Jack on Heath

[Silver Nemesis]

Burton's Batman is tempted by that chance towards the end of Batman Returns, sure. But Catwoman deprived him the opportunity. Whereas, by the end of Rises, Bruce fakes his death as both Bruce Wayne and Batman and puts his close few friends under such unnecessary grief to escape with another woman he barely knows.

It's certainly different from the comics, but it makes sense from a narrative perspective. TDKR was always going to be Nolan's final Batman film, and he wanted to finish the story that he began in 2005. He could either kill off Batman, have him find peace at last, or have an open-ended finale where he continues fighting crime indefinitely. Obviously the comics would have gone with the open-ended finale, but that's because comic writers don't have the luxury of closure. Nolan did have that option and he took it. I agree with you that it's not what the mainstream comic Batman would have done, but I accept it as what Nolan's Batman did.

My own preference would have been for an ending similar to that from Master of the Future, the sequel to Gotham by Gaslight. There we see the Victorian Bruce at peace with himself and happily settling down with Julie Madison, but also continuing to be Batman. That's the perfect conclusion for me, keeping it open-ended but also finishing on an upbeat note of closure.

To each their own I suppose, but I'd argue that the only classic Joker moment in the film was right at the end of the penthouse scene - when he remarked "Very poor choice of words!" as he pushes Rachel off the balcony right after Batman ordered him to let her go. That to me was the only time Ledger was playing a character that resembled anything like the Joker...and ironically, it's a moment where I rarely see anyone else, even the film's biggest fans, ever mention. But apart from that, I honestly felt that all those other scenes involving the Joker, like the hospital one, felt flat and didn't see the humour in there at all.

Yeah, I like the "poor choice of words" line, but it's funny how often it gets overlooked.

Although Joker had many dark moments in those stories, he still used clownish gimmicks to kill people i.e. laughing/smiling gas (althoug moreso in TDKR than TKJ). It doesn't make the gruesome situation any more funny at all, but at least those stories keep his cartoonish trademark antics. Whereas Nolan's film replaces all of that with those annoying Glasgow smiles done off-screen, which makes it less suspenseful in my opinion.

Admittedly Ledger's Joker kills most of his victims with guns and knives, but there are still several very Jokerish moments adapted straight from the comics.

The 'pencil trick' was inspired by a scene from Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth.

Tricking the GCPD into shooting their own men by disguising them as clowns, inspired by a scene from No Man's Land.

Battering Batman with the pipe, like he did to Jason in A Death in the Family.

Laughing defiantly as he falls to his death, as seen here in 'A Gold Star for the Joker' (Joker #4, December 1975).

Leaving playing cards on his victims' corpses (something the Nicholson Joker never did).

Leaving his victims seated at a table for Gordon and Batman to find, just like he did in 'Death Has the Last Laugh' (The Brave and the Bold #111, March 1974).

And there are plenty of other Jokerish moments, like when he kidnaps Mike Engel, hangs him upside down and makes him read off cue cards in mockery of the Gotham Tonight reports. Or where he places the grenade in the bank manager's mouth, only for it to be revealed as a smoke grenade; essentially a variation on the classic "BANG" gun gag. The way he slides down the pile of money and throws bank notes at Lau when he's tied to the chair. The way he disguises himself as a female nurse, and in particular his mock-sympathetic delivery of "Hiiiii" when he arrives in Dent's room. The way he makes fun of his goon after he gets stunned by the electric defence mechanism on Batman's cowl. His reaction when Stephens tells him he's killed six of his friends. The way he coyly answers "yes" when asked if he's going to just walk out of the gangsters' meeting covered in grenades. For me, these were all moments that evoked the comic Joker's sense of humour.

Batman Returns definitely had a lot of crazy absurd stuff, like the Penguin having a blueprint to the Batmobile, how nobody else in the apartment complex notices Selina Kyle having a mental breakdown nor were there any witnesses to her near death experience, and penguins marching down an empty street without anyone near in sight. Those are off the top of my head, and for what it's worth I can tell that Burton's first had its share of plot holes too. But I do believe the semi-comedic tone helped viewers to tolerate the plot holes; it's a comic fantasy where we can suspend our disbelief that this is a stage where fantastic and crazy things can happen in this world. Does that mean the plot holes should be excused? No, of course not. But at least the film's tone helps us to suspend our belief easier.

