My Problem With The Dark Knight Rises

My Problem With The Dark Knight Rises

I finally figured out my problem with TDKR

Editorial Opinion
By walterbryant0708 - Aug 08, 2012 06:08 AM EST
Filed Under: Fan Fic

For the longest time, I had no clue. I just couldn’t figure it out. I mean, it’s a great movie, right? As an action flick, it stands up to most of the greats. As a story, it has a deep, complex structure that keeps you guessing, even when you, honestly, know many of the answers. So, what was the problem? Why did Nolan’s last Batman movie leave me feeling unfulfilled? What was the burning in my gut that just wouldn’t go away even though I thoroughly enjoyed the movie? What was the problem with The Dark Knight Rises? I thought on this for a long time before I finally realized that Batman, himself, had told me what my problem was.
“The point of the mask is that anyone can be Batman.” This one statement, which Nolan tries to hammer home by having Bruce Wayne appoint a new Batman and having him repeat this as, almost, a mantra in the waning moments of the film, are the precise problem I have with the film. “Anyone can be Batman.” No they can’t Batman is, essentially, Bruce Wayne. Anyone else is a pale imitation. Let’s compare, what I believe to be, the two best Batman iterations: the first Tim Burton Batman and Nolan’s Batman.
At first glance, in the grittier, more realistic Gotham, Nolan’s Batman seems as though he would be, hands-down, the better of the two, but honestly, pit them against one another, and I would honestly say that Burton Bat beats Nolan Bat in a fight, an rather easily. Ok, Nolanites, hear me out before you have me drawn and quartered.
The Burton Batman was smarter. This isn’t even up for debate. Nolan’s Batman had his entire arsenal created for him. From his body armor to the gliding cape, he was, almost, helpless without the aid of Lucius Fox. None of the vehicles he used were his own design, and many of his personal arsenal of weapon- grappling guns, etc.- were part of the R&D department of Wayne enterprises. Meanwhile, the first time anyone ever saw any of the Burton bat-tech, aside from Bruce and Alfred, was when they were employed for their various uses. And, it doesn’t stop there.
Nolan’s Bat was trained by the League of Assassins, a cult, led by Ras Al Ghoul, whose sole purpose is the annihilation of a huge portion of the human race in order to start anew and create a new Eden. Nolan’s Batman found this out just before he was given his final initiation to the cult. Burton’s Batman would have known with whom he was dealing before-hand. Why am I so sure? Because Nolan’s Batman is, supposedly, a real-world Batman, while Burton’s Batman was a better reflection of the comic books that spawned him. Burton’s batman would never have left because he couldn’t save Harvey Dent, nor would he have wasted his fortune building something that could be turned into a nuclear bomb. Burton Batman was too smart for these faux pas.
Remember Axis Chemicals, the place that birthed the Joker? Remember the files that Burton Batman had on all the criminals in Gotham and how he was able to piece together who the Joker was? Remember him showing up to save Vikki Vale from that same Joker based only on the fact that she called to confirm a date. Remember how often he showed up when the Penguin or Catwoman were up to no good or how he put an end to Joker poisonings using his chemistry knowhow when he realized the Joker was a chemist as well? Nolan’s Bat has very little of this prowess. Matter-of-factly, he seems very adept at hitting things but lacks the refined skill of Burton Bat. Speaking of skills…
Nolan’s Bat was trained in the same place as Bane, meaning, someone with more conviction and the same training could beat him. Bane did, so who else could? Most likely Ras, had he wanted to. Who knows how many others? What about Burton Bat? Do we know where he was trained? No. Do we know how many masters or disciplines? No. All we know is he could beat any opponent and that he could disappear in an instant. Honestly, there was never a doubt in my mind that Burton Bat wins, but Nolan Bat, many thought was going to die. I’m sorry, Nolanites, but it’s no contest. You don’t have to like it. You probably won’t admit to it, but in your quiet times, when it’s just you and your inner voice, you’ll have to accept it… Burton Batman was simply better.
This brings me back to the crux of my problem- anyone can be Batman. No, they can’t. The whole Nightfall storyline, which introduced Bane, went through great lengths to get us to understand that there was only one Batman, and that anyone else was only a pale imitation. Even the one Bat that did succeed in taking over Bruce’s legacy was a partial clone of the original Batman. The point is, that I think Nolan missed the point. In saying, and believing that anyone could be Batman, he took away things that were essential to the character. He made him, almost, normal, so that anyone could aspire to be him, but that’s not who Batman is. Batman is Bruce Wayne, a man obsessed with using his MIND and body to keep everyone safe, because he is one of the few who can. He’s Batman, not just because he can be, but because others can’t. That’s what Nolan lost. That’s what TDKR was missing, and that is what we’ll never get from him now…

