done something with or without Batman after coming across that Renewal file because he has the same rage and anger inside, Batman just showed him how to efficiently spread fear. And in turn Batman learns he needs to become something more because he's not been doing what he intended, he's just been venting his rage 24/7 for 2 years.
I don't agree he was reactive, he was actively doing investigations, if not for him the police probably solve those cyphers and riddles far too late. But it's interesting because the Riddler out thinks him, which is what the Riddler should be doing, and ultimately that's how Batman learns. Bale's Batman was always on top, this Batman solves the puzzles but he misses the point of the last riddle and thinks Riddler is after Batman, mistaking the intent that he is, but not for the reasons he thinks.
I like that, Batman always being prepared is a boring version of the character. I don't think it's fair to blame the bomb/flooding deaths on him, the cops didn't solve the last puzzle, Batman did just too late, but he was able to use the knowledge to get out and save what he could. Could he have saved randoms in the narrows? Yes, but he went to stop Riddler's goons very definitively shooting citizens like fish in a barrel.
I like that he's not perfect, he's still learning and doing what one man can do.
If you go into any superhero story of any kind with axes to grind against vigilantism, you are just gonna come up short every time. It's like going to a Star Wars/Trek film and complaining about the physics. And basically the same thing for going into a film thinking it's ok for different vigilantes to murder people.
I've been struggling a lot with superhero media in general lately, as well as anything that could be called "copaganda".
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
Adam West Batman kinda codified that Batman didnt spend his non-Bruce Wayne time hanging around in alleys, but rather was focused on taking down high profile individuals that the police couldn't, or wouldn't, take down. In the 60s depiction he was essentially a consultant on call for specialist situations via the bat phone, and this set the stage for Batman targeting individuals rather than generalized "crime fighting".
Post-60s Batman milled around a bit, but in general settled for mobsters and crimelords when an explicit "supervillain" wasn't running around. Batman's interest in street crime was more for interrogation and informants (his powers of interrogation getting locked into the mythos) and essentially working his way up the chain. Nolan's version touched on this, where as part of the "finding his inner Batman" journey he mentions the first time he had to steal food because he was hungry, and how that molded his view of people who commit crime out of desperation or circumstance.
Batman hasn't been about fighting crime via purse snatchers and bike thieves for about 50 years. If anything, focusing on neighborhood crime is Spiderman's gig. A Batman who spends his time trying to punch crime into submission is very much a deviation from the norm.
Not really. Its only Batman that has this particular angle. Spider-Man doesn't. Tony Stark doesn't. A big part of the Iron Man character in MCU is that Tony Stark isn't doing the Iron Man thing because he is on a crusade. He is Iron Man because he thinks its fun. He enjoys being Iron Man. When he feels its no longer fun, he starts to look for a way out. He almost quits several times, only staying Iron Man to fiks his previous mistakes or to fight a real danger.
Spider-Man started becoming a hero because he felt that his powers forced him to be responsible for the protection of others. Its probably an undercurrent in all Spider-Man movies that Peter Parker would be happier/Richer if he feel responsible to be Spider-Man. If he could help the world in another way, he would. If he could give up being Spider-Man without people getting hurt he would.
Batman would still travel to the slums. If Batman's Rogues gallery wasn't there, he would find a mugger to beat up. If Crime vanished from Gotham, he would move to Bludhaven and continue there.
The fight works for me because of how limited it is, as far as how short is and now few punches and kicks are actually thrown. I'm not sure how exactly in the choreography they did it, but for whatever reason the way they handled themselves just when guarding really sold the idea that the first person who landed a solid hit was going to win, which let them focus more on defense and feints while still keeping it interesting.
You can feel that slap, because Shredder literally slaps Splinter across the jaw. You could never hit a real actor like that.
a) this came out in '95, not '99 or '00 like I thought
b) Guy Ritchie wasn't a part of this like I thought
It suffers from that quintessential mid 90's Grunge/Fruitopia/Lane Smith art of rebelling just to rebel, where things are wacky just cuz gawsh, mom, because we eat what we like! But there is good there, it just takes until the last half to really work. Allison Anders did the first part, which was meh, instead of Ritchie like I thought (I think it was because of the Madonna connection that made me think that like it was proto-Swept Away), the second part by Alexandre Rockwell is the weakest, Robert Rodriguez does dark comedy well and kids actually beating each other up like kids do is appreciated and a good shock of a reveal at the end, and Tarantino's really felt 90's Tarantino, almost to the point of Whedon-esque Bendis speak parody. I think what really made the Tarantino part weak was Kathy Griffin talking on the phone. You just come off Marissa Tomei really selling the stoner being insightful, but then Griffin is really robotic and relying too much on the "cool" of Tarantino's dialogue to sell the bit, which just doesn't work. For the issues I had with Jungle Julia in Death Proof she was much better in delivery. It really shows that the snappy dialogue doesn't work if it's not sold by the actor.
