I will have you know I like comic book Batman more than comic book Iron Man by a great deal. In fact I own more Batman graphic novels than Iron Man ones.
Some of my best friends are Batman!
hahahahahaha
Garlic Bread on
0
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Batman has always been operating in a gray area, with some people thinking he's a savior and others thinking he's a nutjob in a mask.
I see this as the opposite of the Spider-Man approach. In the end, people love Spidey because he's kind of a home-grown boy next door hero. He saves the day and everyone cheers. His villains are much more obviously villains and there is little moral dilemma involved with his apprehending them. Same with, say, Superman.
Batman, on the other hand, had to choose between keeping his own mediocre reputation intact or taking the fall for the greater good. He did what was right despite the cost to himself. I'm not making a value judgment here, saying that he is better than other heroes, but certainly it is a different approach than the traditional one.
My complaint was with how over done I felt the finale part was. I like the idea of what does it really mean to be a hero (Dent/Batman) but the ending felt like it was force feeding it to me.
Batman's villains, especially in the movies, are more obviously villains than Spider-Mans...what with the running around killing everyone in sight. I don't...man, what? What moral dilemma is there in apprehending the Joker or Two-Face? You completely lost me.
I would argue what Batman did IS the traditional hero approach. Hell it is a movie hallmark for heroes to take the blame for things they didn't do, to carry the burden. We just haven't seen it much in Super Hero movies, well carry the burden is in all of them but not taking the blame for someone else. But in this one it didn't even make sense. Why did they have to blame those five killings on Batman? Why couldn't they blame it on the Joker or his henchmen?
also accualt, i really don't understand your dislike of the ending speech from gordon. it was perfect.
why is he running?
because we have to chase him.
why?
because he can take it.
i literally left the theater with goosebumps.
You say perfect, I say cheesy and overwrought.
But it is my only complaint from the film, well and it dragged a bit in the middle. Just too bad the last thing in the movie was what I disliked the most.
I was referring to Dent, not Joker, in terms of the moral ambiguity issue. And I was specifically thinking of the movies rather than any reference to the comics. I apologize for generalizing.
They couldn't blame the Joker for the killings, I think, because he had an alibi? Also Batman was one of five people who could have killed Dent, the others being the Commissioner, his wife, and his two kids. Couldn't really blame the Joker since he was already in police custody, and no one else was in the room.
Now that I think about it, how many innocent people did the Joker actually kill in this movie? Didn't he mostly kill criminals? And Rachel?
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Batman has always been operating in a gray area, with some people thinking he's a savior and others thinking he's a nutjob in a mask.
I see this as the opposite of the Spider-Man approach. In the end, people love Spidey because he's kind of a home-grown boy next door hero. He saves the day and everyone cheers. His villains are much more obviously villains and there is little moral dilemma involved with his apprehending them. Same with, say, Superman.
Batman, on the other hand, had to choose between keeping his own mediocre reputation intact or taking the fall for the greater good. He did what was right despite the cost to himself. I'm not making a value judgment here, saying that he is better than other heroes, but certainly it is a different approach than the traditional one.
My complaint was with how over done I felt the finale part was. I like the idea of what does it really mean to be a hero (Dent/Batman) but the ending felt like it was force feeding it to me.
Batman's villains, especially in the movies, are more obviously villains than Spider-Mans...what with the running around killing everyone in sight. I don't...man, what? What moral dilemma is there in apprehending the Joker or Two-Face? You completely lost me.
I would argue what Batman did IS the traditional hero approach. Hell it is a movie hallmark for heroes to take the blame for things they didn't do, to carry the burden. We just haven't seen it much in Super Hero movies, well carry the burden is in all of them but not taking the blame for someone else. But in this one it didn't even make sense. Why did they have to blame those five killings on Batman? Why couldn't they blame it on the Joker or his henchmen?
also accualt, i really don't understand your dislike of the ending speech from gordon. it was perfect.
why is he running?
because we have to chase him.
why?
because he can take it.
i literally left the theater with goosebumps.
You say perfect, I say cheesy and overwrought.
But it is my only complaint from the film, well and it dragged a bit in the middle. Just too bad the last thing in the movie was what I disliked the most.
I was referring to Dent, not Joker, in terms of the moral ambiguity issue. And I was specifically thinking of the movies rather than any reference to the comics. I apologize for generalizing.