Black Superman

DC & Marvel Team Up In Awesome Fan-Created Infinite Crisis Video
Related:

DC & Marvel Team Up In Awesome Fan-Created "Infinite Crisis" Video

Bill Cosby Says He Wants To Be In A Superhero Film
Recommended For You:

Bill Cosby Says He Wants To Be In A Superhero Film

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
CPBuff22
CPBuff22 - 8/8/2012, 7:19 AM
I agree with this to a point. It is hard to compare the two films because of the time between them. Even though the Tim Burton Batman was more comic book styled and should have been able to out pace the Nolan Batman, the lack of technology in the costume used in that movie makes people feel he couldn't. Remember Michael Keaton couldn't even turn his head in that costume. Makes it hard to imagine the same action we see from Nolans Batman.

I agree that not just ANYONE can be Batman. I don't necessarily feel Bruce Wayne is the only person who could be but in the comics we see he goes to a very dark place. And as the years continued he has had to make some decisions that I am not sure most people would make. I mean it takes a certain kind of person to realize you need a deterrent for all the supers in the Justice League just in case someone goes bad. That takes someone calculating and a little paranoid. And after Joker killed Robin Batman was in an extreme dark place and managed to persevere and thats not something just anyone could do.

So I do believe that not just ANYONE could be Batman. That said there could be someone besides Bruce Wayne who could do the job. Just not for the length of time Bruce has and possibly not as well.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 8/8/2012, 7:19 AM
Good article! And I agree. The origin story was PERFECT in Batman Begins, I love that movie....

But the sequels should have established that he is still improving himself, still building his fighting skills, his arsenal, his strength...

The problem is that because Ra's more or less created Batman... Batman was the byproduct of a terrorist. He doesn't believe in Ra's' crusade, and has trouble reconciling Batman's necessity in the long-term, and sees Batman as a fully-functional weapon to solve Gotham's problems quickly.
Preston
Preston - 8/8/2012, 8:48 AM
Keaton's Batman [Burton] is tormented, sadistic, and borderline insane. He is dark and brooding and he spends every waking moment obsessed with his quest for Justice. He is a self trained, has a genius level IQ, and does a ton of detective work. Bruce Wayne is just a mask, and real relationships are a waste of time. He is almost as cracked as the criminals he takes down (he doesn't trust anyone). He is the version of Batman that we see in Frank Miller's Universe.

Sadistic


Bale's Batman [Nolan] is a ninja. He is well balanced for a guy who puts on a mask and parades around as a bat. However, he is more of a depressed/lost soul than an obsessive individual. He has a kind heart, humanitarian (and he believes in people).

In Many ways, Bale's Batman character is WAY lighter than Keaton's Batman. Bale's Batman is a sissified version of Batman. It's as if Batman decided to share his feminine side with us, and invited us along for a ride. Nolan and Goyer created a Batman that could pluck at the heartstrings of the average moviegoer [and they do a good job of it]. In turn, we get a silhouette of the Batman from the comic, some ninja crap, and a ton of psychological stuff to keep women and critics happy.

Nolan know how to craft a movie, the way he works the visuals with the music is masterful; however, his Batman for a lack of a better word is a “Bitch.” He gets owned by everyone in The Dark Knight Rises even the power company punks him (lets not forget: beat up multiple times, deceived multiple times). It's like he lacks any common sense.
RidiculousFanBoyDemands
RidiculousFanBoyDemands - 8/8/2012, 9:09 AM
Paragraphs.
RidiculousFanBoyDemands
RidiculousFanBoyDemands - 8/8/2012, 9:11 AM
Yeah Burton's Batman was loyal.

Jack Napier is the joker and he killed Bruce's parents. The penguin is some deformed baby that was thrown into a sewer by Pee Wee Herman. Catwoman was licked to life by cats, and some how gained martial art skills.