I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the fantastical/expressionistic nature of Burton's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Nolan's films up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down. And I suspect the reason for this is that they're tired of the masses – particularly people on sites like the IMDb and Batman-on-Film – telling them Burton's films suck and that Nolan's films are definitive. This breeds hostility towards Nolan's films amongst Burton's fans, which is a real shame, since they might otherwise have enjoyed Nolan's trilogy. I'm predicting a similar level of hostility will arise amongst Nolan's fans towards Zack Snyder's Batman (which, admittedly, might be quite funny to observe).

I just wish everyone could enjoy the films equally. It's like loving one era of the comics and hating any era that's different.

Fair point, but I think the reason why people complained about Batman wanting to retire throughout Nolan's series was because his love for Rachel was a factor in him hanging up the cape for good. So I guess for some people, it felt like his heart was really in it in the first place because if Bruce isn't talking about his intention to become a symbol for Gotham City, he spends a lot time talking about where he hopes he is no longer needed to be Batman anymore, at the expense of him actually going out as Batman and kicking ass. I guess people assumed that Rachel's death meant that Bruce would commit to being Batman for good, but when TDKR began with Bruce retiring for eight years after taking the blame for everything Harvey had done, some people thought it was a jump-the-shark moment. For what it's worth though, it never bothered me that he eventually retired because I thought the second film's ending never made any sense to begin with.

I can't really argue with this.

Is Ledger's Joker really identical to the original one from 1940?

Is he identical to the original Joker? No. But then Keaton's Batman isn't one hundred percent accurate to the original Kane/Finger Batman, despite the fact many people relate his interpretation to that era. There are always going to be some things that are added or subtracted to make the source material fit the filmmaker's vision. That can be a bad thing, such as in the case of Joel Schumacher's Bane. But I think Ledger's Joker was perfectly suited to Nolan's universe. For me at least, the essence of the character was definitely there.

They could have added familiar elements from the'89 film, like acid-squirting flowers and lethal electric buzzers, and Ledger could have played the role more flamboyantly, dancing and singing as he delights in mayhem. But I've seen that version of the Joker in a movie before, and I've seen it done well. If Nolan had chosen to go that route, I suspect we would have ended up with an inferior imitation of Nicholson's Joker. No one can do Jack Nicholson better than Jack Nicholson, and Ledger understood this. So he consciously tried to do something different. It was a near impossible task, and most people doubted he could pull it off. But in my mind, he succeeded with flying colours. And he delivered one of the most unique and memorable versions of the Joker in any medium to date.

I'm not saying he's the unbeatable, definitive be-all-to-end-all interpretation that some fans claim. But I do think Heath did a good job.

RE: Killing Joke - I always thought the book is left open to interpretation in that the flashbacks did happen because of how Joker looks remorseful as he turns down Batman's offer for rehabilitation in the end.

The canonicity of The Killing Joke is a very interesting subject. There are several pre-Ledger comics that verify the flashbacks as having happened. But ever since The Dark Knight came out, most people have latched onto the "multiple choice" line as proof that they didn't. This is another subject that really should have its own thread over on the comics board.

For what it's worth, while I do like Danny DeVito's performance as the Penguin,  I understand why some people didn't like his interpretation. It's a lot more grotesque, crude, and nothing like the gentlemanly mob boss too. And while I don't doubt there are traces of his take that stems from the comics, like Ledger's Joker I found DeVito's take to be different overall. Personally, my feeling for Ledger's Joker is the equivalent for those who didn't like DeVito's Penguin. Nothing against the actor or even his performance, I just didn't rate the way his character was depicted at all. In that case, I blame Nolan and Goyer for that.

I think the basic essence of the Penguin is still there – that he's a weird-looking outcast who wants to fit into high society. But there was no charm or eloquence to the character, and very little in the way of posturing or highfalutin dialogue. He never quotes Keats or Shakespeare, and he certainly isn't a gentleman. Instead he's a violent pervert who seems to take pride in being an obnoxious thug ("I am an animal! Cold blooded!"); an attitude that's antithetical to the more aspirational Penguin from the comics. Burton and Waters also never explained why he carries umbrellas or wears a top hat. We can't say he does it out of a sense of fashion, because the DeVito Penguin has no fashion sense. He seems to spend most of the film wearing an unwashed onesie (which has no basis in the comics whatsoever and completely goes against the character's narcissistic and pretentious fashion sense).

Pfeiffer's Catwoman is a strange take on the character, but all the pieces are there in one way or another. You can justify a good 80-90% of her characterisation by looking at the comics. With DeVito's Penguin, you can maybe justify about 50-60% of it. The rest is an original creation by Daniel Waters and Tim Burton. So in that regard, I'd say Ledger's Joker and Pfeiffer's Catwoman are about equal in terms of comic accuracy. I think they're both closer to the comics than DeVito's Penguin. But that's just my take on it.