They couldn't blame the Joker for the killings, I think, because he had an alibi? Also Batman was one of five people who could have killed Dent, the others being the Commissioner, his wife, and his two kids. Couldn't really blame the Joker since he was already in police custody, and no one else was in the room.
Now that I think about it, how many innocent people did the Joker actually kill in this movie? Didn't he mostly kill criminals? And Rachel?
He killed a lot of cops during the big chase sequence. Also when he blew up the police station. And then there was the judge and the commish. The fake batman. Those 2 cops named Harvey and Dent.
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Batman has always been operating in a gray area, with some people thinking he's a savior and others thinking he's a nutjob in a mask.
I see this as the opposite of the Spider-Man approach. In the end, people love Spidey because he's kind of a home-grown boy next door hero. He saves the day and everyone cheers. His villains are much more obviously villains and there is little moral dilemma involved with his apprehending them. Same with, say, Superman.
Batman, on the other hand, had to choose between keeping his own mediocre reputation intact or taking the fall for the greater good. He did what was right despite the cost to himself. I'm not making a value judgment here, saying that he is better than other heroes, but certainly it is a different approach than the traditional one.
My complaint was with how over done I felt the finale part was. I like the idea of what does it really mean to be a hero (Dent/Batman) but the ending felt like it was force feeding it to me.
Batman's villains, especially in the movies, are more obviously villains than Spider-Mans...what with the running around killing everyone in sight. I don't...man, what? What moral dilemma is there in apprehending the Joker or Two-Face? You completely lost me.
I would argue what Batman did IS the traditional hero approach. Hell it is a movie hallmark for heroes to take the blame for things they didn't do, to carry the burden. We just haven't seen it much in Super Hero movies, well carry the burden is in all of them but not taking the blame for someone else. But in this one it didn't even make sense. Why did they have to blame those five killings on Batman? Why couldn't they blame it on the Joker or his henchmen?
also accualt, i really don't understand your dislike of the ending speech from gordon. it was perfect.
why is he running?
because we have to chase him.
why?
because he can take it.
i literally left the theater with goosebumps.
You say perfect, I say cheesy and overwrought.
But it is my only complaint from the film, well and it dragged a bit in the middle. Just too bad the last thing in the movie was what I disliked the most.
I was referring to Dent, not Joker, in terms of the moral ambiguity issue. And I was specifically thinking of the movies rather than any reference to the comics. I apologize for generalizing.
They couldn't blame the Joker for the killings, I think, because he had an alibi? Also Batman was one of five people who could have killed Dent, the others being the Commissioner, his wife, and his two kids. Couldn't really blame the Joker since he was already in police custody, and no one else was in the room.
Now that I think about it, how many innocent people did the Joker actually kill in this movie? Didn't he mostly kill criminals? And Rachel?
We don't have an accurate count. Don't forget that there were lots of cars, presumably driven by innocent people, that got shot up, blown up, or crashed because of the Joker. Some of the people in those cars probably died.
They did do a good job of keeping any innocent deaths off-screen and ambiguous, though. I was really hoping Two-Face would off Gordon's kid, but I knew that there was no way a movie could have a PG-13 rating with a little kid being brutally murdered in front of his family.
Briareos on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Batman has always been operating in a gray area, with some people thinking he's a savior and others thinking he's a nutjob in a mask.
I see this as the opposite of the Spider-Man approach. In the end, people love Spidey because he's kind of a home-grown boy next door hero. He saves the day and everyone cheers. His villains are much more obviously villains and there is little moral dilemma involved with his apprehending them. Same with, say, Superman.
Batman, on the other hand, had to choose between keeping his own mediocre reputation intact or taking the fall for the greater good. He did what was right despite the cost to himself. I'm not making a value judgment here, saying that he is better than other heroes, but certainly it is a different approach than the traditional one.
My complaint was with how over done I felt the finale part was. I like the idea of what does it really mean to be a hero (Dent/Batman) but the ending felt like it was force feeding it to me.
Batman's villains, especially in the movies, are more obviously villains than Spider-Mans...what with the running around killing everyone in sight. I don't...man, what? What moral dilemma is there in apprehending the Joker or Two-Face? You completely lost me.