Trust me I could go on for awhile.
Highways
Highways - 8/8/2012, 9:51 AM
I agree. I hope to see the next Director inspired by Burton, and by MICHEAl KEATONS portrayal of Bruce Wayne.
Preston
Preston - 8/8/2012, 10:02 AM
@RFBD

I think he said “most loyal” to date. And, like it or not Burton's Batman is the most loyal “modern” (post Year One) take on Batman to date. The motivation and obsessive behavior of Batman is clearly shown in Burton's Movies.

Time Line:
1986 – Batman: Year One
1987 – The Dark Knight Returns
1988 – The Killing Joke
1989 – BATMAN (1989) – The Movie

In other words, the darker version of Batman hadn't been around for a while. In many ways, Batman was still stuck in the 1966's version before Batman 1989. In many ways, Batman 1989 helped change the course of the comic-book more than it was inspired by it (plus, it gave way to Batman: The Animated Series).

Anton Furst's design for Gotham city was/is spectacular; it's as if they brought Gothan City from the comics to life. It gives the movie a genuine comic feel.

Bob Ringwood's design for the Bat suit (especially the cowl) has been stolen and altered by every other director since Burton.

It's the comic version of Batman that feels like Guillermo Del Torro's Hell Boy.

And, Batman 1989 (yes, because of Napier), gave us the ultimate Joker V.S. Batman movie. Batman and Joker fight at every point in their lives:

Jack Napier VS (young) Bruce Wayne – Jack kills Bruce Wayne's Parents
Jack Napier VS Batman – Jack falls into vat of chemical at Axis Chemical Plant
Joker VS Bruce Wayne – Vicky Vales apartment - “you want to get nuts”.
Batman VS Joker – through out the movie

It helped make the plot circular, and it gave us the best Joker VS Batman on screen.
Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 10:03 AM
Burton's batman couldn't turn his head, and he fought far worse than Nolan's.

Burton's batman also killed indiscriminately. Whereas Nolan's saved the Joker from certain death, Burton's tied a gargoyle to Joker's leg and let him fall.

@JokerFanHAhaHA

Nolan's Batman didn't have the one rule come out straight away. It only came about after he nearly shot his parent's killer and understood how ashamed his father would be of him for trying something like that.

He also understood the one rule perfectly;

Henri Ducard: "Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share."

Bruce Wayne: "That's why it's so important. It separates us from them."

thoarnejones
thoarnejones - 8/8/2012, 10:16 AM
Yet another person who doesn't like Nolan's Batman movies cause it isn't THEIR BATMAN. How many articles like this are we gonna get? He has a point, but this is getting stale now.
Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 10:31 AM
@JokerFanHAhaHA

No doubt, I love Burton's Batman suit. Doesn't change the fact the fight scenes suffer because of it.

Also, in regards to walterbryant0708 main complaint, about how anyone can't be Batman themselves, you're absolutely right.

But Nolan's Batman isn't saying anybody could just up do what he does specifically.

He's saying that he intended to create a symbol that COULD have been considered to be anyone.

Bruce Wayne: "The idea was to be a symbol. Batman could be anybody, that was the point."

He means that to the common people Batman could possibly be the average Joe down the street, or the neighbor next door.

He's not a superhero, he's just a man.

That's what's makes him so eternal, that's what makes him a legend.

No-one could ever be him or replace him, but the fact people know he's only human who wants to do good makes him a powerful, inspiring figure.

AuthorOfModeOne
AuthorOfModeOne - 8/8/2012, 10:33 AM
In general, I loved both Burton's version and interpretation and Nolan's, but if I have to lean toward one or the other, I'd lean toward Nolan's trilogy.

Nolan made both Bruce Wayne AND Batman way more believable than the TV series did, or Burton's version did. I mean, c'mon. The Penguin and Catwoman in Burton's version?? Not realistic at all. Even The Joker was not as realistic in Burton's version as it was in Nolan's version.

And for the person that said that Batman was not trained by Ra's al Ghul in the comic book, that is WRONG. Ra's al Ghul was introduced in 1971 in the Batman comic book series. (Check Wikipedia)
Preston
Preston - 8/8/2012, 10:34 AM
@Sabconth

You want to talk about things that are out of character?

How about Batman quitting for 7-8 years, moping around like a crippled [little girl] hermit after only one year of actually being Batman? Oh yeah, and he is a hypocrite because he talks about the sanctity of life, but he killed Two-face and Talia (and let Ra's die). As long as he does it, and doesn't like it (it's fine).

