It's easy to look back in hindsight and nitpick at them not being "true" interpretations of Batman. But as films they're magnificent. I think the trilogy is the second best of all time. Some of the strongest villains ever in the sequels.
I don't know how much impact Nolan had on MOS and what percentage of credit is due to him for the movie but I though that film was great too.
Opinions, man.
But, I'm curious, what superhero films do you consider strong?
All the films he's been a part of have been great. The superhero genre owes the respectability and success that its developed as of late to Nolans Dark Knight Trilogy, the first superhero movies in 10+ years of Batman Begins to tell a mature storyline successfully.
Also Nolan wasn't directing MoS, he was only a producer. His involvement was minimal. I don't know why people blame him so much.
Totally agree.
With the exception of The Following I would say I've enjoyed every single one of his films I've seen thoroughly. I've yet to see Memento(generally considered his best film) or Insomnia(copped today) but his whole catalog is just simply great. The Dark Knight Trilogy revolutionized the genre and, albeit to a lesser extent, the industry.
The guy is a heavily devoted student of cinema, gets arguably better casts than any other current filmmaker, and is a master storyteller.
Originally posted by Darth Martin
It's easy to look back in hindsight and nitpick at them not being "true" interpretations of Batman. But as films they're magnificent. I think the trilogy is the second best of all time. Some of the strongest villains ever in the sequels.I don't know how much impact Nolan had on MOS and what percentage of credit is due to him for the movie but I though that film was great too.
Opinions, man.
But, I'm curious, what superhero films do you consider strong?
I like your comment. I think his films are great, are they great comic adaptations that is for opinion. However, if you take the films as his version or adaptation then you can skip pass the nitpicks.
As for strong superheroes films here are my picks, here are my top five (or six since I am counting Superman twice):
1. The first two Reeves Superman pictures
2. The first Tim Burton Batman picture
3. Nolan’s Batman Begins
4. The first Iron Man
5. Avengers
Sorry, but as a Batman fan, I was disappointed with Nolan's take on The Dark Knight. IMO Begins was the best of the trilogy. Nolan hinted on the potential Batman could become...a lone adult grown up with angst & bitterness at the lost of his parents...a vigilante that instilled fear into the minds of criminals & the fact that criminals viewed him as a "demon of the night" was the true essence of Batman. Sadly with TDK & TDKR, Nolan "humanised" Batman & made it clear to both audience & criminals alike that Batman was simply a man in a costume. Nolan further destroyed the myth by using real locations in America & calling it Gotham City. Somewhere in the trilogy Batman became a minor character in his own verse.
Thats a fair point. Personally though it just makes sense to me. Any more exploration of Batman after Begins is rather obsolete. You don't need to develop his character any more. They already did that in Batman Begins. Besides, when he tried to focus more on him in Rises it came off as pretty lame anyway.
Also more Batman screentime takes away from Joker screentime and thats just not a fair trade.
Different takes on characters and stories is absolutely fine. Some people don't like that Batman was portrayed differently than he was before, but would you really want the exact same version of a character over and over again, despite the atmosphere and tone of the surrounding climate he's in being starkly different? He "humanized" Batman. That's fine. That trilogy wasn't about magic powers or mystical, fantastical elements. It was literally a man in a suit, and that he was able to revolve around that premise a theme of symbols and hope--and do it successfully to boot--is amazing. The idea of Batman was what was important, not the man who wore the suit. That's why I think Nolan cheapened his own moral when he had Bruce survive his own sacrifice simply for the sake of a feel good ending. "Gritty and realistic" my ass.
And I have no idea what this is about:
Originally posted by Esau CairnWould you rather he build his own city to film in? You know 'Gotham' is the real life nickname of New York City, don't you? It would make sense to film his realistic film in the real city. And minor character, WTF?
Nolan further destroyed the myth by using real locations in America & calling it Gotham City. Somewhere in the trilogy Batman became a minor character in his own verse.
Nolan's Batman is boring. The strength of the films owes entirely to its rogues gallery.
Burton & Keaton's Batman/Bruce Wayne was much better and Nicholson's Joker holds his own against even Ledger's.
I personally lol each and every single time I hear the mantra of the hipster, goth, or any other member of the Starbucks Mafia: "Batman is like so realistic!"
He's a grown man running around in a giant bat costume equipped with unrealistic technology, doing unrealistic things in general. Nolan took it too seriously. If he wanted to do that, do a Punisher movie, as that character;s premise is inarguably more realistic than Batman.
Batman himself is never realistic. The fact that he can do everything he does and no one even seems to suspect his true identity means he must have some sort of... Bat mind scrambler, or something. Aside from the origin story in Begins, which is by far the most entertaining film of the trilogy story-wise, Batman himself just seems to be a vessel to hang entertaining villains and Gary Oldman off of. And Morgan Freeman.
And I'm 100% okay with that.
He deserves it more. Nolan's films are better made technically. But something about Burton's feel better. I really think if it wasn't for Heath Ledger that Nolan's films wouldn't be held in as high esteem as they are. And if that one man's performance adds an... "artificial" inflation to the quality of the films, then what does that make them without him?
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Nolan hinted on the potential Batman could become...a lone adult grown up with angst & bitterness at the lost of his parents...a vigilante that instilled fear into the minds of criminals & the fact that criminals viewed him as a "demon of the night" was the true essence of Batman. Somewhere in the trilogy Batman became a minor character in his own verse.