One of the best things I love about this forum is that it does celebrate everything that's Batman related, which I don't find too often elsewhere. It also is a great place where people talk about what we like or didn't about certain interpretations, unlike people who post videos on YouTube ranting like idiots. But the best thing is this place seems to have people justify why, without getting on each others' nerves. That being said, any complaint I make Nolan's movies are based on what I judged on merit, nothing else. While Nolan's films have some comic influences here and there (like all comic-based films), I just don't think the hype around them are justified.

Fair enough. You've always backed up your opinions with logic instead of insults, Laughing Fish, and I respect that. My own views reflect my subjective readings of the films/comics/TV shows, and I've no reason to think those views are more valid than anyone else's. I'm always open to hearing different opinions. And this is one of the few sites where someone can voice an opinion without being subjected to ad hominem abuse.

Though of course I've never, ever, ever been wrong about anything related to the Batman franchise.

Ben Affleck has said he'll never play a superhero ever again. So there's no way it's going to be him.

http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2421.100

....Ugh, the fact I wrote that about two days before he was cast makes it all the more embarrassing. 

But that's the point of dragging people down to his level. If people were at his level, he would then be normal. Making people look like clowns, would make people look like him. But he can't be normal, he's stuck being a clown, which is why he snapped. So since he's stuck being a clown, he chooses to make everyone else a clown, and share in his insanity.

Joker wants to be normal, but can't. He's a clown forever. Therefore, he has chosen to make everyone like him, or chooses to show people(like Batman), that they're all like him, because he wants that normality in his life. But what he's doing isn't normal, it's psychotic.

Again, I respectfully disagree. The Joker isn't trying to turn everyone in the world into copies of himself. He's murdering them and mutilating their corpses to leave his mark on them. I don't think it's quite the same thing.

Granted, in stories like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight we see him pursuing a nihilistic agenda intended to expose the fact that – in his eye's at least – human beings are inherently wicked and selfish, like he is. In terms of moral compromise and mental fragility, the Joker thinks everyone else already is like him deep down. Especially Batman. But ultimately the Joker sees himself as a unique product of chaos and random misfortune. He's actively expressed disdain for other criminals who copy him, such as when he encountered Jarvis Poker, the British Joker (whom he subsequently murdered), in Paul Cornell's Knight and Squire miniseries.

'Normality' implies that the Joker would want to fit in with the crowd. But the Joker, by definition, is a wild card. He represents the random factor that exists outside of conventional order. I can see the Penguin yearning to be normal, or maybe Two-Face. But never the Joker.

First of all, Bruce/Batman never said he wanted to quit and settle down with Selina, he just said she shouldn't kill Max, and that she should stop what she's doing and go home with him. You're filling in a LOT of gaps on that one. Second, I wasn't talking about Burton in this particular situation. I never once brought him up, you did. I was talking about the Batman and Joker relationship, and said it really doesn't matter, cause Batman's portrayal was off, too. You're bringing in a straw man out of nowhere, in order to defend your stance. I'm not sure why, when I was never even talking about Burton? I'm quite aware that his movies aren't perfect, and also deviated from the source at times. So why are you bringing him up to me?

I never said you brought Burton up. But even if I had, I don't see why that would be reason to take offence. I brought up Burton's interpretation of Batman as a comparison to Nolan's, the same way as other people in the thread have brought up Nicholson's interpretation of the Joker as a comparison to Ledger's. That's called an analogy, not a straw man. A straw man is when you misrepresent someone else's argument to twist it into something you can more easily refute. I never did that. In an earlier post you voiced the opinion that Nolan made a mistake regarding Batman's desire to have a normal life. I merely voiced the opinion that Burton made the same mistake in Batman Returns. But if there was a lack of clarity in my post, or if my opinion in any way offended you, then I apologise.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think it is heavily implied that Bruce wants a normal life with Selina. He actually takes his mask off right in front of Shreck, having just said he intends to hand Shreck over to the police. In doing so, he's permanently relinquishing his secret identity. He's showing Selina that he's committed to the idea of a normal life, focusing on just one side of his personality, without the safeguard of a secret identity. He's showing her that he can let go of Batman in the hopes that she'll let go of Catwoman; so they can both free themselves from their demons and live a happy, normal existence. How could he possibly continue fighting crime in Gotham when every criminal in the city knows his secret identity and home address? The only way forward would be for he and Selina to leave Gotham like they did at the end of The Dark Knight Rises. Either that or kill Shreck, but there's nothing in the film to indicate that that was Batman's plan.

