Incredibly talky

[Bobthegoon89]

Watched the new one on blu ray on Christmas night and while I enjoyed it and thought it better than the sole time I saw it in the cinema, I noticed the length of it for the first time. This Batman picture is far too long. I think Nolan should have tried to edit it down a lot more. As we all know Nolan does have a weakness which is also his strength (on occasion): his exposition.

He covered every possible story point you can imagine. Every major and minor character gets a moment to shine. Unfortunately though what I wanted to see was a "Batman movie" and there were times were I felt I was watching a clone/tribute to "Heat" instead. How Nolan loves all that Gotham Police intrigue. Was there really a need to give such focus on say Mathew Modine's character? Even giving him that signposted death scene? There are for me too much talking scenes in this one and characters that were not exactly required. Endless subplots basically.

Perhaps this attention to detail and overwhelming seriousness has made people forget how fun a Batman picture used to be. Remember those days of "homing Batarangs" in Batman Returns? What happened to them....

[thecolorsblend]

I've seen his boner for exposition be a weakness. I've never yet seen it be a strength.

[Bobthegoon89]

I've seen his boner for exposition be a weakness. I've never yet seen it be a strength.

Well that's still a matter of debate. For instance I liked the Batman Begins explanation for how his cape becomes rigid for flight with an electrical current. So when I went back and saw Batman Returns with it's memorable cape glide scene, I like to think it's that same technology being used in that moment too. It's an example of showing a new great idea in Nolan's and helping to explain a mystery from Burton's if fans so wish.

[thecolorsblend]

That's a good example of what I mean, come to think of it. The cape just works in BR. No need for an elaborate explanation. It just works. Burton understood that you don't need to explain every little thing, and that maybe explaining this stuff only results in bulky, pointless scenes that don't amount to much in terms of the story. It works the way Burton says it works because he says it works that way. That's all the explanation we need.

That wasn't good enough for Nolan when it comes to Batman's cape. Also, how many times do we need to be told the train can't be allowed to reach the Wayne tower? Maybe Nolan should've included a few more explanations, I missed the first dozen.

Meanwhile, the microwave emitter could've used a bit more explanation. What, nobody took a shower in the city after Scarecr-- uh, I mean, Crane dumped that crap into the water supply? Also, I doubt Fox designed and built the Batmob-- uh, I mean, the Tumbler all by himself so did none of the designers or mechanics notice Batman was cruising around in their vehicle? It wasn't just Fox who should've known what was going on.

I guess the point is that Nolan's fixation with exposition is annoying and, worse, not even consistently applied. If you dig on his stuff, more power to you, but it'll never be Batman as far as I'm concerned.

[Bobthegoon89]

I agree with your points. This is what I think fans are mistaken about. I know in my heart of hearts that the Burton Batman movies are films done properly. The fact is while they still took themselves seriously they still made time for fun stuff too. What's the problem with all that??? This is not so much a factor in Nolan's last picture. For me the balance was done well in Begins and Dark Knight. Rises was not. Unfortunately this massive exposition of Nolan makes some fans believe therefore the new trilogy is far better. Not the case at all. Just like there is more to a Batman movie than "pow, zap and wham" there is more to a Batman movie then an object lesson in true justice, revenge and morality than what a paying audience desires to "enjoy". To me a Batman movie has a far more greater agenda to accomplish: it needs to be a "thrill ride". This last one dangerously veered from the edge of that.

The exposition aspect worked a treat in Batman Begins. It was the point of the film after all and it was different and exciting to see from the films of the past. Unlike the recent Spider-Man film there was something new to be discovered in that 2005 release through all that exposition of the backstory. My issue with Rises was it's gotten out of control. There were endless scenes with John Blake dealing with police issues to handle Bane's schemes and even a small subplot of a team of special forces soldiers coming into the mix. I thought the scene where Gordon visits Foley is one scene that should been cut. It has nothing to do with a lack of Batman, more to do with why can't we have some fun action scenes besides endless conversations about morality and all that. That stuff means nothing to me in determining what makes a better Batman movie. Can it be said some fans are getting a tad "artsy fartsy" with the material? I believe so. At the end of the day what we have is a guy in a pointy earred Bat costume. The overwhelming seriousness of Rises actually made the concept of a Batman movie rather silly to me for the first time.

It goes back to the way Ang Lee handled the Hulk movie and I specifically remember one negative review: "For some reason Ang Lee tries to make a thinking man's tale out of, let's face it, a big green giant who gets shot at by tanks!" lol This reviewer had a point.

[greggbray]

JM DeMatteis recently guest lectured one of my classes.  We talked about the Nolan Batman films (pre TDKR).  I said that I recognized their popularity, and actually quite liked TDK quite a bit as a dialogue about what it means to be a costumed vigilante.  He responded, 'yeah, but what's wrong with having fun while you're at it?'

As for the exposition: this is what hurt BB for me.  You've got great actors in the film.  They can convey moments with a look--let your audience read the text, don't read it to them.  "Taste of your own medicine, doctor?'  Yeah, we really don't need that in there.  Or about 40 other lines that do very little.  I still like Batman Begins (it's a good action film, with some memorable moments and terrific actors to boot)...but, to quote MST3K "well, I guess the plot isn't going to unravel itself.....'

As for TDKR?  Honestly, there is very little the film did right outside of Anne Hathaway's turn as catSelina Kyle.

[Azrael]

Love these films, it's the fact that they're sometimes so grossly overrated ("crime dramas dealing with serious socio-political issues"... really?) that can make one feel tempted to bash them. That, and totally ignoring the original's impact and importance. Right, 2002's Spider-Man was the first "event" comic book movie (memo to self, never read top-20 lists) And yes, a film's success should be measured in number of tickets and not dollars

[The Dark Knight]

As for TDKR?  Honestly, there is very little the film did right outside of Anne Hathaway's turn as catSelina Kyle.

I agree with that. The character provided much needed fun, but sadly she wasn't in the movie enough.