The Batman (spoilers)

[djsFlames]

I prefer grounded, choreographed, practical effects battles for Batman, every day of the week.

He doesn't fly or have laser beam eyes or run at super speeds. He's just vengeance in the body of a man.

His fighting in this was excellent.

If they could take the best aspects of this film and improve upon the editing/runtime for the follow up, they could have an immersive new batverse on their hands.

I just hope they stop trying to go so grand scale with the villain's plan. I didn't hate the flooding of the city plot development, but it just felt like they were trying to one-up the Joker's chaos antics from TDK/Bane's isolating the city.

They can be grounded in that aspect of it too, and it wouldn't suffer because of it.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Was that on purpose that Nolan blew up Maggie Gyllenhaal and Reeves blew up her husband Peter Sarsgaard?

[Nadal Fan]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Was that on purpose that Nolan blew up Maggie Gyllenhaal and Reeves blew up her husband Peter Sarsgaard?

Never forget Katie Holmes turned down returning as Rachel in The Dark Knight so she could star in........ Barbershop 2

[ComixZone]

The 2nd viewing warmed my view of the movie a bit - but it's still just bad. The best parts of the movie are the hand to hand Batman combat - which (awesomely) took inspiration of the Arkham trilogy of video games (in fact the entire Batsuit seemed to).

Bruce Wayne isn't even a character. The Batman is not a very good detective.

Bringing Batman out into the light and having him lead the way out of the dark just isn't Batman. He is not a symbol of hope, he's there to do the work behind the scenes/in the dark. Batman isn't Superman, he's not Spider-Man. This was one of the least faithful pieces of Batman material out there. It's a mishmash of references to past iterations of the character, but it does nothing for itself.

There are a number of just laughable scenes as well. Alfred putting together the death Bruce's parents in front of him, after Bruce had just learned about this other "truth" about their death one scene previous is just sloppy and pays no narrative purpose. Why reveal the first story if you're just going to scrap it in the scene afterwards? Bruce does nothing with this "misinformation" other than scold Pennyworth for like 15 seconds and then it's a non-factor. Also, Batman starts the engine to the Batmobile and lets the engine rumble for what seemed like an eternity and all of a sudden the entire gang just gets scared and they flee? The car chase was also beyond dumb with how that ramp just materializes in front of Batman through no doing of his own - it's just luck, and all too convenient.

The movie is better in a better theatre, so if you are going to see it go see it in Landmark Super Laser or whatever they call it - it makes a difference (I imagine the same can be said for AVX).

The Nolan series is vastly superior.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

The 2nd viewing warmed my view of the movie a bit - but it's still just bad. The best parts of the movie are the hand to hand Batman combat - which (awesomely) took inspiration of the Arkham trilogy of video games (in fact the entire Batsuit seemed to).

Bruce Wayne isn't even a character. The Batman is not a very good detective.

Bringing Batman out into the light and having him lead the way out of the dark just isn't Batman. He is not a symbol of hope, he's there to do the work behind the scenes/in the dark. Batman isn't Superman, he's not Spider-Man. This was one of the least faithful pieces of Batman material out there. It's a mishmash of references to past iterations of the character, but it does nothing for itself.

There are a number of just laughable scenes as well. Alfred putting together the death Bruce's parents in front of him, after Bruce had just learned about this other "truth" about their death one scene previous is just sloppy and pays no narrative purpose. Why reveal the first story if you're just going to scrap it in the scene afterwards? Bruce does nothing with this "misinformation" other than scold Pennyworth for like 15 seconds and then it's a non-factor. Also, Batman starts the engine to the Batmobile and lets the engine rumble for what seemed like an eternity and all of a sudden the entire gang just gets scared and they flee? The car chase was also beyond dumb with how that ramp just materializes in front of Batman through no doing of his own - it's just luck, and all too convenient.

The movie is better in a better theatre, so if you are going to see it go see it in Landmark Super Laser or whatever they call it - it makes a difference (I imagine the same can be said for AVX).

The Nolan series is vastly superior.

That section isn’t accurate. Batman has predominantly been written as character of hope as well as instilling fear in the underworld, especially in the last 30 years. Whether it’s Morrison’s run, Snyder’s, King’s, Gaiman, Miller, etc. Batman’s underlying theme is to be someone who brings hope, not fear, to the non-criminal citizens of Gotham.

I’d argue this was the most faithful interpretation of Batman ever.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Well, good thing the Nolan movies had no plot holes, laughable scenes or pointless scenes that didn’t serve the narrative. That’s pretty unintentionally funny.

Nolan was faithful to the character. That’s why Batman fought two villains, retired for 8 years because the girl who dumped him died, let his city go to ####, then retired again permanently without helping rebuild Gotham at all after a cataclysmic disaster. That’s the Batman ethos we all know and love. The guy who gives up all the time. I think that’s been the tagline for his books for quite a few years.

[Coach]

Even in The Dark Knight, Batman straight up says “I was meant to inspire hope. Not pain. Not death.”

[Nadal Fan]

There is no one true take on Batman, he's been written about for 80 years and has had at least 6 directors give it a shot in live action. Tim Burton was interested in his villains and his gothic roots while Nolan was interested in grounding him in reality. Vastly different takes but equally valid IMO. Even the Schumacher films are Batman and valid IMO. This is Reeves version and he uses it to set the frame work for a cinematic universe expertly, I have no doubt that the sequel will be even better.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Nadal Fan

There is no one true take on Batman, he's been written about for 80 years and has had at least 6 directors give it a shot in live action. Tim Burton was interested in his villains and his gothic roots while Nolan was interested in grounding him in reality. Vastly different takes but equally valid IMO. Even the Schumacher films are Batman and valid IMO. This is Reeves version and he uses it to set the frame work for a cinematic universe expertly, I have no doubt that the sequel will be even better.