There are only three reasons why Batman might reveal his true identity to one of his enemies:

1) He's planning to kill that particular enemy (e.g. the Joker at the end of Batman 89, or Joe Chill in Batman: Year Two)

2) He trusts that particular enemy to keep his identity secret (e.g. Catwoman in Hush). I don't think this applies to Shreck

3) He intends to abandon the dual identity all together

The third reason is the only one which makes sense in relation to Batman Returns.

[The Laughing Fish]

It's certainly different from the comics, but it makes sense from a narrative perspective. TDKR was always going to be Nolan's final Batman film, and he wanted to finish the story that he began in 2005. He could either kill off Batman, have him find peace at last, or have an open-ended finale where he continues fighting crime indefinitely. Obviously the comics would have gone with the open-ended finale, but that's because comic writers don't have the luxury of closure. Nolan did have that option and he took it. I agree with you that it's not what the mainstream comic Batman would have done, but I accept it as what Nolan's Batman did.

I still thought the way Nolan wrote Batman leaving Gotham for good was rather cruel to Blake, Alfred, Fox and Gordon...but then again it fits into this Batman's character since he didn't too looked concerned after burning the temple with everyone inside or causing damage with his Tumbler and Batpod. 

I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the fantastical/expressionistic nature of Burton's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Nolan's films up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down. And I suspect the reason for this is that they're tired of the masses – particularly people on sites like the IMDb and Batman-on-Film – telling them Burton's films suck and that Nolan's films are definitive. This breeds hostility towards Nolan's films amongst Burton's fans, which is a real shame, since they might otherwise have enjoyed Nolan's trilogy. I'm predicting a similar level of hostility will arise amongst Nolan's fans towards Zack Snyder's Batman (which, admittedly, might be quite funny to observe).

I just wish everyone could enjoy the films equally. It's like loving one era of the comics and hating any era that's different.

The people who post on Imdb and BOF who constantly complain that Burton's Batman killed are usually those who are in constant denial that 'their' Batman killed villains too (thankfully you're not one of them). People like that should be pitied and ignored.

There may be some fans who react against the pro-Nolan supporters by hating on the Burton films. But with all due respect, I think it's a little bit naive to assume the majority of Nolan's critics are reacting against his popularity. After all, some people here used to be big fans of TDK, but now they have become more critical of the film compared to when they first saw it. And besides, most pro-Burton fans I've seen are actually looking forward to see what Snyder and Affleck can bring to the table, so it's definitely not a question of devotion to Burton.

I don't agree that people hold these movies up to an impossible level of scrutiny at all because for all the seriousness, for all supposed drama, for all the attempts to be more realistic and the attempts to have "thought-provoking" themes, these films all suffer from too many flaws that people would normally rip apart other movies for having. If Burton's Batman, Man of Steel, any Spider-Man movie or any Marvel Studios movie have the same problems like this trilogy has, they would've been condemned and their directors would be held accountable. After all, the same people who never had a problem with Nolan's Batman doing ineffective things like causing collateral damage and being responsible for the deaths of Ra's, Talia and Two-Face, are usually the ones who whined about Superman's recklessness and killing Zod in Man of Steel. Hypocrisy much?

Questionable storytelling choices can hurt any film, but these films had far too many of them. Joker says to Batman "You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness", but then Batman kills Two-Face five minutes later. It's things like that make it very hard for me, and I'm sure for many people, to have such respect for the films, and especially for Nolan as a storyteller. For whatever liberties and direction Nolan was taking, I could have forgiven all of it if this kind of stupidity didn't appear in his movies so often, and characters didn't continue to do things that didn't match what they supposed to believe in. Put that together with his inconsistent approach to realism, unnecessary expository dialogue from beginning to end, and a general lack of fun (especially in the action department that don't involve car chases and airplanes), it's not very hard to understand why some people don't enjoy these films, and actually found them less entertaining than the ones mentioned above.

And this is the question that people like me have to deal with these films: if Nolan's trying to make a more intelligent action film, then how do you account these problems, or most importantly, what makes these films better executed than any of the aforementioned ones? If the flaws are acknowledged, then why do people think they're so fantastic?

