Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I personally am not a fan of the way Nolan transitions comics book superheros to film. Batman Begins is my favorite film of his for Superheros.

I think he should not be involved if there is an sequel to MOS.

Thoughts?

He wasn't that involved in MOS, from what I read, so as long as he has the same amount of "influence" as he did in that, then I'm fine with it.

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.

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 Cairn
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. 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?

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.

Which is why, at the end of the day, as much as I loathe that overrated emo magnet, I'm going to give Burton the nod.

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_Tempest
Nolan's Batman is boring. The strength of the films owes entirely to its rogues gallery. Not saying I agree, but I do see what your saying.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Burton & Keaton's Batman/Bruce Wayne was much better and Nicholson's Joker holds his own against even Ledger's. This 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.

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 The_Tempest
Nolan's Batman is boring.

He isn't..... in Begins.

You just need to not separate his from that movie and the following ones.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
This I totally disagree with. Besides, Bale's voice, what did Keaton do better as Batman?



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 Martin
I don't think Nicholson was bad as Joker but I don't think he comes close to Ledger. As a performance? No. Ledger's acting as his character far surpassed Jack. It was just a more impressive performance, acting-wise.

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_Tempest
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. The look of dispassionate disapproval he gave when ordered to behead a man still haunts me to this day.

It's hard to give Batman the kind of personality when the film isn't centered around him. As I said before, making it a sole Batman film just makes it less interesting for some.

We just gonna act like Nicholson didn't "steal the show" from Keaton? There have been numerous studies done and that's just what is going to happen when you have a Batman film with a good Joker. Joker, the more interesting character, will ineveitably steal the show. I don't think Neeson or Murphy upstaged Bale in Begins. Hardy's Bane on the other hand.......

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The look of dispassionate disapproval he gave when ordered to behead a man still haunts me to this day.

Would you rather a gasp of horror?

Batman isn't exactly one for big emotional displays bro.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
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. Mark Hammil IS the Joker. Just like Conroy IS Batman. Hard to imagine them not fitting in any situation where the character arises. When you read the books I'm willing to bet they're voices are speaking for the characters in your head. So, in essence, they are superior.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Would you rather a gasp of horror?

Batman isn't exactly one for big emotional displays bro. Actually I probably would. I'm big on characters having arcs, and Bruce Wayneman didn't really have one. He was sullen and serious the entire trilogy. Even when he was a college kid going to shoot that guy, his confession to Rachel in the car amounted to little more than hangdog look and silent consent. He wasn't Batman then, he was just a kid. Have some emotion.


Over the course of a trilogy, the central character and movie namesake should be undergoing some sort of emotional and behavioural evolution--especially in a series that's supposed to be so dramatic and explosive. Harvey underwent his character arc in a single movie, and it was a much steeper, more active arc than Batman's was in the entire trilogy. Hence, "he's boring".

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Mark Hammil IS the Joker. Just like Conroy IS Batman. Hard to imagine them not fitting in any situation where the character arises. When you read the books I'm willing to bet they're voices are speaking for the characters in your head. So, in essence, they are superior. Books? You mean the novelizations of the films? No, the voices of the film actors will fill that role. If you mean the comics or books based off the animated series/video-games, then yes. Conroy and Hammil.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
It's hard to give Batman the kind of personality when the film isn't centered around him. As I said before, making it a sole Batman film just makes it less interesting for some.

We just gonna act like Nicholson didn't "steal the show" from Keaton? There have been numerous studies done and that's just what is going to happen when you have a Batman film with a good Joker. Joker, the more interesting character, will ineveitably steal the show. I don't think Neeson or Murphy upstaged Bale in Begins. Hardy's Bane on the other hand.......

Who said Nicholson didn't steal the show? Nicholson is an acting legend, a veritable cinematic juggernaut, vastly superior to the likes of Bale or Ledger. Of course he stole the show from Keaton. But Keaton had the chops to at least make it a fight. Bale, on the other hand, was utterly steamrolled.

And I don't buy the argument that the Joker is inherently more interesting than Batman anymore than I think extroverts are more interesting than introverts. If done correctly, this could have been a clash of two equally fascinating actors and characters: Ian McKellen vs. Patrick Stewart, anyone?

As for upstaging Bale, Eric Roberts upstaged Bale.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Ian McKellen vs. Patrick Stewart, anyone? OMG they would make the cutest couple!

It's a telling indictment of your sense of romance, Canadian, that the term "vs." compels you to think of amorous relationships.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
It's a telling indictment of your sense of romance, Canadian, that the term "vs." compels you to think of amorous relationships. Well I assumed you were talking about a wacky sitcom starring two dysfunctional old British thespians living in a small one bedroom flat. One's gay and the other's bald.


Hi-larious!

Is Stewart the gay or bald one?

...and the ignorance continues....

THIS Batman fan had no problem with how Nolan created his interpretation of one of the best comic book characters of all time..

there wasn't anything wrong with what he did or how he said it..

got a problem with them simply put do not go see them.. as for his involvemnt with Man of Steel, he "godfathered" Snyder , so now he(Snyder) can take control of what should a great series..

Nolan could very well be involved in future comic book films and no one on here can do anything about it..


peoples incessant ignorance over his Batman trilogy is just dumb

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
...and the ignorance continues....

THIS Batman fan had no problem with how Nolan created his interpretation of one of the best comic book characters of all time..

there wasn't anything wrong with what he did or how he said it..

got a problem with them simply put do not go see them.. as for his involvemnt with Man of Steel, he "godfathered" Snyder , so now he(Snyder) can take control of what should a great series..

Nolan could very well be involved in future comic book films and no one on here can do anything about it..


peoples incessant ignorance over his Batman trilogy is just dumb Wow, so basically: "Don't criticize what I like, it's above all flaws."


You're kind of an ass, aren't you?

...And the wanking continues...



Cool story bro.

Unfortunately for THAT Batman fan, who apparently labors under a particularly debilitating case of malignant narcissism, THIS Batman fan doesn't share THAT Batman fan's opinions.

More importantly, THIS Batman fan doesn't have to. Welcome to the internet, place of free exchange of opinions and ideas, no matter how contradictory.

Better grab a Kleenex for your tears and lube for your bum, because odds are that you'll see me criticize Nolan and his Batman films some more.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If you mean the comics or books based off the animated series/video-games, then yes. Conroy and Hammil.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Who said Nicholson didn't steal the show? Nicholson is an acting legend, a veritable cinematic juggernaut, vastly superior to the likes of Bale or Ledger. Of course he stole the show from Keaton. But Keaton had the chops to at least make it a fight. Bale, on the other hand, was utterly steamrolled. You hammered Bale for Ledger stealing the show on him. But failed to mention Nicholson having the same effect on Keaton. Also, I wouldn't consider Nicholson "vastly superior" to Bale. The rest is just your opinion and I'm not going to really get into at the moment. Humorous that you mention "chops" with Keaton as opposed to Bale.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
And I don't buy the argument that the Joker is inherently more interesting than Batman anymore than I think extroverts are more interesting than introverts. If done correctly, this could have been a clash of two equally fascinating actors and characters. Now, this, I will agree on. If done right, Batman should be much more interesting than portrayed in any previous live-action adaptation.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
As for upstaging Bale, Eric Roberts upstaged Bale. How do you even compare this? One is the title character and the other is a minor one with not even 10 minutes of screen time(including ONE scene with Bale).

Originally posted by Darth Martin
You hammered Bale for Ledger stealing the show on him. But failed to mention Nicholson having the same effect on Keaton. Also, I wouldn't consider Nicholson "vastly superior" to Bale. Not in general, no. But Nicholson "stole the show" from Keaton, who tried to prevent the robbery. Ledger "vaporized the show", with Bale in it.

Tempest, you consider yourself a Batman fan?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But Nicholson "stole the show" from Keaton, who tried to prevent the robbery. Ledger "vaporized the show", with Bale in it.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
You hammered Bale for Ledger stealing the show on him. But failed to mention Nicholson having the same effect on Keaton.

And I explained to you why.

Bale didn't offer anything remotely charismatic about Batman/Wayne; he pretty much surrendered the audience's allegiance to Ledger without a fight.

Keaton, on the other hand, made Batman/Wayne intriguing and likeable.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Also, I wouldn't consider Nicholson "vastly superior" to Bale.