The main difference is that Nolan's Batman is only Batman in name. He shares very little with his comic counterpart (obsession, drive, etc). Oh and lets not forget, Clockwork Orange scar-faced Joker, white Ra's, and midget (non-hispanic) gas mask Bane were a hundred percent accurate to the comic-book; plus, lets not forget that the real Batman's a quitter [sarcasm].
GoILL
GoILL - 8/8/2012, 10:34 AM
I wonder how many more of these type articles we will get this week.
HanTorso
HanTorso - 8/8/2012, 10:37 AM
I think this article if anything understates the problem. It was evident since Batman Begins with the very cringe-inducing line: "Can you repeat that in English?", said to Lucius Fox after Lucius Fox explains the Scarecrow's poison. I think the lowest point was when Alfred had to correct Batman's simple-minded dismissal of the field of criminal psychology in The Dark Knight.

Almost every major character in the movies talks to Batman in some sort of condescending manner, from Alfred or Rachel's impatient lecturing, to Ra's Al Ghul, Joker, or Maroni's dismissive taunting.

On the Burton Batman, the 1989 film is the only great Batman movie ever made in my opinion. Batman Returns is a goofy spoof which is fine for what it is, but shouldn't reflect in any way on the 1989 original.

I think there is some indication in the 1989 movie on how Batman was trained, but it is done in subtly. When Vicki Vale and Knox are wandering through Wayne Manor and they come across the collection of exotic armor and weaponry from different cultures, one set of which Bruce Wayne says he got in Japan. That hints that Bruce Wayne has extensively traveled, and studied various styles of combat from all over the world. This fits with the usual explanation for Batman's training in everything I've ever seen except for the Nolan films.
AuthorOfModeOne
AuthorOfModeOne - 8/8/2012, 11:00 AM
Where did you very last post go Sabconth? That was an excellent post.
Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 11:06 AM
@Wormwood

Batman will kill if pushed into a corner or as a last resort.



Two-Face was an honest accident, he never meant to kill him.

Letting Ras die was the best thing, if he had lived, the LOS would have broken him out and he would have returned even stronger and well organized than before.

Besides, in the comics, Batman has no problem killing Ra's, specifically because he knows the Lazarus keeps reviving the mofo.

Nolan's Batman actually did detective work too, unlike any of the other 4 Batman films.

In Begins he investigates the drug shipments and scouts out the Narrows.

In Dark Knight there is an entire sequence, which many forget, where he rebuilds a bullet digitally to find a thumbprint.

and in Rises, he discovers Selina's identity with the fingerprint's she left behind and the bat computer.

Burton's Batman one and only moment of true detective work is where he figures out who the Joker is, and that's through the repressed memory of the night his parent's were killed.

As for Batman quitting?

In The Dark Knight Returns he quit for 10 years. In Batman Beyond he quit because he picked up a gun. He once hallucinated, thanks to scarecrow, thinking his parents were alive and that he was married to Selina, guess what he did before anything else? He gave up being the Batman.

Yes he quits after only a year, but this is the saga and storyline Nolan wanted to tell, just imagine it as an Elseworlds comic where we have a Batman planted in our very real and grounded world.

Nolan's Batman, this version, is the most accurate representation of the dark knight so far. It's not about how awesome his moves are, or how long he does what he does, it's about showing what he stands for and the iron will only he possesses.






GoILL
GoILL - 8/8/2012, 11:08 AM
@Sabconth great stuff.
AuthorOfModeOne
AuthorOfModeOne - 8/8/2012, 11:14 AM
There it is. Again, excellent post Sabconth.
CPBuff22
CPBuff22 - 8/8/2012, 11:16 AM
Nolans Batman is a mashup of recent comics in a way to make him not actually based on any of them. And after Batman Begins all character growth for the Nolan Batman stops. Sure he is in different situations but he doesn't grow from that. Instead of growth you see him degenerate as a character just sitting in his home doing nothing after TDK. Instead Nolans focus is on the character growth of Harvey Dent, Jim Gordon, & John Blake. All characters who should have LESS screen time than Batman does. Honestly that is why I think they removed Batman from the title of the second and third film.
HanTorso
HanTorso - 8/8/2012, 11:22 AM
@Sabconth

The Burton Batman's big detective moment is that he figures out how the Joker is poisoning people, something the police are not able to figure out.