Batman has had a fairly consistent characterization for going on 40 straight years.

Dark knight, doesn’t kill, no guns, loner, uses Bruce Wayne’s wealth for philanthropy and Batman’s crime fighting to stop criminals, parents death is inspiration, on/off relationships that rarely work due to other commitments, Alfred keeps him centred, worlds greatest detective, will fight crime until the day he dies because he believes in Gotham.

I would argue this movie nailed them all. Burton did too. Nolan got most. The ones he nailed, he hit them square in the head. The ones he missed, and they were big ones, boy did he swing and miss.

And that’s to say nothing of the actual plot/story/characterization of the supporting characters.

[Coach]

A shout out to Jeffery Wright who is a just an awesome Gordon, giving Oldman a run for his money. Which is high praise from me, as I really think Oldman was overlooked in award recognition for the series, particularly in The Dark Knight.

[8sPOT]

Saw it with my 12 year old son yesterday. We both thought it was great. I liked that Bruce Wayne wasn’t just a rich play boy. The detective stuff was cool, the darkness was cool. I agree on the Joker part though, could have been almost any other DC villian, but Joker is just a bit on the nose.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Well, good thing the Nolan movies had no plot holes, laughable scenes or pointless scenes that didn’t serve the narrative. That’s pretty unintentionally funny.

Nolan was faithful to the character. That’s why Batman fought two villains, retired for 8 years because the girl who dumped him died, let his city go to ####, then retired again permanently without helping rebuild Gotham at all after a cataclysmic disaster. That’s the Batman ethos we all know and love. The guy who gives up all the time. I think that’s been the tagline for his books for quite a few years.

I'd like to think Bale's Wayne was still helping from afar. The ending had a lot to do with the trilogy ending I think, and Nolan not wanting to leave the door open more than anything.

This is a rather bitter take.

Despite the "wasteful" scenes, all three of Nolan movies were undeniably easier to digest at face value for the average movie goer than this one. And that's just cause of the way they were approached, in action blockbuster wrapping with a dark slant.

This one was rewarding also, but probably for a smaller segment of viewers. But maybe more so for the long time fans.

Being that purist fan is fine until you suck the fun out of everything that doesn't adhere to specific rules or narratives.

Personally, I don't have a hard time judging the Nolan films as well as this one based on the respective approaches they took and I think they both did well in their own way. I love seeing different directors takes on the same universe, especially if they can both be strong while differing stylistically as well as in the writing.

Some parts in this film were clearly inspired by Nolan's films. So you can at least appreciate them for that... maybe?

[Johnny Makarov]

Just watched it. It was great! Not every super hero movie has to be a 3 hour CG crapfest.

I still want to see the Ben Affleck Batman film.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Well, good thing the Nolan movies had no plot holes, laughable scenes or pointless scenes that didn’t serve the narrative. That’s pretty unintentionally funny.

Nolan was faithful to the character. That’s why Batman fought two villains, retired for 8 years because the girl who dumped him died, let his city go to ####, then retired again permanently without helping rebuild Gotham at all after a cataclysmic disaster. That’s the Batman ethos we all know and love. The guy who gives up all the time. I think that’s been the tagline for his books for quite a few years.

Nolan borrowed heavily from the Dark Knight/Dark Knight Returns Frank Miller novels, especially for TDKR. Batman had been retired for ten years at the start of the Dark Knight Returns, hence the title.

Another thing that Nolan was aiming for was to create more realistic superheros, that would have inspired more fictional comic book heros. In that sense it doesn't make sense to have a repeated cycle of villains being caught and escaping endlessly. It's also not realistic for a man in his 40s to take a continued physical beating day in and out, without suffering permanent damage.

Personally, I didn't think TDKR was the greatest, but I wouldn't call it inconsistent with Batman. I definitely see what Nolan was trying to pull off, and it's a valid take that's consistent with batman's character. The problems with that film had more to do with execution.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

If Nolan’s goal was to borrow from Dark Knight Returns, he failed miserably. He must have completely misunderstood that entire comic because other than some basic similarities, like retirement, literally everything else is nothing short of insultingly bad by comparison.

[GGG]

I thought the movie was excellent up until the last act where it fell into the superhero trap of the big set piece.

There would have been nothing wrong with ending the riddler plot at the question mark in the coffee cup or after the Arkham scene with Batman realizing that his thirst for Vengence created the riddler.

Instead the blow the sea wall and trash MSG just didn’t add anything. And the Batman leading people to the light was cringy over the top symbolism. I don’t think you would lose anything by cutting from the Arkham scene (remove the part about riddlers plot) and the end scene with Cat Women.

Good enjoyable Batman movie, didn’t stick the landing.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

This is a great list. From IGN apparently. I’d switch TDK and Begins, and I’d remove both JL entries completely, but it’s otherwise bang on.

[djsFlames]

Was the Zack Snyder cut of Justice League that much better than the theatrical one (or improve on Batman that much)?

Asking as someone that didn't bother with Justice League, because of the trainwrecks leading up to it, and having no faith in Snyder.

Which version should I watch if I ever do need a time waster?

[Nadal Fan]

ZS JL is one of the greatest superhero movies ever made, It's a masterpiece. While I don't hate the theatrical cut of JL, it doesn't hold a candle to ZS version. The theatrical cut is full of unfinished CGI, and poorly written jokes.

[Coach]

To give a non-insane review… Snyders JL is okay and worth a watch if you like that sort of thing. I never watched the first version outside of the first 10 minutes so k don’t really have a comparison. But I enjoyed it.