Batman is many things. That's just one element of the character. As far as him becoming a "minor" character, IMO it made for a better film. Again, he might not have given us the best interpretation of Batman. That has to go to Rocksteady's video games. But he made Batman epic in a way I felt not Burton or any other filmmaker ever has.
I would agree Batman Begins portrayed the title character better. But TDK and TDKR were so much more epic in scale. I remember seeing Begins when it released in the cinema thinking that it was great. I thought it was interesting that it seemed like a horror film in some aspects putting us at times in the shoes of the criminals. But in 2008 when the TDK released I was dumbfounded at how it "eclipsed" Begins as a picture. It was just bigger. And bolder. And better. Similar to how Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Aliens were to their respective predecessors.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Any more exploration of Batman after Begins is rather obsolete. You don't need to develop his character any more. They already did that in Batman Begins.Also more Batman screen time takes away from Joker screen time and that's just not a fair trade.
Fair points. Someone wrote in a review of the TDK that a Batman film is "only as good as it's villain". I think not only does that philosophy extend to all superhero films, but the action genre period. Think about it. Most of the strong films have a strong villain to boot.
So, you can see, making a film solely about Batman wouldn't be as interesting.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Different takes on characters and stories is absolutely fine. Some people don't like that Batman was portrayed differently than he was before, but would you really want the exact same version of a character over and over again, despite the atmosphere and tone of the surrounding climate he's in being starkly different? He "humanized" Batman. That's fine. That trilogy wasn't about magic powers or mystical, fantastical elements. It was literally a man in a suit, and that he was able to revolve around that premise a theme of symbols and hope--and do it successfully to boot--is amazing. The idea of Batman was what was important, not the man who wore the suit. That's why I think Nolan cheapened his own moral when he had Bruce survive his own sacrifice simply for the sake of a feel good ending. "Gritty and realistic" my ass.
Well, obviously Batman dying wasn't an option but I see your point.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien👆
And I have no idea what this is about:Would you rather he build his own city to film in? You know 'Gotham' is the real life nickname of New York City, don't you? It would make sense to film his realistic film in the real city. And minor character, WTF?
Not surprised, Burton had 20 years of advanced technology and cinematography techniques to exploit.
Burton excels at making things weird and gloomy, which is Batman to a T; he puts the goth in Gotham. Besides, like I said, Keaton is ten times the Batman/Bruce Wayne Bale is. He transforms him into an eccentric, mentally unstable introvert powered by seething rage. Bale is as wooden as my junk in the wee hours of the morning.
And you already know my opinion about Ledger. As good as his performance is, and it is very good, neither he nor the film would be as popular had Ledger not died before its release. Its a cultural phenomenon we've seen at work before.
Originally posted by The_TempestNot saying I agree, but I do see what your saying.
Nolan's Batman is boring. The strength of the films owes entirely to its rogues gallery.
Originally posted by The_TempestThis I totally disagree with. Besides, Bale's voice, what did Keaton do better as Batman? This is really the only debate to me because in my opinion Bale blows Keaton out of the water as Bruce Wayne. I don't think Nicholson was bad as Joker but I don't think he comes close to Ledger. I mean forget the genre for a minute. That was one of the greatest performances in all of cinematic history.
Burton & Keaton's Batman/Bruce Wayne was much better and Nicholson's Joker holds his own against even Ledger's.
Obviously, I'm a big fan of The Dark Knight Trilogy. But looking back in hindsight the main thing that sticks out to me is the choreography in the fight scenes. It's terrible. Notice I said the choreography and not the fight scenes entirely. Nolan nails the mood, music, etc. of the fights but the choreography compared to something like Watchmen or even Bourne just looks amateurish.
Ledger is what drew me to the theatre three times, but one awesome character isn't enough to declare the whole film--and certainly not the entire trilogy--a "masterpiece" of cinema like I know some people want it to be. I've seen Rises once, and I'm in no hurry to watch it again. Batman himself is at his most boring under Nolan, and once his origin story was finished with Begins, he stopped being even remotely interesting.
Originally posted by Darth Martin
This I totally disagree with. Besides, Bale's voice, what did Keaton do better as Batman?
Me
Burton excels at making things weird and gloomy, which is Batman to a T; he puts the goth in Gotham. Besides, like I said, Keaton is ten times the Batman/Bruce Wayne Bale is. He transforms him into an eccentric, mentally unstable introvert powered by seething rage. Bale is as wooden as my junk in the wee hours of the morning.
Keaton gave Batman and Wayne personality. Meanwhile, Ledger, Neeson, Murphy, etc. less stole the show than accept its surrender from Bale, who was about as deep as a thimble full of water.
Originally posted by Darth MartinAs a performance? No. Ledger's acting as his character far surpassed Jack. It was just a more impressive performance, acting-wise.
I don't think Nicholson was bad as Joker but I don't think he comes close to Ledger.
But as a rendition of the Joker character? They're equals. Neither version is superior to the other. Same goes for Mark Hammil's. Each variation is perfect for the atmosphere and tone that they're in. Ledger's would be horribly out of place in Jack's film, and vice versa.
Originally posted by The_TempestThe look of dispassionate disapproval he gave when ordered to behead a man still haunts me to this day.
Keaton gave Batman and Wayne personality. Meanwhile, Ledger, Neeson, Murphy, etc. less stole the show than accept its surrender from Bale, who was about as deep as a thimble full of water.