I think it is fine that Batman kills Joker in the 1989 movie, and also that he kills Ra's in Batman Begins, but in the 1989 movie it is never stated that he won't kill people anyway.

Anyway, the same reasoning that you say excuses Batman for killing Ra's in Batman Begins, works just as well to excuse Batman killing the Joker.

And Batman quitting in the Dark Knight Returns is for the much more valid reason that he's getting old, and not for some bizarre need to prevent Gotham's citizens from knowing that their district attorney was temporarily not sane enough to forego revenge immediately after having his fiancee murdered, and half his face blown off. You can argue that in the Dark Knight Returns Batman retired too young, but he would have to retire at some age.

Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 11:24 AM
Guys, everyone should go to the article I'm about to post a link to, it should alleviate most people's woes with Rises.

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/7/29/comic-influences-on-the-dark-knight-rises

Some of my favorite Easter eggs and nods to the comics.

Bruce using a brace to fix his arm like he does with his leg in the film.


This moment


and to Harry Knowles who says Alfred would never leave Bruce's side, ever, particularly not to make him understand he won't be a part of his own destruction.




HanTorso
HanTorso - 8/8/2012, 11:28 AM
@JokerFanHAhaHA

I agree with what you say, except Batman doesn't come up with an antidote to the Joker's poison, he just figures out how it works and how to avoid it. After that there wasn't a need for an antidote. As much as I love 1989 Batman, it is a plot hole (though hardly a serious one) that Batman doesn't take his findings to the press immediately concerning what products for people to avoid.
Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 11:35 AM
@HanTorso

Batman didn't kill Ra's, he just didn't save him.

Burton's purposefully ties a gargoyle to his leg, that's premeditated murder.

And Joker would have been sent to Arkham, he had goons, yes, but it's unlikely they would have the skills like the LOS to break him out.

Also, if we're counting Burton's Batman figuring out that the Joker is poising people as detective work, then Nolan's Batman figuring out that Ra's is using a weaponized form of Scarecrow's toxin is equally important.

Batman had to quit after the events of The Dark Knight.

The Dent Act sweeped organized crime off the streets of Gotham and made the people of Gotham far safer and less corrupt than they were at the start of Begins.

This was what Batman had been striving for, a city that was healed enough to deal with it's own problems and believe in justice again.

He'd been looking for something like this to happen ever since Begins, and even more so in Dark Knight. Harvey even says so. Because he knew he couldn't do this forever.

Him returning to the streets would have underminded all this as it would have refocused the Police efforts into catching him.

Not to mention he was seriously injured after his fall at the end of Dark Knight, an injury he carried with him for 8 years.

Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 11:47 AM
@JokerFanHAhaHA

Nobody is saying Nolan's movies are 100% realistic, they're simply more grounded than your usual comic book movie.

There is only so much you can fit into these films, and people already say The Dark Knight trilogy are long ass films already, do we really need half an hour of Batman: Law and Order in order to get across the fact he can figure things out on his own?

I really don't know how you're all going to handle a reboot if it treats him like the all knowing, omnipotent quasi-god some of the lesser comics make him out to be.

Yes, it's totally bad ass, but if you thought this series had stretches of believability and leaps of logic, you ain't seeing nothing yet.


Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 11:54 AM
@JokerFanHAhaHA

Ra's chose to board that train, no one forced him, it's not the same as someone falling into the sea.

Besides, if we're being really nit picky, then technically Gordon killed Ra's because he destroyed the monorail. Luckily Gordon doesn't follow 'the one rule' as religious as Batman does.

Believing Gotham can never be healed is the anti-thesis to everything Batman stands for.

If you truly believed that then watching the films or reading the comics must be a morbid, sick joke. Because it means Batman is destined to live out a never ending groundhog day where nothing ever changes for the better.

In short, you're saying his very purpose and reason for fighting, is pointless.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 8/8/2012, 12:00 PM
@Sabconth
You are reciting rhetoric.
Batman didn't kill Ra's, he just didn't save him.

That's like Peter not stopping the shoplifter. Batman doesn't even refute Talia's claim that he killed her father.

Burton's purposefully ties a gargoyle to his leg, that's premeditated murder.
Pretty much. I think it was mainly to keep him from climbing up the ladder... but that goes right back to the above point. Like if my sister grabs my hair and I try to pull away, is it my fault that my hair was pulled, or her's?