I can accept people have different tastes in films and that's certainly fine, but as far as Nolan is concerned, I find him to be an incredibly shoddy storyteller for someone who has become so highly regarded.  I'll start showing him some respect when he stops trying to find break his own rules and stays more consistent to the narrative that he is creating. Until then, I will continue to think he is an overrated director who should be forbidden from writing scripts.

Is he identical to the original Joker? No. But then Keaton's Batman isn't one hundred percent accurate to the original Kane/Finger Batman, despite the fact many people relate his interpretation to that era.

Fair enough.

Fair enough. You've always backed up your opinions with logic instead of insults, Laughing Fish, and I respect that. My own views reflect my subjective readings of the films/comics/TV shows, and I've no reason to think those views are more valid than anyone else's. I'm always open to hearing different opinions.

The feeling is mutual, mate. 

[The_Batman_of_1989]

Oh boy, this thread's gotten very one sided . I thought Ledger was excellent as the Joker. It's not a matter of one performance being better than the other, and it doesn't really bother me if the majority of people disagree with my own opinion. I like Nicholson and Ledger in the role. So I'll try and defend Ledger's performance, just as I would if everyone started slagging off Nicholson's.

Well, it did obviously bother you a bit that people disagree with you, otherwise, you would not have taken the time to compose such a comprehensive presentation of your opinion. But that's natural - human instinct - to be bothered by opposition, so don't deny it with an off-the-cuff remark - embrace and acknowledge it as what fueled your self-expression.  and people have been slagging Nicholson's Joker for years, btw.

But even if you look at earlier stories like Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (1989), can you honestly say McKean's Joker doesn't look more like Ledger's Joker than Nicholson's?

McKean's Joker doesn't resemble either of them, & not Ledger's in the slightest. But my, oh my, what brilliant work. My favorite visual interpretation of Joker.

(Ledger's Joker was heavily influenced by Lee Bermejo's interpretation, a close rival with McKean's Joker for my favorite)

* "Madness is like gravity..." A cute line, except the character depicted in The Dark Knight wasn't "mad", or crazy, or anything else that would make for a good quote (or resemble The Joker character.) He was precise, calculating, and filled with nerd-rage... and not at all crazy. Jittery as hell and really, really pissed? Yes. Murderous? You bet. "Mad (as in 'a Mad Tea Party')"? No. Every one of his schemes (and long-winded speeches, for that matter) were, as many of you have pointed out, meticulously planned & executed - the work of a focused, scheming terrorist, not of a chaotic, fun-loving psycho, which you could call 'reinvention'...

You could say the exact same thing about the Nicholson Joker. He was incredibly meticulous in his plans, especially if you read Hamm's original script. He plotted the murders of the mob bosses who opposed him, consolidated all their resources into a single organisation (Nicholson's Joker is actually a businessman amongst other things), unearthed a secret nerve toxin from the CIA, broke it down into a compound poison, contaminated thousands of hygiene and cosmetic products, poisoned almost the entire GCPD, and timed the poison so it would kick in just as he was crashing the unveiling of the bicentennial statue (see Hamm's script for this subplot), repeatedly hijacked the city's TV signals for his own illegal broadcasts, mass produced counterfeit banknotes with which to lure the public to his parade, and staged a massive street party that even the city council couldn't match.

Good point, & one with which I agree. But my point - though I probably didn't make myself clear - is that the essence of Ledger's Joker was that of the "schemers" he so greatly detests/against whom he rants in the hospital room. Where Jack's Joker was precise & scheming, he was also completely spontaneous & playfully random, yet vicious & murderous - you didn't know if he'd kill you or kiss you. Again, having not articulated it well, I guess my point was that TDK Joker all but lacked that colorful dynamic. His violence, scheming and his "chaos" message were the base of the character, & all that there really was to him, and to me, that doesn't constitute a portrayal of madness, no matter how jittery he got.

Insanity doesn't necessarily mean diminished intellect. It would take a genius to pull off what Nicholson and Ledger's Jokers did,

but it would take a madman to actually want to do those things.

subjective. as i see it, it wouldn't necessarily take a madman, just a nasty, driven, resourceful, completely uninhibited person. a businessman, a mobster... a genius? well, let's just say it would take some very smart men - which brings us back to businessmen & mobsters - and ignore the plotholes we've been mentioning, and that much of their terrorism wouldn't even be possible to see through to fruition.

*incidentally, the theory that anarchy & chaos is fair is not particularly outlandish or farfetched. It's basically true, and so even his motivations - though it all sounds good for a crazy person to say - are not mad.

and don't misunderstand me, sir - or misquote me, i never said a thing about diminished intellect, nor did i imply that insanity leads to it. Mental clarity, however, is nearly always compromised in the insane, & Ledger's Joker is totally clear-headed & with a logical motive.