I would argue what Batman did IS the traditional hero approach. Hell it is a movie hallmark for heroes to take the blame for things they didn't do, to carry the burden. We just haven't seen it much in Super Hero movies, well carry the burden is in all of them but not taking the blame for someone else. But in this one it didn't even make sense. Why did they have to blame those five killings on Batman? Why couldn't they blame it on the Joker or his henchmen?
also accualt, i really don't understand your dislike of the ending speech from gordon. it was perfect.
why is he running?
because we have to chase him.
why?
because he can take it.
i literally left the theater with goosebumps.
You say perfect, I say cheesy and overwrought.
But it is my only complaint from the film, well and it dragged a bit in the middle. Just too bad the last thing in the movie was what I disliked the most.
I was referring to Dent, not Joker, in terms of the moral ambiguity issue. And I was specifically thinking of the movies rather than any reference to the comics. I apologize for generalizing.
They couldn't blame the Joker for the killings, I think, because he had an alibi? Also Batman was one of five people who could have killed Dent, the others being the Commissioner, his wife, and his two kids. Couldn't really blame the Joker since he was already in police custody, and no one else was in the room.
Now that I think about it, how many innocent people did the Joker actually kill in this movie? Didn't he mostly kill criminals? And Rachel?
He killed a lot of cops during the big chase sequence. Also when he blew up the police station. And then there was the judge and the commish. The fake batman. Those 2 cops named Harvey and Dent.
Thank you for reminding me. So much happened in the movie that I feel like I need to see it a few more times to really get a handle on everything.
I will have you know I like comic book Batman more than comic book Iron Man by a great deal. In fact I own more Batman graphic novels than Iron Man ones.
Some of my best friends are Batman!
I loled.
Dent...
I don't think Dent was any less/more of a moral dilemma than Doc Ock or Green Goblin in the Spider-Man movies, certainly not more than Sandman . I liked TDK better than any of the Spider-Man movies, btw, I just don't get where you are coming from with the moral dilemma thing over Dent.
I know it's not really the case, but when that one guy started going on about calculations I instinctively thought that that was a Calculator reference.
Sorry to double post but I thought this was kind of interesting. Did anyone notice that the guy...
who tried to blackmail bruce wayne (and failed) and was marked for assassination by the Joker was named Reese? Mr Reese. Say that out loud and it sounds a bit like Mysteries. Could he be getting setup as the Riddler for number 3? I admit it's a bit of a stretch. I know the character's name is supposed to be E. Nigma. Another thing I noticed was when Lucius Fox said that Batman's new armor wouldn't stop a Cat, I couldn't help but wonder if that was a teaser indicating Catwoman for the next one too.
Just a bit of my inner fanboy getting excited is all...
i got the riddler vibe from that guy as well. lucius said it WOULD stop a cat, when asked if it would stop a big dog
Did Fox say it would? I thought it was the other way around but you're probably right.
Anyways, during Reese's first scene I had riddler flashes just because of the way it happened in the other batman movie. I didn't connect it until Joker said 'Mr. Reese' and I really thought it sounded like Mysteries. Again, a bit of a stretch, but they mentioned the joker at the end of the first movie, so it's possible that they did the same thing (a bit more sneakily this time a round) in the second.
I know it's not really the case, but when that one guy started going on about calculations I instinctively thought that that was a Calculator reference.
But I'm sure Nolan has no idea who that even is.
I'm glad someone else thought that, but I didn't even bother trying to explain it to my friends.
Especially since me mentioned calculations over and over again.
I know it's not really the case, but when that one guy started going on about calculations I instinctively thought that that was a Calculator reference.
But I'm sure Nolan has no idea who that even is.
I'm glad someone else thought that, but I didn't even bother trying to explain it to my friends.
Especially since me mentioned calculations over and over again.
Didn't he die, anyway? He was on top of the pile of money the Joker burned.
I know it's not really the case, but when that one guy started going on about calculations I instinctively thought that that was a Calculator reference.
But I'm sure Nolan has no idea who that even is.
I'm glad someone else thought that, but I didn't even bother trying to explain it to my friends.
Especially since me mentioned calculations over and over again.
Didn't he die, anyway? He was on top of the pile of money the Joker burned.
I thought it was kind of odd. You see someone tied up up there, but they never really referenced him, did they?
Faynor on
do you wanna see me eat a hotdog
0
AngryThe glory I had witnessedwas just a sleight of handRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
uh, you would have had to have your eyes closed for a good 10 minutes straight to not know who was on top the pile of money.
