Ben Affleck is Batman

[The Laughing Fish]

I've brought up before how Nolan got a pass for doing the same things Sam Raimi got criticized for in spider-man 3.

We all know Nolan gave Dent/two face the Eddie Brock/Venom treatment yet Raimi got vilified for it while Nolan got praised. Yet another thing Raimi got criticized heavily for was having the butler hold onto a key piece of information that would have affected the boss motivation for years. Somehow it's not okay for Harry Osborns butler to withhold Norman being killed by himself instead of Spider-man yet it's okay that Alfred burned Rachels letter to Bruce telling him she will marry Harvey Dent and lets Bruce grieve for 8 years over it?

Very good point. I didn't like it when that happened in Spider-Man 3 either.

It's not anywhere near the top of my tree, but Batman and Robin doesn't have my hate anymore either. It's very rewatchable, which frankly, is what entertainment is all about.

It certainly has its flaws, but I can objectively say it has some heart too.

[johnnygobbs]

We all know Nolan gave Dent/two face the Eddie Brock/Venom treatment yet Raimi got vilified for it while Nolan got praised. Yet another thing Raimi got criticized heavily for was having the butler hold onto a key piece of information that would have affected the boss motivation for years. Somehow it's not okay for Harry Osborns butler to withhold Norman being killed by himself instead of Spider-man yet it's okay that Alfred burned Rachels letter to Bruce telling him she will marry Harvey Dent and lets Bruce grieve for 8 years over it?

But the two situations are completely different.

Alfred may have made a mistake in withholding the letter from Bruce, but he did it with the best intentions, to spare Bruce's feelings of a woman he wrongly believed still loved him (Nolan's analogy with A Tale of Two Cities, and the love triangle that takes place in that film is a guide to what he was going for here, with Rachel wrongly choosing the seemingly honourable Harvey over the ultimately more noble Bruce).  Harry's butler had no such good reason for withholding the truth about Spider-Man from Harry, and this reveal was clearly a deus ex machina contrivance in order to allow for a last-minute resolution between Harry and Peter.

[Dagenspear]

But the two situations are completely different.

Alfred may have made a mistake in withholding the letter from Bruce, but he did it with the best intentions, to spare Bruce's feelings of a woman he wrongly believed still loved him (Nolan's analogy with A Tale of Two Cities, and the love triangle that takes place in that film is a guide to what he was going for here, with Rachel wrongly choosing the seemingly honourable Harvey over the ultimately more noble Bruce).  Harry's butler had no such good reason for withholding the truth about Spider-Man from Harry, and this reveal was clearly a deus ex machina contrivance in order to allow for a last-minute resolution between Harry and Peter.

But that was only done because the order came from the producers to have Mary-Jane be kidnapped. She was originally going to give a speech about forgiveness to Harry to get him to help Peter and help him save Gwen, who Venom had kidnapped. Here's the image of the scene:

Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[riddler]

We all know Nolan gave Dent/two face the Eddie Brock/Venom treatment yet Raimi got vilified for it while Nolan got praised. Yet another thing Raimi got criticized heavily for was having the butler hold onto a key piece of information that would have affected the boss motivation for years. Somehow it's not okay for Harry Osborns butler to withhold Norman being killed by himself instead of Spider-man yet it's okay that Alfred burned Rachels letter to Bruce telling him she will marry Harvey Dent and lets Bruce grieve for 8 years over it?

But the two situations are completely different.

Alfred may have made a mistake in withholding the letter from Bruce, but he did it with the best intentions, to spare Bruce's feelings of a woman he wrongly believed still loved him (Nolan's analogy with A Tale of Two Cities, and the love triangle that takes place in that film is a guide to what he was going for here, with Rachel wrongly choosing the seemingly honourable Harvey over the ultimately more noble Bruce).  Harry's butler had no such good reason for withholding the truth about Spider-Man from Harry, and this reveal was clearly a deus ex machina contrivance in order to allow for a last-minute resolution between Harry and Peter.

I perceived it as the butler not wanting to sully tarnish Harry's memories of his late father (the same reason why Peter brings Norman back and puts him to bed). At the time of death Harry didn't know Norman was the green goblin.