I would.

Bale might get there in time, but Nicholson is a Hollywood heavyweight.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
The rest is just your opinion and I'm not going to really get into at the moment.

It's all my opinion, guy. Just like your post is all your opinion. "Objective" artistic critique is a myth. We like what we like and some of us are intelligent enough to explain why, but there isn't a science to it.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Humorous that you mention "chops" with Keaton as opposed to Bale.

It was intentional. Just like you think Ledger pulled off a better Joker than Nicholson, despite the latter being a legendary actor and the former being just dead Heath Ledger, I think Keaton's acting was better as Batman than the otherwise more reputable Bale.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Now, this, I will agree on. If done right, Batman should be much more interesting than portrayed in any previous live-action adaptation.

If they can take it up to Keaton's level, I'll be satisfied.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
How do you even compare this. One is the title character and the other is a minor one with not even 10 minutes of screen time(including ONE scene with Bale).

Roberts entertained me more.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
It was intentional. Just like you think Ledger pulled off a better Joker than Nicholson, despite the latter being a legendary actor and the former being just dead Heath Ledger, I think Keaton's acting was better as Batman than the otherwise more reputable Bale.

Nicholson being a 'legendary actor' doesn't automatically put his performance above Ledger.

Also calling him 'just dead Heath Ledger' is actually pretty disrespectful.




Personally though Keaton lacked the physical presence to be a believable Batman to me. He looks like a nerd, not mothaf*cking Batman.

Exactly. Are we just going to forget the physical aspect of this? Is that not part of the performance?

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Exactly. Are we just going to forget the physical aspect of this? Is that not part of the performance? Yeah. It's a part. But then so is the acting. Which Keaton did a better job of. Though to be fair, it probably isn't entirely Bale's fault, or all Keaton's credit. The script and director play a part in determining the outcome of a character.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Nicholson being a 'legendary actor' doesn't automatically put his performance above Ledger.



If you'd have taken your time reading my post in its entirety rather than recklessly leap into the fray to defend your aggrieved Ledger, you might have realized that duh.

That was the point. Nicholson and Bale are more reputable than Ledger and Keaton respectively. Didn't stop the other guys from giving better performances.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Also calling him 'just dead Heath Ledger' is actually pretty disrespectful.

Compared to Nicholson, that's all he is. A talented actor, to be sure, and one with regretfully unexplored potential. But Nicholson is in a whole 'nother league.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Though to be fair, it probably isn't entirely Bale's fault, or all Keaton's credit. The script and director play a part in determining the outcome of a character. True. Bale had to work with the material, or lack thereof, that he was given.

I wasn't impressed by Keatons acting personally. Though again, the glasses and curly hair might have had something to do with that.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
True. Bale had to work with the material, or lack thereof, that he was given.



Which is why even talented actors like Samuel L. Jackson, Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee, Natalie Portman, and Liam Neeson all suffered to varying degrees under Lucas, a brilliant visionary who happens to suck at executing characterization.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Wow, so basically: "Don't criticize what I like, it's above all flaws."


You're kind of an ass, aren't you?


puh lease.. come down, you must be a Nolan hater which is okay, Nolan isn't worried about it.. Im telling the truth,, if you think people on message boards have any say when movie studios hire producers/directors/actors and actresses, thanks for the laughs..

also don;t put words in my mouth.. i never said his films had flaws, in fact every damn mfing film ever made has flaws, but the thing is you and other Nolan Haters fail to grasp/comprehend is the fact that the world disagrees with ya'll because you see since his films made a combined over $2,463,216,216 at the box office.. so despite the flaws people saw it and loved it..

Originally posted by The_Tempest
...And the wanking continues...



Cool story bro.

Unfortunately for THAT Batman fan, who apparently labors under a particularly debilitating case of malignant narcissism, THIS Batman fan doesn't share THAT Batman fan's opinions.

More importantly, THIS Batman fan doesn't have to. Welcome to the internet, place of free exchange of opinions and ideas, no matter how contradictory.

Better grab a Kleenex for your tears and lube for your bum, because odds are that you'll see me criticize Nolan and his Batman films some more.



no story as I am not crying , you might be if i have to ask a global mod to have a talk with you so please keep it civil.. you see i have no problem with people who don;t like his films, but it is the same old same old tired BS

Originally posted by Nephthys
I wasn't impressed by Keatons acting personally. Though again, the glasses and curly hair might have had something to do with that.

Neither was I.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/794787/kanye-shrug-o.gif

Originally posted by The_Tempest


If you'd have taken your time reading my post in its entirety rather than recklessly leap into the fray to defend your aggrieved Ledger, you might have realized that duh.

That was the point. Nicholson and Bale are more reputable than Ledger and Keaton respectively. Didn't stop the other guys from giving better performances.

Ah, ok. Sorry, its early here.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Compared to Nicholson, that's all he is. A talented actor, to be sure, and one with regretfully unexplored potential. But Nicholson is in a whole 'nother league.

No it isn't. Regardless, I was talking about your disrespect, not Ledgers acting chops.

That strategy ironically resembles a tragically doomed one from TDK. In this scene, I'll be Morgan Freeman.

Cool, then once that global mod lectures me for my quasi-rude retort, you can explain to him/her why you're coming into threads and belittling anyone who disagrees with you... y'know, the very action that incited my quasi-rude retort to begin with.

Great plan.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Which is why even talented actors like Samuel L. Jackson, Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee, Natalie Portman, and Liam Neeson all suffered to varying degrees under Lucas, a brilliant visionary who happens to suck at executing characterization. Nolan is a great at characterization though. And that's my point when it comes to the trilogy. In order to make TDK and TDKR a more epic feel Batman somehow, unfortunate as it may be, got lost.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
That strategy ironically resembles a tragically doomed one from TDK. In this scene, I'll be Morgan Freeman.

Cool, then once that global mod lectures me for my quasi-rude retort, you can explain to him/her why you're coming into threads and belittling anyone who disagrees with you... y'know, the very action that incited my quasi-rude retort to begin with.

Great plan.

What?

Edit: Oh, you're talking to Bruce.

Was talking to Bruce, not you.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Ah, ok. Sorry, its early here.

It's a consolation to know this still gets you worked up. Ammo for the future, I guess. excellent

Originally posted by Nephthys
No it isn't. Regardless, I was talking about your disrespect, not Ledgers acting chops.

Yeah it is. And I'm sorry you're so sensitive about Heath Ledger, but your sense of humor is unrepentantly irreverent elsewhere. Anyway, I used that phrase to simply make a point about Ledger's lack of standing next to Nicholson.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Nolan is a great at characterization though. And that's my point when it comes to the trilogy. In order to make TDK and TDKR a more epic feel Batman somehow, unfortunate as it may be, got lost.

That was his mistake, I think. Batman should have been a little more pulpy, noir-ish and operated on a smaller scale. If we want DC epic, we have Superman.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Was talking to Bruce, not you.



It's a consolation to know this still gets you worked up. Ammo for the future, I guess. excellent

No, I simply couldn't be bothered to read that whole sentence.


Originally posted by The_Tempest
Yeah it is. And I'm sorry you're so sensitive about Heath Ledger, but your sense of humor is unrepentantly irreverent elsewhere. Anyway, I used that phrase to simply make a point about Ledger's lack of standing next to Nicholson.

It isn't about Ledger. Referring to anyone who died tragically (or otherwise) as 'just dead name' is merely very dismissive and pretty much a complete assholish thing to say.

Tempest I have said what I wanted to say regarding haters... fact is message boards don;t matter

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Tempest I have said what I wanted to say regarding haters...

