Messages

I've always loved it and will, regardless of how other people feel about it. I must have watched it a bijilion times when I was a kid, so much so that now I can just "play" the thing inside my head.   I just love how messy and chaotic the architecture of Gotham is, with all those Socrealist statues and Disney-like mascots on the Plaza.

And, having grown up in rather nasty times, I can confirm that Burton?s approach is the most realistic. The medieval urbanism of Gotham is something that?s symptomatic of most corrupt societies, so I never really got the whole "Batman?s story is supposed to take place in our world" mantra.

Well, it?s a sequel to one of the most successful films, and the audience expects something that's at least equal or superior to the original. That's a huge burden for the filmmakers and, considering that, I wouldn't be surprised that the title is just a marketing trick. I think that they're trying to lower the expectations for the new film, so that the viewers would be more impressed when it comes out.

The trailer's out.

What I dislike about Nolan?s version is that sometimes I am under the impression that I am watching a documentary and not a film ? there is no mystery (which is, in my opinion, essential to Batman). I really can?t see what makes it more realistic, in any way, in comparison to Burton?s interpretation. It is enough to look at the sets. Burton?s Gotham is disorganized, claustrophobic, it is a city that cries for help. It demands cleaning, and it justifies Batman?s existence ? and I don?t have that feeling in Nolan?s version. Most of it looks like an average, relatively clean city, and the characters talk throughout the film about corruption suffocating the city. And that?s not convincing or ?realistic? to me.

A dead race in my opinion, I love them both equally.