It's weird the inverse relationship of the Schumacher films and Nolan films.

At the time of Batman begins, Nolan gave the fans what they wanted; a Batman film which is realistic and takes itself seriously and focused more on Bruce Wayne. After the third film though many people found it boring and having departed from the character and overall lack of fun or entertainment. The two directors went to both ends of the spectrum; Nolan took himself too seriously, Schumacher not serious enough. I think a lot of people who hated the dark knight rises gravitated back to the Schumacher films and realize he got some stuff right.  I guess it's nice that we have both versions of the character; I can't think of any flaws which exist in both films everything one director got wrong, the other got right.


Dagenspear thanks for posting but one small correction; the producers didnt make the call to make MJ the damsel in distress a third time, as you said the initial plan was have Gwen in danger but Bryce Dallas Howard was pregnant and couldn't do that action scene.

[Dagenspear]

Dagenspear thanks for posting but one small correction; the producers didnt make the call to make MJ the damsel in distress a third time, as you said the initial plan was have Gwen in danger but Bryce Dallas Howard was pregnant and couldn't do that action scene.

Sam Raimi said in the audio commentary that it was because the producers told him to. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[johnnygobbs]

But that was only done because the order came from the producers to have Mary-Jane be kidnapped. She was originally going to give a speech about forgiveness to Harry to get him to help Peter and help him save Gwen, who Venom had kidnapped. Here's the image of the scene:

Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Damn!  That would have been so much better.  I hated MJ being the damsel-in-distress again.  It would have made far more sense if that role had gone to Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard).  Plus, it would have resolved my issue with the last minute contrivance concerning the butler (although I do accept riddler's very good point about the butler wishing not to tarnish Harry's positive image of his father).

Oh well, I guess this is just another of those frustrating 'what could have been' moments. 

[riddler]

I watched the film with the commentary, they definitely confirm the script had Gwen in distress (I actually didn't know what MJ's role in the finale would have been until dagenspear posted it). Kirsten Dunst made a sly jab at Bryce Dallas Howard for getting pregnant and forcing MJ to be in despair one more time. Even though details for the next film are conflicted, most report that the plan was for Gwen Stacey to relieve MJ as the love interest.

It's too bad they aren't releasing a directors cut, there are some good scenes I've heard about but never seen actual footage of; Peter looking in the mirror and seeing venom, Flint Marko turning himself into sand so his daughter could make a castle out of him (apparently Eddie Brock saw this and that's how he knew Marko was the sandman). Also an extended battle at the end including Venom fighting Harry on his glider.

I think this film gets an unfair rap and isn't as bad as perceived.

[johnnygobbs]

Since we never got a fourth film, I'm actually pleased that MJ was never replaced by Gwen as Peter's love interest.

Unlike TASM films, Sam Raimi's unofficial trilogy, whether by accident or by design, seems complete and sufficiently resolved by the final scene.  Harry has made up with Peter, Spider-Man has defeated his biggest foe yet, and MJ and Peter are united and together, staring at a beautiful sunset.  And remember, as Peter says at the start of the first Spider-Man film, this is a story about a girl.  So in that sense the entire Peter/MJ arc is tied-up.

[thecolorsblend]

Re: Ben Affleck is Batman

What I've come to realize over time is that, at least for right now, Bruce's struggles and arcs in this movie hit home for me more than Superman's. Maybe it's just the fact that the future is at best shaky for the DCEU right this moment but Affleck's take on Batman is what grabs me the most about BvS.

He's a tough, brutal version of the Batman and he's been in an increasingly bad mood ever since Zod and Superman tore up Metropolis.

I said in some other post that my big regret about a solo Affleck Batman movie is Zack Snyder won't direct it. I mostly stand by that, though there's more than enough awesome stuff set up in BvS that it's really hard to imagine a solo Affleck film going wrong somehow.

As a filmgoing experience, BvS is entertaining. But in terms of where it leaves the ball for future movies (especially with Superman), I'm starting to think people are right to be concerned. The Batman stuff is all tip-top though.

[The Dark Knight]

As a filmgoing experience, BvS is entertaining. But in terms of where it leaves the ball for future movies (especially with Superman), I'm starting to think people are right to be concerned.

In what way?