I know. Now run along and let people who are actually interested in the exchange of opinion exchange them without being assailed by your judgmental fanboyism.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
fact is message boards don;t matter

No one here, not Neph, Martin, Lucien, or me ever pretended like our words mattered in the grand scheme of things. Your posts here are certainly compelling proof of that claim.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
That was his mistake, I think. Batman should have been a little more pulpy, noir-ish and operated on a smaller scale. If we want DC epic, we have Superman. I think we're using the word "epic" in two different ways. I didn't mean epic in the fantastical sense as I believe you meant with Man of Steel. I meant more as in a tale that transcends the genre with a more ambitious aim. There's a reason The Dark Knight drew comparisons to films such as Heat and The Godfather Part II.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
puh lease.. come down, you must be a Nolan hater which is okay, Nolan isn't worried about it.. Im telling the truth,, if you think people on message boards have any say when movie studios hire producers/directors/actors and actresses, thanks for the laughs..

also don;t put words in my mouth.. i never said his films had flaws, in fact every damn mfing film ever made has flaws, but the thing is you and other Nolan Haters fail to grasp/comprehend is the fact that the world disagrees with ya'll because you see since his films made a combined over $2,463,216,216 at the box office.. so despite the flaws people saw it and loved it.. $2.4 billion eh? Wow. Yeah they must be unbelievably good if they made so much money. Almost as much as the $3.3 billion that Twilight pulled in.


And Rob Walker called it. Anyone who dares criticize Nolan's work must be a Nolan hater. Context sensitivity is disregarded. Rational thought is disregarded. A history of the poster's most recent posts is disregarded (or not even looked at, in your case). Nevermind I love his films and would rather watch them than any of the Burton films any day of the week. Nevermind that I just said he makes technically better films. And judging by the first line of your second paragraph there... I'm gonna guess that you're drunk when you wrote it. And probably in a spiteful mood. Someone breakup with you today? Someone who didn't like The Dark Knight?


God I hope you're drunk. Otherwise you're just a retarded *sshole.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I think we're using the word "epic" in two different ways. I didn't mean epic in the fantastical sense as I believe you meant with Man of Steel. I meant more as in a tale that transcends the genre with a more ambitious aim. There's a reason The Dark Knight drew comparisons to films such as Heat and The Godfather Part II.

Ah, ok, understood.

But that too was an error, I think. Very few "superheroes" work well in a "realistic" environment. Which is why though Marvel's lineup deals with, for all intents and purposes, "the real world," there is still a campy vibe from it.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I think we're using the word "epic" in two different ways. I didn't mean epic in the fantastical sense as I believe you meant with Man of Steel. I meant more as in a tale that transcends the genre with a more ambitious aim. There's a reason The Dark Knight drew comparisons to films such as Heat and The Godfather Part II. There's a sliding scale in the grandeur of the Nolan films. It starts with a gas attack and prison break, escalates to exploding buildings/assassinations/ship traps/emptied streets/foreign extraction, and rises to quarantined cities, complicated plane rescues, nuclear fusion, and atomic annihilation.


The weight of the stakes kinda crushed the last movie a bit. It didn't need to be so 'big' and the story and characters suffered for it. It was approaching the plotline of something better suited to Donner's Superman or Spider-Man. Not so much with "realistic" Batman.

Still gritty though.

Canadian, we seem to be on roughly the same page here. I am alarmed by this development.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I know. Now run along and let people who are actually interested in the exchange of opinion exchange them without being assailed by your judgmental fanboyism.



No one here, not Neph, Martin, Lucien, or me ever pretended like our words mattered in the grand scheme of things. Your posts here are certainly compelling proof of that claim.


shall I ask a global to have chat with you??? you an others act like your opinion is the only one that matters. it doesn;t

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
$2.4 billion eh? Wow. Yeah they must be unbelievably good if they made so much money. Almost as much as the $3.3 billion that Twilight pulled in.


And Rob Walker called it. Anyone who dares criticize Nolan's work must be a Nolan hater. Context sensitivity is disregarded. Rational thought is disregarded. A history of the poster's most recent posts is disregarded (or not even looked at, in your case). Nevermind I love his films and would rather watch them than any of the Burton films any day of the week. Nevermind that I just said he makes technically better films. And judging by the first line of your second paragraph there... I'm gonna guess that you're drunk when you wrote it. And probably in a spiteful mood. Someone breakup with you today? Someone who didn't like The Dark Knight?


God I hope you're drunk. Otherwise you're just a retarded *sshole.


sorry to disappoint you but I don;t drink..

no i think you are.. you folks just simply cannot handle the truth.. it doesn;t matter what people on message boards say, the only thing that does are the box office returns

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
shall I ask a global to have chat with you???

I'm glad you included 3 question marks instead of one.

One would not have infused your sentence with its proper interrogative properties and sense of urgency.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
you an others act like your opinion is the only one that matters. it doesn;t

You could always go back to the part where I explained to Martin that this whole dog and pony show is an exchange of opinions and there is no such thing as "objective" critique.

But don't let the facts stop you.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
But that too was an error, I think. Very few "superheroes" work well in a "realistic" environment. Which is why though Marvel's lineup deals with, for all intents and purposes, "the real world," there is still a campy vibe from it. As you said yourself, all this stuff is subjective. All about what you like.

Iron Man 3 is a perfect example of how the aim Marvel is going with can exhaust itself and backfire.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There's a sliding scale in the grandeur of the Nolan films. It starts with a gas attack and prison break, escalates to exploding buildings/assassinations/ship traps/emptied streets/foreign extraction, and rises to quarantined cities, complicated plane rescues, nuclear fusion, and atomic annihilation.


The weight of the stakes kinda crushed the last movie a bit. It didn't need to be so 'big' and the story and characters suffered for it. It was approaching the plotline of something better suited to Donner's Superman or Spider-Man. Not so much with "realistic" Batman.

Still gritty though. I ****ed with it. Thought it was perfect for what he was trying to do: end the tale definitively with no chance of a sequel. The movie had a plethora of plot holes if you have no life and want to sit and nitpick but other than that.

Actually, I thought Iron Man 3 was entertaining.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I'm glad you included 3 question marks instead of one.

One would not have infused your sentence with its proper interrogative properties and sense of urgency.



You could always go back to the part where I explained to Martin that this whole dog and pony show is an exchange of opinions and there is no such thing as "objective" critique.

But don't let the facts stop you.

facts, oh you mean the one that message boards don;t mean anything, the only fact that does is ya know box office results and not people whining over they didn;t get a carbon copy of tim burtons/joel schumacher films or Batman should have been his comic book self in Nolan's films

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Canadian, we seem to be on roughly the same page here. I am alarmed by this development. Perhaps there's more syrup in your veins than you previously thought.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
sorry to disappoint you but I don;t drink..

no i think you are.. you folks just simply cannot handle the truth.. it doesn;t matter what people on message boards say, the only thing that does are the box office returns Got it. You're just a retarded *sshole.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I ****ed with it. Thought it was perfect for what he was trying to do: end the tale definitively with no chance of a sequel. The movie had a plethora of plot holes if you have no life and want to sit and nitpick but other than that. Plot holes schmot holes. If plot holes make a movie bad then no movie would be good. No rather it's the emotion of a film that ultimately matters, and those will change for everybody. For me, keeping Bruce Wayne alive after such a traumatic, harrowing, unimaginably debilitating and painful journey was a poor choice--emotionally. Killing off the man inside the suit (in a noble, sacrificial way) while letting the idea of Batman live on with Blake, would have been a great ending note on a series that placed such emphasis on symbols and ideas for the sake of hope.

And with such a grand finale as Rises, it really put strain on the notion that these were the "realistic" films they're purported to be. He survived having no cartilage, a broken back, a deep knife wound, and a nuclear blast. Getting a little hard to care about or feel concerned for the man who never seems to be in any real danger. Combine that with the wasted opportunity to drive home the symbol vs. mortal theme and Rises kinda fell flat with me. None of that was a "plot hole", it was just unbelievable and emotionally stunted. Just like Batman himself, so I guess it fits.

Originally posted by Kotor3
In Begins, Batman was a great detective and dark. My favorite line in the movie “I’m won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you”. I loved that line. That was the dark grittiness that was missing from the characters in the sequels.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
facts, oh you mean the one that message boards don;t mean anything,

Never denied it.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
the only fact that does is ya know box office results

The Canadian already crushed you on this one. Unless you're prepared to admit the Twilight movies are better than Nolan's Batman ones by virtue of the fact that they grossed more at the box office?

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
and not people whining over they didn;t get a carbon copy of tim burtons/joel schumacher films or Batman should have been his comic book self in Nolan's films

This is criticism and, from the sounds of it, your first real experience with someone intelligently and persistently disagreeing with you about something that means a lot to you.