Ambitious but half rubbish, I'd like to see something similar done these days with less 'tude from the likes of Lord & Miller, Paul King, maybe Matt & Trey.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Just slip the stunt performer an extra 50, like in the good old days!
or hell, just work for Sam Raimi. Bruce Campbell's got some stories...
I do remember for Fight club they threw that stunt guy down the stairs like 3 or 4 times? And then Fincher admitted they took the first take, just brutal.
pleasepaypreacher.net
or the case of that xXx stunt which the person parasailing under a bridge
They gotit in one take. Director wanted a second one and the stuntperson died doing it
Seriously? Jesus christ
pleasepaypreacher.net
All the heroes have this angle. Basically all superheroes are fundamentally vigilante fantasies. Often with the hero in question using violence to solve petty crime problems.
You say Spiderman doesn't and that's just completely wrong. Spiderman wanders the streets beating up random muggers and whatever. That's always been a part of his character. Tony Stark is a rich guy who uses his fancy technology to declare himself publicly above the law (with variations on how this plays out depending on the story) This is part of the superhero fantasy. Batman is no different.
Iron Man 2 openly deals with the idea that Tony Stark is keeping his advanced technology to himself and working outside the control of democratically elected governments. If Elon Musk was running around in real life in a supersuit conducting his own foreign policy people would think that was terrible and he should be subject to the law. If someone was wandering the streets beating up criminals like Spiderman does we'd call them a cop.
But in a comic-book story, we are cheering Tony Stark and Spiderman and Batman on. That's just part of what you have to accept going into these stories. That's part of the setup of the genre that you buy into by going to see anything in that genre. Or at least anything that's not trying to deconstruct that element of the genre.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Both Nolan and Reeve have hints of it in their Batman but they never go all the way.
didn't DKR basically have a climax where Batman and his cop allies beat up Occupy Wall Street protesters?
I honestly couldn't tell you because that was such a disappointing film to end that trilogy that my brain erased virtually all memory of it.
There was a football stadium or something?
DKR got caught up in some weird timing, because OWS was happening and Bane was using generic "Rise up!" rhetoric as a cover for his real agenda (similar to how Hans Gruber etc posed as terrorists when they were really thieves). Nolan and Goyer are on record that the faux uprising was already in the script when OWS happened, and none of the scenes was intended to be commentary on actual events.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Both of them choose to be vigilantes with their power and go around beating up common criminals. It ain't like Spiderman is doing it to pay the fucking bills or something. In fact the most common Spiderman story is that his vigilantism actively impedes the rest of his life. And of course Tony Stark, the other example given, is independently wealth like Batman.
You can't get around the bedrock of superhero stories. They inherently accept the idea that vigilantes using violence are the good guys or they are actively subverting that because it's a bedrock assumption of the genre.
No. They were faux-populist terrorists. Bane says a lot of shit about fighting oppression and what not but in the end his "revolution" is just a ton of violence and he's planning to kill everyone anyway. He just wants to make everyone suffer, on TV for everyone to see, first.
Within the themes of the film he is the false messiah. Possessing the same powers as Batman and promising salvation but it's all bullshit and he brings nothing but death.
It's the difference in their mens rea. Spider-Man fights crime as a compulsion. He's afraid that if he doesn't, he will be complicit to the crimes he doesn't stop. He's the embodiment of guilt and obsessive compulsive thinking.
Batman fights crime to slake his thirst for vengeance. He's the avatar of RAGE. Helping Gotham is his excuse to do what he does, not his goal.
Ironman is trying to undo his own sins. He legally made a fortune selling weapons to horrible people, now he's using his fortune to illegally reverse the damage he's done. Tony is corporate responsibility.
Everybody is on board that you have to accept the vigilantes in these movies, that's not especially insightful. The Batman is interesting because it examines the part of the character that's usually glossed over, which brings him up to parity with the other examples.
I understand the sentiment. Peter wants a normal life where he gets to have fun. But he has his powers, which means that his is obliged to help people. "With great power comes great responsibility." At the end of the day Peter is who he is and Spider-man is the mask.