And Joker would have been sent to Arkham, he had goons, yes, but it's unlikely they would have the skills like the LOS to break him out.
He gets out just fine in the Killing Joke - even fools Batman for a spell.

Also, if we're counting Burton's Batman figuring out that the Joker is poising poisoning people as detective work, then Nolan's Batman figuring out that Ra's is using a weaponized form of Scarecrow's toxin is equally important.
Both are near or at the start of their anti-hero careers, so I can forgive either way. What it really bottles down to is trying to make Batman relateable to the average moviegoer, and therefore, their deductive reasoning is pretty shallow, and their knowledge of chemistry is a bit mild... THAT IS... in Batman Begins. Almost forgot myself, but Burton's Batman is the one who cracks Joker's chemical formula. +1 to Keaton

Batman had to quit after the events of The Dark Knight.
Why? Batman was actually at an all-time high. Gotham City and the police believe he is a serial killer, which means that damn, the mobsters left over after Falcone and Maroni would be terrified. Even though Bane is telling the truth when he reads Gordon's notes, what actual evidence does he present to Gotham that those are in fact, his notes? We're all supposed to take a terrorist's word for it?

The Dent Act sweeped organized crime off the streets of Gotham and made the people of Gotham far safer and less corrupt than they were at the start of Begins.
How do you make someone less corrupt? That aside, I'll point you back to the conversation between the Mayor and Dent in TDK. Dent reasons that at the very least, Gotham will have 18 months free of the low-level criminals who can't afford to make bail. What of everyone else?

This was what Batman had been striving for, a city that was healed enough to deal with it's own problems and believe in justice again.
No, it is what Ra's put Bruce on the path towards, until he showed him his true colors. Batman has to be about more than that, or he's just another vigilante. Ra's shaped Bruce into Batman, which I guess, is why Bruce is so ready to give him up. Hence, it is not really the Batman of the comics, just in name only.

He'd been looking for something like this to happen ever since Begins, and even more so in Dark Knight. Harvey even says so. Because he knew he couldn't do this forever.
Forever? He was Batman for less than 2 years!

Him returning to the streets would have underminded all this as it would have refocused the Police efforts into catching him.
If he was so determined to protect Gotham, then he would have created another identity. Then of course, it wouldn't be "Batman", but that's already a moot point. I would argue that he police aren't THAT stupid, but...

Not to mention he was seriously injured after his fall at the end of Dark Knight, an injury he carried with him for 8 years.
He's a selective cripple. If his injury were SO bad, there would be no way he could stand up at the end of TDK. Also circumstantial - based on the writing. Nolan could just as well have left this "injury" out.
GoILL
GoILL - 8/8/2012, 12:01 PM
@Sabconth loving your posts.
Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 12:04 PM
@JOkerFanHAhaHA

Burton's weren't even like the comics though.

- Batman killed.

- Penguin was a deformed, insane monster

- Joker killed Bruce's parents

- Catwoman was resurrected by cats!?!?

- Gordon was a fat dolt

I do remember the films that were comic bookey though and...






... I can live without these more 'faithful' moments.

Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 12:29 PM
@Tainted87

If you're being lifted into the air by a helicopter at the same time your sister grabs your hair, then it's her fault. Just like it's Batman's fault for not anticipating that Joker would have no choice but to fall to his death.

Even if we discard this particular murder, Burton's Batman still kills plenty of bad guys in both movies, especially Returns.

Why did Batman have to quit after Dark Knight, despite being at an all time high?

Well ignoring his injury, or the fact it would have cost the police time and resources that could be better spent on tackling crime with the Dent Act, the main reason he stopped was because the police were finally doing what he was going to do anyway.

Why bother going after the mobsters if they're already being rounded up by the police? There's no need, they're doing it on their own now.

Yes, there are other sorts of crime, but it was fairly clear in this series that organized crime and the type of hopeless people they create, like the killer of Bruce's parents, were almost completely eradicated in Rises due to Batman's sacrifice.

The other question you asked was "How do you make people less corrupt?"

Simple, by removing those that would prey on the weak or force people to do underhanded things just to survive.

Ra's didn't shape Bruce into batman, his parents murder did, Ra's merely gave him training.

In order to become Batman, Bruce needed the will, no one could teach that.

And yes he was Batman for less than 2 years... and?

It robbed him of his greatest love and apparently took a gigantic toll on his health as his doctors appointment in Rises clearly shows.