I'm delighted to be part of this monumental experience in your life.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Perhaps there's more syrup in your veins than you previously thought.

Got it. You're just a retarded *sshole.

Plot holes schmot holes. If plot holes make a movie bad then no movie would be good. No rather it's the emotion of a film that ultimately matters, and those will change for everybody. For me, keeping Bruce Wayne alive after such a traumatic, harrowing, unimaginably debilitating and painful journey was a poor choice--emotionally. Killing off the man inside the suit (in a noble, sacrificial way) while letting the idea of Batman live on with Blake, would have been a great ending note on a series that placed such emphasis on symbols and ideas for the sake of hope.

And with such a grand finale as Rises, it really put strain on the notion that these were the "realistic" films they're purported to be. He survived having no cartilage, a broken back, a deep knife wound, and a nuclear blast. Getting a little hard to care about or feel concerned for the man who never seems to be in any real danger. Combine that with the wasted opportunity to drive home the symbol vs. mortal theme and Rises kinda fell flat with me. None of that was a "plot hole", it was just unbelievable and emotionally stunted. Just like Batman himself, so I guess it fits.

I loved that line. That was the dark grittiness that was missing from the characters in the sequels.


guess you want a chat wiht a global, let me and i shall grant your request since you want to resort to childish insults

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Never denied it.



The Canadian already crushed you on this one. Unless you're prepared to admit the Twilight movies are better than Nolan's Batman ones by virtue of the fact that they grossed more at the box office?



This is criticism and, from the sounds of it, your first real experience with someone intelligently and persistently disagreeing with you about something that means a lot to you.

I'm delighted to be part of this monumental experience in your life.

nah, its hate and twilight making money, yeah those movies were very very successful, i didn;t care for them but yeah they were very very successful


thanks for lols, I've had this same incessant and very ignorant conversation with people on here..

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in all these conversations, you were the one who brought the incessant ignorance to the table?

Kinda like an uninvited guy who shows up at a party and brings Ebola instead of chips and salsa.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
guess you want a chat wiht a global, let me and i shall grant your request since you want to resort to childish insults



nah, its hate and twilight making money, yeah those movies were very very successful, i didn;t care for them but yeah they were very very successful


thanks for lols, I've had this same incessant and very ignorant conversation with people on here.. You have? Have you considered that perhaps you're the only common denominator in these conversations?

And did you quote my entire post just to respond to the 7 words I said to you? What, are the intricacies of the quote function too much for you?

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in all these conversations, you were the one who brought the incessant ignorance to the table?

Kinda like an uninvited guy who shows up at a party and brings Ebola instead of chips and salsa.


nah ask esau cairn, we had a similar conversation,, its okay to admit you hate someone because you don;t like how something he did to make a comic book character come to life and be very successful at it

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You have? Have you considered that perhaps you're the only common denominator in these conversations?

And did you quote my entire post just to respond to the 7 words I said to you? What, are the intricacies of the quote function too much for you?


if im gonna quote your entire and whining about it because i am only responding to one or two things, thinks for making me laugh.. you see I am not going to waste time quote posting to every thing, if that is something you want to do go ahead i however won't
.. and no, why should i?? not my problem there are haters on here.. i am giving my opinion , if you or anyone else can;t handle it not my problem

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
i am giving my opinion , if you or anyone else can;t handle it not my problem lol wow. Talk about pot to the kettle.


EDIT: I would have responded to the rest of what you said, but... I have no f*cking clue what you said. The rest of your post is an illegible mess. I've seen more coherent thoughts from a toddler.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
lol wow. Talk about pot to the kettle.


EDIT: I would have responded to the rest of what you said, but... I have no f*cking clue what you said. The rest of your post is an illegible mess. I've seen more coherent thoughts from a toddler.


i will not respond to your childish insults.. not my problem you cannot read and respond back to what i have said..

There you go. That's better.

May be a tad off topic but how do you people feel about the rest of Nolan's catalog, Batman withstanding?

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
nah ask esau cairn, we had a similar conversation,, its okay to admit you hate someone because you don;t like how something he did to make a comic book character come to life and be very successful at it


Oh Christ you're constant fall back of labelling me a "Nolan Hater" & quoting how much the movies made got so bloody tedious I gave up trying to have a rational conversation with you.

Hell you wanna compare box office profits to the heroin trade on a world wide scale THEN convince me that heroin's a good thing?

Originally posted by Darth Martin
May be a tad off topic but how do you people feel about the rest of Nolan's catalog, Batman withstanding?

Well this Nolan Hater has enjoyed everything he's done...although I did find Inception overrated.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien


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?

In Begins, Nolan LITERALLY built Gotham City in a sound studio. Then he superimposed various cityscapes into the skyline....creating a dark & gritty Gotham City. At least Burton & Schumacher had a fundamental understanding that a place named aptly Gotham had to resonate its namesake.
I mean passing Detroit for Gotham...?

And yes,Nolan makes movies on an epic scale, often compared to the GodFather series...Batman isn't about grand sweeping lingering shots of the city scape,it's about street level,dark gritty lane ways. It's not about bringing down organised crime...it's about saving the helpless,weak & unfortunate that suffered similarly to Bruce's parents.Begins hinted at this then got lost with Nolan's vision for a "GodFather Epic". Too many characters, too many sub plots made Batman a minor character.

Another fact I felt misplaced for both TDK & TDKR is that Nolan fell in love with filming in IMAX. Batman did not need the wide sweeping shots of lingering cityscapes.IMAX would probably been better utilised in MOS then for the Batman movies.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Batman isn't about grand sweeping lingering shots of the city scape,it's about street level,dark gritty lane ways. It's not about bringing down organised crime...it's about saving the helpless,weak & unfortunate that suffered similarly to Bruce's parents.Begins hinted at this then got lost with Nolan's vision for a "GodFather Epic". Too many characters, too many sub plots made Batman a minor character. That's not exactly true. Again, Batman is many things. The Justice League Batman doesn't ever deal with regular murderers or conventional thefts. Batman is many things. Nolan had his interpretation. It wasn't wrong by any means. Maybe flawed but not wrong.

I'd also argue Begins had just as many characters. TDK and TDKR just featured more interesting ones.

Well I loved BB and TDK. 2 of my favorite movies of all time. Wasn't all that impressed with TDKR though.

And as someone who loved the Burton movies as well, I have to say Nolan's were superior in almost every way. I don't see how Burton's Batman was more intimidating tbh.

As for the Ledger steamrolled Bale argument. Well yeah Ledger's performance was the best of all of the Batman films, but still to be fair TDK focused more on Ledger, whilst Batman Begins focused more on Batman. And to me BB was just as good as TDK, but just probably not as much appreciated when it first came out.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Oh Christ you're constant fall back of labelling me a "Nolan Hater" & quoting how much the movies made got so bloody tedious I gave up trying to have a rational conversation with you.

Hell you wanna compare box office profits to the heroin trade on a world wide scale THEN convince me that heroin's a good thing?

grow up will you.. as i have said it is fine to admit people hate the man, you would have more respect instead of denying it.. the facts speak for themselves, movie studios do not care whether or not people on message boards love or hate their films, they do not care if people love or hate Nolan.. the fact is he turned a great comic book character into a great franchise and hopefully the next version will be just as good.. next look at the box office returns, you and others cannot, repeat cannot deny that these movies were very successful despite the incessantly ignorance regarding the plotholes and flaws..
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Another fact I felt misplaced for both TDK & TDKR is that Nolan fell in love with filming in IMAX. Batman did not need the wide sweeping shots of lingering cityscapes.IMAX would probably been better utilised in MOS then for the Batman movies.


more stupidness, I see , actually Nolan did not fall in love with filming the dark knight and the dark knight rises in IMAX.. you see when a movie studio films in IMAX or 3 d that means more mney in peoples pockets

Originally posted by Darth Martin
That's not exactly true. Again, Batman is many things. The Justice League Batman doesn't ever deal with regular murderers or conventional thefts. Batman is many things. Nolan had his interpretation. It wasn't wrong by any means. Maybe flawed but not wrong.

I'd also argue Begins had just as many characters. TDK and TDKR just featured more interesting ones.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well I loved BB and TDK. 2 of my favorite movies of all time. Wasn't all that impressed with TDKR though.