Angry on
0
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
A scenario occurred to me that I would love to see in Batman 3, although I know it will never happen:
Since it's Batman versus The Law, what if they adapted the Batman vs. Superman part of Dark Knight Returns? What if they enlisted the help of Superman to help track down Batman? If he's fought through the most elaborate traps of the police, and then Superman, either at the urging of Gotham's politicians or out of his own will, decides to intervene? That would be a great, blockbuster hook.
A scenario occurred to me that I would love to see in Batman 3, although I know it will never happen:
Since it's Batman versus The Law, what if they adapted the Batman vs. Superman part of Dark Knight Returns? What if they enlisted the help of Superman to help track down Batman? If he's fought through the most elaborate traps of the police, and then Superman, either at the urging of Gotham's politicians or out of his own will, decides to intervene? That would be a great, blockbuster hook.
The problem with that;
To get the real impact of their conversation/confrontation, you need the background with them working together, being friends or at least comrades in arms and combat, experiencing world changing events year after year together, and recognizing how extreme it is that Bruce really does have contingency plans on hand to deal with even the people that are closest to him. I love the end of DKR, but without a couple of Batman/Superman crossover movies establishing them together, it'd just be a slugging match between a semi-realistic human with gadgets vs a full blown force of nature. Interesting, but without nearly the same impact.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Anyone noticed the internet backlash this movie is receiving? It seems like almost everyone on movie forums is racing to say how overrated TDK is. I don't have a problem with their lukewarm reaction to the movie but is it really necessary to imply exaggeration and fanboyism on those who loved the movie?
Aleph on
0
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
Anyone noticed the internet backlash this movie is receiving? It seems like almost everyone on movie forums is racing to say how overrated TDK is. I don't have a problem with their lukewarm reaction to the movie but is it really necessary to imply exaggeration and fanboyism on those who loved the movie?
This happens with almost every hotly anticipated and then critically lauded film, in my experience. More so because this one is a "superhero" film and stars a dead guy.
Then again, sometimes people really do just not like the movie. I hated both Spider-Man sequels, for example, but I was a lone voice among many who loved it.
Anyone noticed the internet backlash this movie is receiving? It seems like almost everyone on movie forums is racing to say how overrated TDK is. I don't have a problem with their lukewarm reaction to the movie but is it really necessary to imply exaggeration and fanboyism on those who loved the movie?
It was rated #1 on imdb, out of all movies. I've heard several people say it's the best superhero/action movie EVER. One person somewhere on these boards said it was the 'next generation' of superhero movies.
Anyone noticed the internet backlash this movie is receiving? It seems like almost everyone on movie forums is racing to say how overrated TDK is. I don't have a problem with their lukewarm reaction to the movie but is it really necessary to imply exaggeration and fanboyism on those who loved the movie?
This happens with almost every hotly anticipated and then critically lauded film, in my experience. More so because this one is a "superhero" film and stars a dead guy.
Then again, sometimes people really do just not like the movie. I hated both Spider-Man sequels, for example, but I was a lone voice among many who loved it.
People liked Spider-Man 3? I only get my comic news from here, so I'm only familiar with our own negative reaction.
Then again, sometimes people really do just not like the movie. I hated both Spider-Man sequels, for example, but I was a lone voice among many who loved it.
As long as you can accept some people genuinely thought any one (or two) of the Spider-Man movies was good (and that they weren't just consumed by the hype), then I have no qualms with that.
It was rated #1 on imdb, out of all movies. I've heard several people say it's the best superhero/action movie EVER. One person somewhere on these boards said it was the 'next generation' of superhero movies.
Yeah, I was annoyed by that too. But that doesn't mean everyone who loved TDK is a rabid fanboy. I doubt that even 10% of the glowing reviews on Rotten Tomatoes were written by Batman fanboys.
I mean they casted her very well; her clothes, hair, and attitude fit very well to Montoya. When it was revealed that she was actually just a detective named Ramirez, I was really confused. It seemed like some wasted effort to give her an identity from the comic and then suddenly change the name and give her a role that was unbefitting.
I'd be willing to admit I may be projecting some comic attributes to the film that arn't really there, but I felt certain this was her.
Then again, sometimes people really do just not like the movie. I hated both Spider-Man sequels, for example, but I was a lone voice among many who loved it.