At the end of The Dark Knight you can see Batman stumbling and crashing into containers. Adrenaline and the fear of being caught probably helped him move past the pain in his leg momentarily.

Look, I'm not trying to say you must like this series, if you prefer Burton's, then great.

If you prefer Schumachers... okay. (But seek help)

I simply feel that this series caught the mythology of what Batman is about, at his core, better than any other film out there.
Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 12:36 PM
@JokerFanHAhaHA

"Marvel already proved you can have a movie that can be taken seriously and still be comic booky, so that excuse for not wanting a comic booky Batman movie doesn't make any sense."

It does when you consider how bad both of his more 'comic like' adaptions have been.

Yes Avengers did it brilliantly, but until Batman does it too I'll still be wary.

I'm not saying I wouldn't welcome a Batman straight out of the comics, but now that this series has adapted so many of the best moments from Batman's history, I'm just not sure how they'd match up.
HanTorso
HanTorso - 8/8/2012, 12:41 PM
Even though they were made only three years apart, Batman Returns should not be lumped together with the 1989 film, much less the Schumacher films which I've never heard anybody but Roger Ebert say they like.
Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 12:46 PM
@HanTorso

I'd agree.

Problem is, while the tone is vastly different, Schumacher's films do follow on from Burton's universe and storyline. Even containing some of the same actors.

HanTorso
HanTorso - 8/8/2012, 12:57 PM
@Sabconth

What makes the Schumacher films what they are, was added in those films. Things carried over like the casting of Alfred and Gordon weren't what made those films so bad. But all that really counts is that they are different movies that nobody is defending.

I know the article brings in Batman Returns, and I think that is a mistake. The only thing I'd say in defense of Batman Returns is that it is not trying to be the kind of serious movie that the 1989 Batman, or the Nolan films were trying to be.
HanTorso
HanTorso - 8/8/2012, 1:04 PM
@Sabconth

I really don't think it matters whether Batman occasionally kills someone in either movie, because to my memory he never states in either movie that he absolutely won't ever kill people, and in both instances he has very good reasons for the killings. That said...

- Batman directs Gordon to destroy the tracks for the train Ra's is on, then doesn't warn Ra's until it is too late. That is killing him, and I'm fine with that as long as Batman understands that. If Batman really thinks that is morally different from directly killing him, then that would make Batman someone who uses false reasoning to get around his own rules.

- In 1989 Batman, Batman doesn't actually know that the gargoyle will kill Joker, since it only kills him by breaking off from the cathedral. That said, Batman does clearly try to shoot the Joker with from the batplane, so I'll admit I'm just nit-picking at your argument. Also, if Batman didn't tie the gargoyle to Joker's leg, Joker would have escaped, not be sent to Arkham.

- In Batman Begins, he "figured out" the thing about the poison by simply being gassed with it, and recognizing the effects from having taken the drug while training with Ra's. And Lucius Fox identified it and came up with an antidote. Batman wouldn't have been alive to make his observation otherwise. And as I mentioned in a past comment, when Lucius explained how the poison worked, Bruce said, "Can you put that in English", which tells everything about his dependence on Lucius Fox.

- I remember the scene in The Dark Knight where he takes the fingerprint from the bullet, but it feels like an achievement of Lucius Fox's computer system. I think you can sort of give him some credit for knowing that the computer was capable of reconstructing the fingerprint, but I don't think it qualifies as great detective work. On the other hand, I don't see any reason that figuring out the Joker's poisoning scheme is not detective work.

Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 1:41 PM
@HanTorso

Fair points.

TheLoveDoc
TheLoveDoc - 8/8/2012, 2:51 PM
When will people realize that this is not the source material, and that this is the story Chris Nolan made.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 8/8/2012, 3:03 PM
@TheLoveDoc
Hopefully sooner than later, because I really don't want the future Batman movies to follow in Nolan's direction.
Sabconth
Sabconth - 8/8/2012, 3:10 PM
@Tainted87

Fair enough, as long as you're aware that Nolan's movies brought Batman back from the ashes and cemented him as the most popular Superhero icon in the world today.

Dislike his take on Batman all you want, but whatever happens next in this franchise, you can bet it will be given an enormous amount of attention, care and especially money to make sure they keep to the high standard this franchise has now set.

This is DC's gravy train, they cannot afford to let it go off the tracks again.
1 2
View Recorder