And as someone who loved the Burton movies as well, I have to say Nolan's were superior in almost every way. I don't see how Burton's Batman was more intimidating tbh.

As for the Ledger steamrolled Bale argument. Well yeah Ledger's performance was the best of all of the Batman films, but still to be fair TDK focused more on Ledger, whilst Batman Begins focused more on Batman. And to me BB was just as good as TDK, but just probably not as much appreciated when it first came out.


good words

Although Bruce/Batman had quite a lot more screen-time than the Joker did in The Dark Knight.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Although Bruce/Batman had quite a lot more screen-time than the Joker did in The Dark Knight.

yes he did, but The Joker stole the show

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
And to me BB was just as good as TDK, but just probably not as much appreciated when it first came out.

I'd probably give Begins the slight nod over TDK. While there wasn't a phenomenally standout performance in the former that really rivaled Ledger's Joker, its awesomeness was more evenly distributed. As the Canadian explains, Bruce was more interesting there than at any other point in the trilogy; Neeson, Murphy, and Wilkinson made for a great terrible triumvirate; and Katie Holmes is ten times the looker McFugly Gyllenhaal is.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
grow up will you.. as i have said it is fine to admit people hate the man, you would have more respect instead of denying it.. the facts speak for themselves, movie studios do not care whether or not people on message boards love or hate their films, they do not care if people love or hate Nolan.. the fact is he turned a great comic book character into a great franchise and hopefully the next version will be just as good.. next look at the box office returns, you and others cannot, repeat cannot deny that these movies were very successful despite the incessantly ignorance regarding the plotholes and flaws..



more stupidness, I see , actually Nolan did not fall in love with filming the dark knight and the dark knight rises in IMAX.. you see when a movie studio films in IMAX or 3 d that means more mney in peoples pockets








good words

That's right, I nearly forgot your trademark of belittling others who don't agree with you.
Yes, yes yes hide behind box office returns...y'know that's more a reflection on marketing & publicity than the quality of the movie?
Regardless of opinion people have to pay FIRST to see the movie.

And yes, Nolan tried the IMAX format for the bank robbery scene in TDK (where robbers swing across buildings) & loved the scope of the film....later deciding to film TDKR in the IMAX format.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
In Begins, Nolan LITERALLY built Gotham City in a sound studio. Then he superimposed various cityscapes into the skyline....creating a dark & gritty Gotham City. At least Burton & Schumacher had a fundamental understanding that a place named aptly Gotham had to resonate its namesake.
I mean passing Detroit for Gotham...?

And yes,Nolan makes movies on an epic scale, often compared to the GodFather series...Batman isn't about grand sweeping lingering shots of the city scape,it's about street level,dark gritty lane ways. It's not about bringing down organised crime...it's about saving the helpless,weak & unfortunate that suffered similarly to Bruce's parents.Begins hinted at this then got lost with Nolan's vision for a "GodFather Epic". Too many characters, too many sub plots made Batman a minor character. I had no problem with the Mob busting route they took. Defending the weak and helpless is all well and good, but character's logic and studio marketing both considered, having Batman do nothing more than beat up thugs with no ultimate end goal would be just stupid. If an intelligent, highly skilled, deeply connected, rich vigilante is going to have a "villain" to target in a realistic movie, targeting the roots of corruption and criminality is highly appropriate. I.e. Mob busting. It makes more "realistic" sense than protecting the weak from monsters, aliens, or deranged mad scientists. And it makes even more sense than not having an antagonist at all.


And the street fighting, back alley stuff was great, not just as a "gritty and realistic" setting, but as a part of the plot. Batman excels at that kind of stuff, and Begins was full of it. That kind of back alley, sleuthish, roughing up led him to an end goal that was relatively downplayed; a train derailment isn't exactly epic--Speed did it bigger. And the gassed parts of the city were lost, showing that Batman can't handle everything. That theme was continued in TDK. He was good at the thug-beating, mob-busting, back alley stuff. But as soon as the Joker came along with chaos, explosions, and "sending a message", Batman lost control of the situation--barely being able to set it right in the end, and even then it was Pyrrhic.

But then TDKR came along had turned him in to the goddamned Wolverine. Can't be killed, no matter what injury or explosive mass of radioactive particles he receives. Can't be kept in a giant hole in India. Can't be kept out of a quarantined city. Can't be defeated by a guy who's already defeated him and dealt an ungodly debilitating injury. Everything ultimately goes his way, and he's no worse for any of it. Rises really lost me. I was so entertained, yet so disappointed.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I had no problem with the Mob busting route they took. Defending the weak and helpless is all well and good, but character's logic and studio marketing both considered, having Batman do nothing more than beat up thugs with no ultimate end goal would be just stupid. If an intelligent, highly skilled, deeply connected, rich vigilante is going to have a "villain" to target in a realistic movie, targeting the roots of corruption and criminality is highly appropriate. I.e. Mob busting. It makes more "realistic" sense than protecting the weak from monsters, aliens, or deranged mad scientists. And it makes even more sense than not having an antagonist at all.



But by Batman's "character logic", he's a driven force to avenge his parents & stop the innocents from becoming victims themselves. His "ultimate goal" is to search for an inner peace that will forever be beyond his reach or understanding. Every writer that has written a Batman comic has always grounded Batman as an angst driven hero...his crime fighting on the street level would sometimes lead up to mobs & organised crime (busting petty drug dealers then following the trail to the suppliers/villains...)

By your logic it would be pointless & a studio marketing waste to show Rocky's "minor" fights & just go straight to the main antagonist.

Nolan's focus was simply on a rich bored vigilante motivated by organised crime that threatened his own empire.
I mean, TDKR...there really felt no motivation as to why Batman wanted to save Gotham showing more passion & interest in Selina as his reason to go back to Gotham.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
That's right, I nearly forgot your trademark of belittling others who don't agree with you.
Yes, yes yes hide behind box office returns...y'know that's more a reflection on marketing & publicity than the quality of the movie?
Regardless of opinion people have to pay FIRST to see the movie.

And yes, Nolan tried the IMAX format for the bank robbery scene in TDK (where robbers swing across buildings) & loved the scope of the film....later deciding to film TDKR in the IMAX format.

thanks for the laughs, not belittling people. telling truth which is something you cannot understand yet alone comprehend.. the movie making industry is a business something to always remember.. you simply cannot handle the truth that while you didn;t like these films the millions of people around the world who paid their money liked them.. how else do you think that that whether it is these Batman films or Man of Steel or any other film that is successful .. I hope you understand what multiple means because that is what happens when a movie makes a boatload of cash. people LIKED what they saw and their is no denying that.. THAT IS A FACT.. a fact who are having trouble with.. I should not have to explain this to you.. the films had great quality to them so remember while you can;t handle that, i can.. I have never ever said that Nolan's Bat trilogy didn;t have flaws, all films do, I simply have looked past them and enjoyed the films

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
But by Batman's "character logic", he's a driven force to avenge his parents & stop the innocents from becoming victims themselves. His "ultimate goal" is to search for an inner peace that will forever be beyond his reach or understanding. Every writer that has written a Batman comic has always grounded Batman as an angst driven hero...his crime fighting on the street level would sometimes lead up to mobs & organised crime (busting petty drug dealers then following the trail to the suppliers/villains...)

By your logic it would be pointless & a studio marketing waste to show Rocky's "minor" fights & just go straight to the main antagonist.

Nolan's focus was simply on a rich bored vigilante motivated by organised crime that threatened his own empire.
I mean, TDKR...there really felt no motivation as to why Batman wanted to save Gotham showing more passion & interest in Selina as his reason to go back to Gotham. (paragraph 1) Batman's motivations in the comics and other media are irrelevant to me when discussing the motivations of this series' rendition. It's a separate variation of the character, and I've nothing against alternate takes. Nolan's Batman isn't shown to be hung up too much on his parents' death (not after he dons the suit, anyway). He's more focused on continuing his father's legacy on helping the people of the city, just in a more direct, brutish way via pain and fear. Nolan's Bruce cares about ridding the city of organized crime, the same organized crime that is responsible for the city's suffering. Something his dear departed father also cared about. He's not angst ridden over his death, he's moved past it by stepping in the same shoes. We've seen the angsty, tortured Batman, we don't need another film to focus so heavy on it again. Begins did show it at the beginning, but it also showed Bruce moving beyond it; growing as a person and establishing the beginning of the long-coveted character arc that the sequels so readily forgot about--ergo, boring Batman.