(I'd also like to point out that 3/4 of what you listed there didn't make the final cut of the film, & that naturally, i've never read an early draft of Hamm's script - the plotting of the murders, the unearthing/breaking down of a CIA nerve toxin, timed poisoning of the GCPD & mass production of counterfeit bank notes are all completely ignored in the final cut, and so the impression we're given is either that things just seem to be happening - yup! Burton's films had inconsistencies - or that he [Joker] is making it up as he goes along.)

* TDK Joker's monologues praising "chaos", "anarchy" and "disorder" are ripped pretty much verbatim from The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, a 1933 German film. Again - director & screenwriters at fault here, not Heath; I just thought it was lame of them to do that.

I don't see that as a flaw. Nolan's cited his fondness for Fritz Lang many times. And as a fan of classic cinema, I like it when filmmakers reference their influences. There are plenty of ideas/images/lines of dialogue in Burton's films that are lifted from earlier movies. Connecting those dots adds an extra layer of fun for film buffs looking for intertextual readings.

I think it's wonderful that Nolan was influenced by Fritz Lang, I probably enjoy his films as much as Nolan does. As I clearly stated, however, my issue was not with that. I think you may've done what many people seem to do nowadays, & misinterpreted my criticism of grabbing something so blatant & specific from someone else's work as a complaint against him embracing his influences. Not the case at all, I just didn't appreciate how portions of dialogue that specific, extensive, and which formed the backbone of the film turned out to be recycled almost verbatim from another one.

And yes, before you bring it up, Burton constantly uses second hand ideas from old horror films & german expressionst films - part of why i'm not crazy about his work (how derivative it generally is.) In Batman '89, however, it wasn't particularly blatant or derivative apart from the silly Vertigo stairwell visual, it had more to do with the general tone & design of the film - and it was re-imagined so thoroughly that it had it's own character. With Mabuse it was a case of clipping large amounts of dialogue almost word for word.

And for the record, I appreciate that you took what must've been an eternity to bring together these multiple opposing essays & to dig up all (& paste together some) of these Joker photos (though that may've sounded like sarcasm, it wasn't.) Although... due to a lot of what you've said, the impression I get is that you misinterpreted quite a bit here as people nitpicking & trying to bring Nolan & his films down. Which generally, they weren't. You say that the thread has become one sided - to some degree, you're right, but you have to expect that sort of thing on a discussion forum. How could you not? Much of what has been written here has been legitimate criticism, & when it wasn't, it was simply people expressing their opinions in a pretty diplomatic way, which happen to go against the opinions of the majority (and apparently, you.)

For the first time in years, a group of people are discussing Ledger & the Nolan films in realistic terms instead of mythic ones, & to be honest, I think that might have caught you a bit off guard. Which is natural, because you are among the ones who find the films to be great. But most of the people who posted recently in defense of Jack aren't Burton or Nicholson fanatics - nor do they bear any great resentment for Ledger, Nolan or Bale. a lot of them are people who loved TDK when it came out, & after having removed the hype goggles, realized maybe it wasn't quite what it had been cracked up to be all these years. As you can tell from my post, the unremitting worship of Heath's performance is something i find a little exhausting, so i took advantage of the fact that I'd found somewhere on the web where it was actually safe to say I didn't find his performance to be oscar-worthy, that to me the Dark Knight Trilogy felt like color-washed action/cop dramas that spoke at length of a number of ponderous, philosophical themes without actually exploring them. I probably didn't word my Joker post as gracefully as i should have; some of what i wrote was a little boorish & abrasive, but i did essentially what you did with your post - expressed a well thought out (if somewhat critical) viewpoint which opposed the viewpoints of others.

As i already sort of mentioned, I think you may have the wrong idea in regards to Jack's supporters & Heath's detractors here on the forum - that we're ardent Burton fans. As far as I can tell, none of us really is. I think we're kinda realistic about his movies, all perfectly aware of minor plotholes, inconsistencies and whatever other imperfections lie throughout the first two films. I personally prefer Batman '89 over other Batman films because I find the performances by the two leads to be superior, anchored more by subtlety & nuance (particularly Keaton's offbeat characterization) than Bale's & Ledger's performances. I enjoy the creative visual aspect, & i prefer the sharper, tighter, more consistent, less wordy & plodding script. But I don't consider it perfect at all, as a stand alone film or as a Batman film. I'm not a fan of Burton in general, and i really don't much care for Batman Returns.