Batman wants to go around beating up thugs. He wants to get violent and beat the shit out of criminals. This is who he is. He transformed himself into a weapon through the power of money, money, money, and perseverance. At the end of the day, Batman is who he is and Bruce is the mask.
Obvious connections to the 2011 tsunami and Fukushima, it did feel like it was lashing out too much at everyone in the beginning. And that's somewhat understandable if this was made in 2012, but in 2016, nah brah, do some push ups and get some sun, even though I do appreciate the tone of Japan trying to shake off the paralysis of being this vassal state for everyone else. The satire of the bureaucracy is too obvious and loses the punch, and you can't really blame the US on this one but you kinda try in the beginning even as we help out in the end. There's also the sense of Godzilla just cheating halfway through the film like the little armed bitch he is because he's scared of of how kawaii B-2's are. And I'm gonna say this, the new design was hella weak in trying to copy but then fail to stand alone against the original design. The mentioned Evangelion connections get too much too; there's a part after the second Godzilla phase where it copies this wonderfully perfect scene from Eva 2.0, and the military firing and having no effect, while supposed to be an homage to the old movies, also felt too much like when Angels would show up. It also doesn't help that Decisive Battle is played about 6 times with a different version each time, you could've at least used Misato's theme or Barefoot In the Park.
But the ending is great, totally nails it, and the main cast is solid. American envoy lady has the necessary swagger but the issue of speaking english well but never the way an actual American-raised half japanese person would speak, especially from a political family, but that's an issue across every foreign film when they need english speakers. The camerawork is good and doesn't feel cheap like is the case with most japanese movies, and the use of first person perspective really worked here to add tension and save on money. The special effects range from solid, Pacific Rim smart and use of dust to hide detail to "damn yo, China does better flame effects." Oh, and they actually show Godzilla without being p-word teasing twats about it. Easily the best recent Godzilla movie, take some pride Japan, stand out on your own and out of our shadow, just don't try anything again
The best part of The Batman - and the further I get from it, the more I appreciate it, though I still think it was an hour too long - is how Batman, at least in the beginning, specifically isn't a force for good. He's a rich weirdo who goes around beating up petty thugs because beating up thugs feels good. He tells himself he's doing good as justification, but the movie goes out of it's way to show that he just likes punching people he sees as subhuman. The citizens he's ostensibly saving don't feel particularly saved, he's not really preventing crimes, he's just taking his rage out on bad guys.
It's telling that the one time he's conspicuously heroic is when he's leading people out of a flood in a manner that could be done by just about anyone.
Arguably, the central conflict of the movie wouldn't even exist if there was no Batman. Riddler is a direct response to the existence of Batman. At best, the fact that Batman exists doesn't cause overt harm in balance, but I think a strong argument could be made that Gotham would be better off if he never existed. It would certainly be better off if he just used his fortune for philanthropy.
I mean, a main part of the plot is
I hope in the next installment we see him expand his operational resources a bit. One of the interesting facets of the character in this film is that he just isn’t a serious person; he believes he is, but ultimately he sees he’s just a self-serving person who has convinced themselves they’re serious, as that’s what entitled jerks do.
No ones (on either side) economic status or mental state matters when they're beating etc you. As presented Batman not being there would just leave more victims, not less.
This reads like if Batman was poor then it all be better. Or if his criminals were only rich people.
Much like in copaganda, where the cops are always good guys and they just have to rough up the bad guys because the bad guys definitely know something and it's a good thing they violated their rights because otherwise little Tina wouldn't get saved from the evil kidnapper. Okay, sure, but we know that the real world cops would be bashing the heads of random guys who know fuckall mostly because they just dig power and abuse, and so it comes off a little sour when you really think about it, even if Justified is a really excellent show.
The first fight we see him in, he's clearly fighting several assholes intent on beating up a total nobody who happened to be on the same train as them while also pressuring a recruit into doing it. None of the assholes gets attacked without being the aggressor, and the recruit that won't hurt the man is left unhurt. When entering the club, the twins at the door attack him first. The Riddlerites in the catwalks are all on the verge of committing mass murder when Batman attacks.
Yeah, his original motivations are lousy, but he picks valid targets to fight and he's not causing excessive injury or harm beyond what the situation calls for; the one Riddlerite he ground-pounds on was literally there to murder innocents and was intent on bloodily murdering Selina only moments before, and Batman still held back from killing him. This Batman certainly isn't haunting the alleyways, intent on crippling starving homeless people breaking into stores for food or money.