EDIT addendum: consider also that this was a finite number of films. Unlike the TV series or comics, it had to have an end goal (even if it wasn't relevant in #3) that... well, had to end. It can't have monsters or freaks and still be realistic, and it also can't have nothing beyond stopping muggings or drug dealers. It had to mean something further, thus the theme of rooting our corruption and criminality as a whole--fighting the cause, not just the symptoms. That's a much more poignant point to make in a film, and they did it well. For the most part.


(paragraph 2) What? No no, you're missing my point. The "minor fights" are necessary. Very necessary. They set stakes, build tensions, show off the characters. And Begins did that. A movie (or game, or novel, or comic or what have you) would be so boring if it began and ended with a climax. You need to establish the fights on the streets and have them lead to something bigger, more impactful. Fear-mongering and skulking in the back alleys led Batman to Falcone which led to Scarecrow which led Ra's. A tier process which started small and rose in stakes and skill. Begins did that beautifully, TFK showed the limitations of the style when faced with unpredictability, and TDKR made Batman in to an ubermensch.


(paragraph 3) "threatened his own empire"? Either you totally misread Bruce's intentions or you're thinking of another movie. His selfishness was something that was lamentably ignored in TDK (it was brought up in Begins, but should have been a focus in TDK). He was genuinely motivated to save the city in Begins (hence why he was so willing to betray and kill "Ra's" and not a whiff of "imperialism" is present in the character's desires. As of the sequel though, he was clearly all about getting Rachel. A welcome flaw in his character, as such tunnel-visioned motivation for altruism could have been a great discussion on the merits of his vigilantism. But that was ignored, and Bruce seemed to get over Rachel's death pretty quickly, so that was a waste too. I.e. boring Batman.


Good Joker though, and that's what matters.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
thanks for the laughs, not belittling people. telling truth which is something you cannot understand yet alone comprehend.. the movie making industry is a business something to always remember.. you simply cannot handle the truth that while you didn;t like these films the millions of people around the world who paid their money liked them.. how else do you think that that whether it is these Batman films or Man of Steel or any other film that is successful .. I hope you understand what multiple means because that is what happens when a movie makes a boatload of cash. people LIKED what they saw and their is no denying that.. THAT IS A FACT.. a fact who are having trouble with.. I should not have to explain this to you.. the films had great quality to them so remember while you can;t handle that, i can.. I have never ever said that Nolan's Bat trilogy didn;t have flaws, all films do, I simply have looked past them and enjoyed the films My God, man. Just stop it.

RateMoviesHere.com is one of the fastest growing entertainment portals and the source of reliable and honest reviews for the finest in movie entertainment. We are a one stop information hub for bollywood trailers, bringing you over thousands of the best Hollywood and Bollywood titles for your rating, review and enjoyment. Our user-friendly rating system and transparent review system allow you to review and rate the movies of your choice. RMH is a premier entertainment portal that ensures the availability of authentic, credible reviews and rating information.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
thanks for the laughs, not belittling people. telling truth which is something you cannot understand yet alone comprehend.. the movie making industry is a business something to always remember.. you simply cannot handle the truth that while you didn;t like these films the millions of people around the world who paid their money liked them.. how else do you think that that whether it is these Batman films or Man of Steel or any other film that is successful .. I hope you understand what multiple means because that is what happens when a movie makes a boatload of cash. people LIKED what they saw and their is no denying that.. THAT IS A FACT.. a fact who are having trouble with.. I should not have to explain this to you.. the films had great quality to them so remember while you can;t handle that, i can.. I have never ever said that Nolan's Bat trilogy didn;t have flaws, all films do, I simply have looked past them and enjoyed the films

Oh christ, you're STILL mistaking BUYING A TICKET PRIOR TO WATCHING A MOVIE as fact that people liked it?
You're further forgetting the initial impact that marketing, advertising & publicity are relevant & evidence to a film's profit or loss.
TDK had a budget of 230million dollars. What was factored into that budget (after pre-production, filming & post production costs) was that half of it would be spent on advertising the film.
TDK didn't rely on a good director, good cast & story line alone....it relied on 150 MILLION DOLLARS being spent on spruiking the movie itself.

Titanic wasn't a success because it was a great film, it was a success because people fell for the hype.
On the same note, John Carter was a flop purely because of poor advice on how the film should've been marketed.
The same can be said about Boondock Saints, HighLander & Equilibrium...these movies suffered from poor, low budget marketing on theatrical release but proved their cult-worth once they became dvd retail.

And yes, re-packaging dvds & releasing box sets close to Xmas will always increase their sales...I've lost count on how many packaged versions of Star Wars, Lord/Rings, Harry Potter & Pirates are on the shelves these days to buy. Once again, their gross earnings is no reflection on how good the movies are to begin with.

Your reliance on box office sales vs how good a movie is, is flawed & narrow minded.

As I previously mentioned, heroin is a billion dollar trade world wide. People will pay anywhere from $30 US to $1330 US per gram.
So based on sales alone, you wanna convince me also that heroin's a good thing?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Oh christ, you're STILL mistaking BUYING A TICKET PRIOR TO WATCHING A MOVIE as fact that people liked it?
You're further forgetting the initial impact that marketing, advertising & publicity are relevant & evidence to a film's profit or loss.
TDK had a budget of 230million dollars. What was factored into that budget (after pre-production, filming & post production costs) was that half of it would be spent on advertising the film.
TDK didn't rely on a good director, good cast & story line alone....it relied on 150 MILLION DOLLARS being spent on spruiking the movie itself.

Titanic wasn't a success because it was a great film, it was a success because people fell for the hype.


Your right and your wrong.

BB was just as good as TDK Imo, yet did not make anywhere near as much. Factors for that will include it being the first Bat film after Batman&Robin, a reboot and overall not that much hype to it.(Though it still did well).

Whilst with TDK it had hype. But I do believe you have to credit a lot of that to the quality of BB as well as TDK's marketing. Because lets face it if BB was crap there wouldn't be much hype for TDK.

BUt then the same goes for all they hype towards TDKR. That existed solely because people loved BB and TDK, so were really excited for the last installment.

As for Titanic, no movie makes a record that can't be broken for 10 years without anyone liking it. It wasn't a film for the average man. But women loved it, and dragged their boyfriends/families again and again.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER


As for Titanic, no movie makes a record that can't be broken for 10 years without anyone liking it. It wasn't a film for the average man. But women loved it, and dragged their boyfriends/families again and again.

This is why I used Titanic as an example.
Cameron's grand vision was to re tell a tragic event in human history however the marketing/prommotions dept saw the potential of advertising the love-story angle towards women who couldn't care less about a big boat hitting a block of ice. Every movie poster & trailer featured Kate & Leo romancing on a cruise ship.
Never once have I read Cameron saying,"This a the love story I've always wanted to direct."
This movie was marketed & publicised as a doomed romance & that marketing ploy worked to its advantage.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Your right and your wrong.

BB was just as good as TDK Imo, yet did not make anywhere near as much. Factors for that will include it being the first Bat film after Batman&Robin, a reboot and overall not that much hype to it.(Though it still did well).

Whilst with TDK it had hype. But I do believe you have to credit a lot of that to the quality of BB as well as TDK's marketing. Because lets face it if BB was crap there wouldn't be much hype for TDK.

.

Generally speaking if a movie franchise is hyped as a trilogy, people will see all 3 films because they've already invested their time & money in seeing the first 2 films. A large proportion of people hated Phantom Menace but still persevered in watching the 2 instalments afterwards. This does not dictate they were good movies to begin with. Blade fans hated the sequel but still watched the 3rd simply because it was marketed as a trilogy.

As far as TDK's hype ....that centred entirely around a) Heath playing The Joker & b) Heath's subsequent death. Exactly the same marketing hype I remember when The Crow got released on DVD & focused on "Own the movie that Brandon died in." So regardless on how well BB did or didn't do, it was a totally different marketing ploy that TDK profited from.

I'm simply just pointing out that if a movie is THAT good then it shouldn't have to have a 130 million dollar budget put aside focussing on publicising it.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

This movie was marketed & publicised as a doomed romance & that marketing ploy worked to its advantage.