As long as you can accept some people genuinely thought any one (or two) of the Spider-Man movies was good (and that they weren't just consumed by the hype), then I have no qualms with that.
I will admit to having some trouble accepting it, but I don't rag on these people as a general rule. I just explain my opinions and leave it at that unless they start something.
For one of the interviews for Gotham Knight, the producers (including Bruce Timm) mentioned that they had a reason for having Ramirez instead of Montoya, but that if they'd revealed it, it would've spoiled the film. I'm assuming it's because...
In the film, Ramirez was crooked. They changed the name so that the film wouldn't ruin Montoya's name, who's been quite active lately in the comics.
I remember reading that Ramirez was originally written as Montoya, but the Nolans didn't want to disrespect the established character (with what she did in the movie) so they changed her name. Don't have a source on that though.
Edit: Or I might be confusing it with what WizardFist mentioned.
LordSolarMacharius on
0
GonmunHe keeps kickin' me inthe dickRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
I just heard on the radio. Apparantly Christian Bale has been arrested for assaulting his mother and sister at a hotel in Britain that he was staying at for the premiere of TDK there.
Posts
hahahahahaha
They couldn't blame the Joker for the killings, I think, because he had an alibi? Also Batman was one of five people who could have killed Dent, the others being the Commissioner, his wife, and his two kids. Couldn't really blame the Joker since he was already in police custody, and no one else was in the room.
Now that I think about it, how many innocent people did the Joker actually kill in this movie? Didn't he mostly kill criminals? And Rachel?
They did do a good job of keeping any innocent deaths off-screen and ambiguous, though. I was really hoping Two-Face would off Gordon's kid, but I knew that there was no way a movie could have a PG-13 rating with a little kid being brutally murdered in front of his family.
Thank you for reminding me. So much happened in the movie that I feel like I need to see it a few more times to really get a handle on everything.
I loled.
Dent...
But I'm sure Nolan has no idea who that even is.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Anyways, during Reese's first scene I had riddler flashes just because of the way it happened in the other batman movie. I didn't connect it until Joker said 'Mr. Reese' and I really thought it sounded like Mysteries. Again, a bit of a stretch, but they mentioned the joker at the end of the first movie, so it's possible that they did the same thing (a bit more sneakily this time a round) in the second.
Batsquach?
Lucius will need to make Batman some Bat-Spray Batsquatch repellent.
I'm glad someone else thought that, but I didn't even bother trying to explain it to my friends.
Especially since me mentioned calculations over and over again.
Didn't he die, anyway? He was on top of the pile of money the Joker burned.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
I thought it was kind of odd. You see someone tied up up there, but they never really referenced him, did they?
Oh, I know he's joking
It's just stupid
as opposed to all his other times he sounds "high brow" ?
Don't get me wrong I thought that blog was funny though.
It just looked like something that a 13 year old, who listens to ICP, would write.
The problem with that;
Haha
This happens with almost every hotly anticipated and then critically lauded film, in my experience. More so because this one is a "superhero" film and stars a dead guy.
Then again, sometimes people really do just not like the movie. I hated both Spider-Man sequels, for example, but I was a lone voice among many who loved it.
It was rated #1 on imdb, out of all movies. I've heard several people say it's the best superhero/action movie EVER. One person somewhere on these boards said it was the 'next generation' of superhero movies.
People liked Spider-Man 3? I only get my comic news from here, so I'm only familiar with our own negative reaction.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
As long as you can accept some people genuinely thought any one (or two) of the Spider-Man movies was good (and that they weren't just consumed by the hype), then I have no qualms with that.
Yeah, I was annoyed by that too. But that doesn't mean everyone who loved TDK is a rabid fanboy. I doubt that even 10% of the glowing reviews on Rotten Tomatoes were written by Batman fanboys.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I thought she might've been.
If they ever needed to cast someone as Renee Montoya, they should go with Michelle Rodriguez. It's pretty much a perfect match.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I'd be willing to admit I may be projecting some comic attributes to the film that arn't really there, but I felt certain this was her.
I will admit to having some trouble accepting it, but I don't rag on these people as a general rule. I just explain my opinions and leave it at that unless they start something.
So much so that I was really looking for any Question jokes. Then when they said her name I was sort of disappointed.
Edit: Or I might be confusing it with what WizardFist mentioned.