Especially with batman 89, you really need to nitpick to find flaws there, they aren't apparent.

We should discuss the flaws in Batman Returns sometime. I've spotted a lot of them the last few times I've watched it. But I'll save that for another thread. Bottom line, every film has flaws. If you want to find them, you will. The question is, are the flaws really so apparent that they outweigh the merits and spoil your enjoyment of the film. In the case of The Dark Knight, my answer to that question would be no.

But alas, he wasn't referring to Batman Returns. As you yourself are keen to point out, we should be cognizant of that to which we're reacting - though Batman '89 is not without it's flaws, as he stated, they (apart from the subjective stuff) aren't particularly obvious (narrative things, etc.); it's a very different film from Batman Returns, which, in my opinion, was rife with them.

I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the fantastical/expressionistic nature of Burton's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Nolan's films up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down.

Ah, I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the realistic setting/relentlessly bleak & serious tone/grandiose nature of Nolan's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Burton's films, the Adam West TV show or anything that wasn't directed by Christopher Nolan up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down.

so, you see? it goes both ways, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

at any rate, my intention is not to cause some kind of flare-up, i just wanted to clear the air on where i stand & use the forum for what it was intended - to express my personal views on various batman related media, and to maybe get people to consider things in a different light. i see it says you're on the staff, so i'll say thanks for letting me diddle around on the forum. 

Good exercise for the brain, to sort all this stuff out & see it in writing. 

[The_Batman_of_1989]

I'd also like to strongly encourage you to pay special attention to this bit, Silver Nemesis, because it's rather brilliantly articulated:

I don't agree that people hold these movies up to an impossible level of scrutiny at all because for all the seriousness, for all supposed drama, for all the attempts to be more realistic and the attempts to have "thought-provoking" themes, these films all suffer from too many flaws that people would normally rip apart other movies for having. If Burton's Batman, Man of Steel, any Spider-Man movie or any Marvel Studios movie have the same problems like this trilogy has, they would've been condemned and their directors would be held accountable. After all, the same people who never had a problem with Nolan's Batman doing ineffective things like causing collateral damage and being responsible for the deaths of Ra's, Talia and Two-Face, are usually the ones who whined about Superman's recklessness and killing Zod in Man of Steel. Hypocrisy much?

Questionable storytelling choices can hurt any film, but these films had far too many of them. Joker says to Batman "You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness", but then Batman kills Two-Face five minutes later. It's things like that make it very hard for me, and I'm sure for many people, to have such respect for the films, and especially for Nolan as a storyteller. For whatever liberties and direction Nolan was taking, I could have forgiven all of it if this kind of stupidity didn't appear in his movies so often, and characters didn't continue to do things that didn't match what they supposed to believe in. Put that together with his inconsistent approach to realism, unnecessary expository dialogue from beginning to end, and a general lack of fun (especially in the action department that don't involve car chases and airplanes), it's not very hard to understand why some people don't enjoy these films, and actually found them less entertaining than the ones mentioned above.

[Silver Nemesis]

I still thought the way Nolan wrote Batman leaving Gotham for good was rather cruel to Blake, Alfred, Fox and Gordon...

I don't think it was cruel. Alfred got exactly what he wanted: he got to live out his retirement in Tuscany, assured in the knowledge that Bruce was finally out of danger and living a happy normal life with someone he loved. Fox assumed control over Wayne Enterprises. Gordon also looked pretty happy at the end. Order had been restored to his city and he no longer had to cover for Dent's crimes. Blake got to see all the orphaned kids in Gotham receive a new home and a better way of life. And Bruce entrusted him with his greatest secret, leaving him the option of becoming the new Batman if he so chose. Bruce took care of everyone.

There may be some fans who react against the pro-Nolan supporters by hating on the Burton films. But with all due respect, I think it's a little bit naive to assume the majority of Nolan's critics are reacting against his popularity.

I'm sure not every single person who disliked the films felt that way because they were Burton fans. But the most vitriolic Nolan haters that I've encountered have been. Fact is the vast majority of people do like Nolan's Batman films. The haters are very much a minority. The Dark Knight, for example, has an IMDb rating of 9/10 with over 1,222,000 votes. And if you look at the breakdown of votes you'll see that 96% of people voted it a 6 or higher. Only 4% rated it lower than 6. And in my experience, most of that 4% tend to be Burton fans who resent the backlash against the old films that followed the success of Nolan's. I'm sure there are impartial people who think Nolan's films are overrated, but the ones who passionately hate his work – who just can't let it go – tend to be 'Burtonites'. At least that's how it's been with the people I've talked to.