So it was marketed as a doomed romance? Well that#s what the film was really. The tragedy it focuses on is the tragedy of that doomed romance.

So the marketing was spot on, and clearly audiences would have got what they wanted.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Generally speaking if a movie franchise is hyped as a trilogy, people will see all 3 films because they've already invested their time & money in seeing the first 2 films. A large proportion of people hated Phantom Menace but still persevered in watching the 2 instalments afterwards. This does not dictate they were good movies to begin with.

Well AOTC gross earnings did fall by a huge number compared to TPM. In fact even ROTS didn't reach TPM numbers. So your theory isn't working there.

Besides TPM was a "Love it or hate it" movie. Many people still enjoyed it regardless of the criticisms.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Blade fans hated the sequel but still watched the 3rd simply because it was marketed as a trilogy.

Not sure how your maths is working here. Because again Blade III grossed the least of all 3 movies despite having the advantage of inflation on it's side.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
As far as TDK's hype ....that centred entirely around a) Heath playing The Joker & b) Heath's subsequent death. Exactly the same marketing hype I remember when The Crow got released on DVD & focused on "Own the movie that Brandon died in." So regardless on how well BB did or didn't do, it was a totally different marketing ploy that TDK profited from.

And yet The Crow wasn't exactly one of the biggest movies of all time. TDK was.

Fact is if people didn't enjoy TDK they would not have been invested in watching TDKR. The fact that TDKR made the most of the trilogy says a lot about the excitement behind the franchise by that point.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I'm simply just pointing out that if a movie is THAT good then it shouldn't have to have a 130 million dollar budget put aside focussing on publicising it.

Well fact is both audiences and critics alike loves that move.

The movie made tons so the marketing paid off. But it most probably wouldn't have made anywhere near that much profit if it was a mediocre movie.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Oh christ, you're STILL mistaking BUYING A TICKET PRIOR TO WATCHING A MOVIE as fact that people liked it?
You're further forgetting the initial impact that marketing, advertising & publicity are relevant & evidence to a film's profit or loss.
TDK had a budget of 230million dollars. What was factored into that budget (after pre-production, filming & post production costs) was that half of it would be spent on advertising the film.
TDK didn't rely on a good director, good cast & story line alone....it relied on 150 MILLION DOLLARS being spent on spruiking the movie itself.

Titanic wasn't a success because it was a great film, it was a success because people fell for the hype.
On the same note, John Carter was a flop purely because of poor advice on how the film should've been marketed.
The same can be said about Boondock Saints, HighLander & Equilibrium...these movies suffered from poor, low budget marketing on theatrical release but proved their cult-worth once they became dvd retail.

And yes, re-packaging dvds & releasing box sets close to Xmas will always increase their sales...I've lost count on how many packaged versions of Star Wars, Lord/Rings, Harry Potter & Pirates are on the shelves these days to buy. Once again, their gross earnings is no reflection on how good the movies are to begin with.

Your reliance on box office sales vs how good a movie is, is flawed & narrow minded.

As I previously mentioned, heroin is a billion dollar trade world wide. People will pay anywhere from $30 US to $1330 US per gram.
So based on sales alone, you wanna convince me also that heroin's a good thing?

hahahahahhahahhaha.. thank you thank you again for the laughs.. who said anything about buying tickets early???? people go out to the movie theater wherever they are, stand in line , buy their ticket(s), go get their seats, then go get food /drink if they want to..

actually no because remember about marketing and such that always helps and ya know the films did make a boatload of cash but yeaTitanic made a boatload of cash so yeah people must have liked it, I didn't like Titanic though, but I am not going to cry and whine about it
more ignorance about the budget.. do you know that movies that come out in the summertime often will have massive budgets??? i certainly know that, i guess you don't


once again thank you thank you for the laughs, reading your posts tells me you cannot or do not understand how the movie industry works.. movie studios look at how a film does when it is out in the theater.. when they a film make a boatload of cash, they know that said film is a major major success despite what critics may think. Despite the fact that the film may or may not have flaws. they know that people around the world certainly must have liked the film otherwise the movie would not be a financial success. why you cannot understand or choose not to makes no sense.. Are you a frustrated screenwriter who pitched a Batman idea to WB and they laughed at you and turned you down???? DVD/Blu Ray helps because well ya know those that enjoyed the film in the move theater will buy the film on dvd/blu ray


why you bringing in drugs makes no sense , since you know this is the movie business

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I'm simply just pointing out that if a movie is THAT good then it shouldn't have to have a 130 million dollar budget put aside focussing on publicising it.

lols, each and every summer, movie studios want to make money.. summer tentpole films will always cost a lot, their marketing will cost just as much as the film itself sometimes because ya know the movie studio wants to put the film out there so people know about it.. also if you expect a batman film to be cheaply made nowadays, you might want to think long and hard because that isn't happening.. when Batman returns in 2016 unless the date been changed that film will most likely have a cost similarly to Nolan's films, the reasons being where the film is being made, the actors/actresses being hired to play bruce/batman, gordan, etc.. whether or not the actors/actresses are names(if they are top talent), then the budget will be truly a lot .. you are also forgetting the fact that 3 d and IMAX play a role in the budget(being that a lot of directors will shoot with IMAX cams for various scenes, shoot a film in 3 d from start to finish or convert in post).. also the fact that whether or not directors will use little or lots of cgi .. there is more but what i listed about budget is truth

movie studios will spend anywhere from $1 million to $200 million during the marketing phase to make sure their film is out there for people to see, why that is hard to understand i really don't know .

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
who said anything about buying tickets early???? people go out to the movie theater wherever they are, stand in line , buy their ticket(s), go get their seats, then go get food /drink if they want to..

Originally posted by juggerman
I guess Dent and Talia killed themselves huh?

well Dent should have braced himself after Batman knocked him off the ledge

and Talia, well she should have turned east so Fox could have disarmed the bomb

He tackled Dent off a ledge. It was intentional.

Originally posted by Nephthys
He tackled Dent off a ledge. It was intentional.

Intentional to save the child, kill Dent, or both?

I say save the child and Dent die in the process. It was not his intention to kill Dent.

To save the child.... by tackling Dent off a ledge. Obviously he didn't want to kill him, but don't act as if it was an accident. He knew Dent was going to die and still did it.

As the Joker said, killing is making a choice. One life or another.

Originally posted by Nephthys
To save the child.... by tackling Dent off a ledge. Obviously he didn't want to kill him, but don't act as if it was an accident. He knew Dent was going to die and still did it.

As the Joker said, killing is making a choice. One life or another.

You are not getting the point. As you stated he did not want to kill him but if it came to saving the child and rushing him off a cliff he saved the child. Now if he happen to survive Batman was going to go down and finish the job.

Now tell me how does that make him like Burton's Batman which is the point we are discussing?

Burton's Batman is more intimidating because he kills intentionally or goes into situations with the intent to kill unlike Nolan's version.

How does the fact that Burton's Batman goes around killing criminals make him better than Nolan's Batman?

That alone doesn't make him more intimidating than Nolan's Batman.

Killing in itself would not. I said intent. Burton's Batman went into situations with the intent to kill. Nolan's did not.
To me a person with intent to kill is more intimidating than a person that does not have intent to kill.

Originally posted by Kotor3
You are not getting the point. As you stated he did not want to kill him but if it came to saving the child and rushing him off a cliff he saved the child. Now if he happen to survive Batman was going to go down and finish the job.

Now tell me how does that make him like Burton's Batman which is the point we are discussing?

Burton's Batman is more intimidating because he kills intentionally or goes into situations with the intent to kill unlike Nolan's version.

You said Nolan's Batman wasn't willing to kill. By tackling Dent off that ledge Bruce proved that he was willing to kill in order to save a life. Juggerman corrected you in that Nolan Batman is willing to kill and I backed him up.

Yeah, I've watched that film about 20 times and I've never gotten the impression that Batman thought "Ledge-Dent-dead-brilliant!" It always came off more as a, "Oh shit, he shot me and now he's gonna shoot that kid oh man gotta jump!"


With Ra's he flat out told that b*tch he gonna let him die. Huge frackin' difference in tone and intention.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
So it was marketed as a doomed romance? Well that#s what the film was really. The tragedy it focuses on is the tragedy of that doomed romance.

So the marketing was spot on, and clearly audiences would have got what they wanted.

Well AOTC gross earnings did fall by a huge number compared to TPM. In fact even ROTS didn't reach TPM numbers. So your theory isn't working there.

Besides TPM was a "Love it or hate it" movie. Many people still enjoyed it regardless of the criticisms.

Not sure how your maths is working here. Because again Blade III grossed the least of all 3 movies despite having the advantage of inflation on it's side.

And yet The Crow wasn't exactly one of the biggest movies of all time. TDK was.

Fact is if people didn't enjoy TDK they would not have been invested in watching TDKR. The fact that TDKR made the most of the trilogy says a lot about the excitement behind the franchise by that point.

Well fact is both audiences and critics alike loves that move.

The movie made tons so the marketing paid off. But it most probably wouldn't have made anywhere near that much profit if it was a mediocre movie.

Understand & respect your opinions man.
A pleasant change to have an intelligent debate for once.

Originally posted by Nephthys
To save the child.... by tackling Dent off a ledge. Obviously he didn't want to kill him, but don't act as if it was an accident. He knew Dent was going to die and still did it.



I'm sorry but there is one obvious flaw to this "To Kill Or Not" debate.

The flaw being why didn't Batman use his grappling hook to swing to safety (after tackling Dent) or his cape to buffet his fall, capturing & keeping Dent alive in the process?

Originally posted by Kotor3


Burton's Batman is more intimidating because he kills intentionally or goes into situations with the intent to kill unlike Nolan's version.

No he doesn't. It was only the Joker he went with the intention of killing. And that was because he killed his parents.

IIRC Bruce was going to do the same to his Parent's killer in Batman Begins.

I'd say the scene where Batman was beating the Joker silly in jail made Nolan's Batman look pretty intimidating. "Good cop, bad cop.. Something like that."

But the scenes that really stand out were the Batman Begins ones. So Really not getting how Burton's was so much more intimidating.

Originally posted by Kotor3
He also was no longer a great detective as he was in BB. He never figured out anything in TDK or TDKR.

They touched on his detective skills in TDK when he was analyzing the bullets that were fired back in the batcave.

But yeah his detective skills were not focused on much in the trilogy really.

I remember when Neph tried to argue that Batman would have been a murderer had he not rescued the Joker in TDK.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
They touched on his detective skills in TDK when he was analyzing the bullets that were fired back in the batcave.

But yeah his detective skills were not focused on much in the trilogy really.

Did Batman actually come to any conclusion analysing the bullets? From memory Alfred interrupted with his rant about hunting a jewell thief "back in the day" & nothing really resulted from the bullet testing.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I remember when Neph tried to argue that Batman would have been a murderer had he not rescued the Joker in TDK.

The fool. Since when has throwing someone off a skyscraper ever been classed as murder? What a digital dummy.

VVV He found a fingerprint on it from where Joker loaded the round (through the casing i.e by magic) which led him to the kidnapped officers.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Did Batman actually come to any conclusion analysing the bullets? From memory Alfred interrupted with his rant about hunting a jewell thief "back in the day" & nothing really resulted from the bullet testing.

Have to watch that part again, but like I said, his detective skills were just touched on in that scene.

Originally posted by Nephthys
The fool. Since when has throwing someone off a skyscraper ever been classed as murder? What a digital dummy.

Would have been self defence I think.

Joker already said he wasn't going to kill him.

The "murder victim" in question was a notorious terrorist with a high body count who had just taken a dozen? people hostage and had pummeled the "murderer" with a pipe and mauled him with attack dogs. Not to mention his imminent threat to blow up a couple of heavily populated barges.

If knocking that guy off your chest when he's holding you at knifepoint constitutes murder in England, then it's no wonder you all aren't a superpower anymore.

He didn't knock him off his chest. Watch the scene, he literally grabs him and throws him over the edge.

And yes, obviously as I said its that he's killing in defense of another i.e. not legally "murder", if you want to play semantics. He would have killed him though. Just like with Dent, Bruce proved that he was willing to kill in order to save a life. That is, had he not saved him.

Well sure. There's a difference though between killer and murderer.

I doubt Batman cares tbh.

Batman has killed in most of his movies, the body counts just vary. The whole "not a killer" thing is a relatively new concept in the comics too.

But that's off topic, I think.

As far as Nolan's trilogy goes, I think that he makes good movies, sometimes great movies, but whether, say, the Dark Knight, or any of his trilogy is a great Batman movie, that's not something i'm sure about, tbh. Burton, for all his eccentricities, came closer to the spirit of the character than Nolan did, even if Nolan's movies are technically superior.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Burton, for all his eccentricities, came closer to the spirit of the character than Nolan did, even if Nolan's movies are technically superior.

Thank you, yes.

I've been reading through this thread, and I have to throw it out there that major box office dollars do not make a movie is good. Major box office dollars make a movie successful. The Twilight series is unadulterated dog shit, yet it made billions. The Harry Potter franchise made billions and broke records, however I'm just not a HP fan and couldn't care less about these films as I think that they're lame.

The Nolan trilogy was good, I have to admit, albeit flawed.

I loved how stories like the Long Halloween, No Man's Land, and Knightfall were incorporated, but WHY does Batman have to reveal his identity in almost every damn film?

Originally posted by -Pr-
As far as Nolan's trilogy goes, I think that he makes good movies, sometimes great movies, but whether, say, the Dark Knight, or any of his trilogy is a great Batman movie, that's not something i'm sure about, tbh. Batman as a whole is a brand. The title character is just that; a character in the story.

By the time of TDKR I felt Gary Oldman WAS Gordon. The transformation of Dent to Two-Face was great and Ledger as Joker was monumental. When you add in Bane these are just much better than anything Burton could do with the characters. Batman, himself, you could argue Burton did better(I think it's close) but you can't just disregard the other characters.

I did like Michael Gough as Alfred though.

God, yes, don't get me started on Gough. Caine is an indisputably superb actor, but Gough is the quintessential Alfred IMHO and always will be.

His scene with Clooney where they talk about him dying was the best part of the whole movie.

butthurt ass thread.

this guy made an entire thread to b!tch about how he doesn't like MoS, as if we didn't get the point in the MoS Thread.

Originally posted by Nephthys

VVV He found a fingerprint on it from where Joker loaded the round (through the casing i.e by magic) which led him to the kidnapped officers.

How does finding a print lead to locating the kidnapped officers?
What was the clue to their location?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
How does finding a print lead to locating the kidnapped officers?
What was the clue to their location?

The kidnapped officers were in the apartment that belonged to fingerprint's owner.

Originally posted by ares834
The kidnapped officers were in the apartment that belonged to fingerprint's owner.

But it's established that the prints belonged to The Joker.

So the Joker's name was on the lease to the apartment?

No, it wasn't the Joker's fingerprints on the bullet. It's one of his goons who is named Melvin White.

Originally posted by ares834
No, it wasn't the Joker's fingerprints on the bullet. It's one of his goons who is named Melvin White.

Sorry, I'm just going by Neph's post that it was Joker who loaded the round.

Originally posted by juggerman
He was willing to kill, intentionally or otherwise, to save a life.

And Talia? And the nameless guy driving?

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
but Nolan's Batman and Burton's Batman do not have to be the same

it will be the same for whoever takes over when the Batman reboot happens

Who said they did?

How is this point in relevant to this discussion?

Originally posted by Kotor3
Who said they did?

How is this point in relevant to this discussion?


don't know .. don't even care.. im gonna give my opinion whether you like it or not.. any and all discussions are open to all

LOL

Originally posted by Kotor3
LOL

lololololololololol


see anyone can post that smilie, since i have many times..

really don't time for people stuck in a temporal causality loop circa 1978 or 1989

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Christ,I seem to be the only one that remembers that Batman has a grappling line to swing on & capture crims as well as a cape capable of sustaining his weight & buffering his fall AS SEEN IN BATMAN BEGINS.

Dent did not have to fall to his death or Batman sustain his injuries if either hook or cape was utilised.


hahahaha.. Batman had absolutely no time to take out his grapple gun.. he made a split second choice to save a child's life