After all, some people here used to be big fans of TDK, but now they have become more critical of the film compared to when they first saw it.

That could be because they've awoken to the film's flaws. Or it could just as easily be because their first viewing was unprejudiced by fanboyism. A lot of the post-Nolan backlash against Burton's films came from people who said they'd enjoyed Batman 89 and Batman Returns as kids, but presently found them unwatchable because now they were older they could see the flaws in them. Are they seeing genuine flaws, or is their perspective now skewered because they've latched onto a more recent interpretation? And could the same be true of Burton fans who once enjoyed Nolan's films but have subsequently turned against them?

If someone says they loved a film when it first came out, but love it less now they've had time to think about it, then I can understand that. But if someone says they loved a film when they first saw it, but now hate it passionately and think it's unredeemable 0/10 drivel, then I find that a little hard to believe. Films don't change over time, only people's attitudes towards them. And for someone's attitude to change so radically in just a year or two suggests an external influence has likely affected their opinion.

And besides, most pro-Burton fans I've seen are actually looking forward to see what Snyder and Affleck can bring to the table, so it's definitely not a question of devotion to Burton.

Nolan worshippers didn't waste time trashing the sixties Batman or Schumacher's films, because those weren't perceived as a threat. They did target Burton's film because those were regarded as the classic 'dark' and 'serious' Batman films to beat. Likewise Burton fans aren't currently threatened by Snyder's film. I think for several reasons.

1) Snyder's track record is considerably less impressive than Nolan's, and most of his films have received mixed to negative reviews. So it's unlikely BvS will arouse the same level of hyperbole or fanaticism as Nolan's films did. If anything, Snyder fans could potentially become allies in the battle against Nolanites. Time will tell.

2) Early indicators suggest Snyder's film may have a stylised look, possibly more akin to Burton's films than Nolan's. This has already led to a renewed appreciation for Burton's stylised fantasy approach.

3) Burton's films are no longer regarded as the benchmark to be surpassed. Nolan's films are. So all the kids who jump on the BvS bandwagon will likely target Nolan's trilogy before Burton's movies.

But if BvS ends up getting amazing reviews, and everyone starts saying Snyder has created the definitive fantasy Batman to compliment Nolan's realistic version – that Snyder's expansive stylised Gotham surpasses Burton's claustrophobic soundstages, that Affleck's 6'3 powerhouse Batman makes Keaton's slender 5'9 Batman look ridiculous, that the film's overall balance between fantasy and realism is much closer to the comics than Burton's – then I wouldn't be remotely surprised if many of the same Burton fans who are currently trashing Nolan just as quickly turn on Snyder. I could be wrong, but we'll see.

If Burton's Batman, Man of Steel, any Spider-Man movie or any Marvel Studios movie have the same problems like this trilogy has, they would've been condemned and their directors would be held accountable.

Nolan's movies have been ripped apart. This thread is proof of that. But many of the flaws don't stand up to analysis, just like many of the alleged flaws in Burton's and Raimi's films don't. Of course there are some valid flaws in Nolan's films, but a lot of the stuff people are listing in this thread boils down to subjective disapproval of Nolan's creative choices rather than objectively verifiable technical errors in his filmmaking skills. In fact, looking over the comments here, many of them seem to be directed more at Nolan's fans than Nolan himself. Nolan's fans criticise Batman for killing in Burton's films but don't acknowledge him killing in the Dark Knight trilogy? Well that's the fans' mistake, not Nolan's. If we shift blame onto Nolan then we're adopting the exact same bias as his fans do – we're calling him out for doing something that Burton did, but somehow granting one filmmaker clemency and not the other.

The criticism of both Burton's Batman films and Raimi's Spider-Man films has definitely been excessive since their respective franchises were rebooted, and that's unfortunate. But that doesn't necessarily mean excessive criticism of Nolan and Webb is warranted to redress the balance. It just means the unfounded criticisms of the older films should be rebuked, since a lot of those so-called 'flaws' were weak to begin with.

After all, the same people who never had a problem with Nolan's Batman doing ineffective things like causing collateral damage and being responsible for the deaths of Ra's,

The killing of Ra's is a criticism I agree with. It's Nolan's equivalent of the dynamite scene from Batman Returns. It's an inexcusably out of character moment that goes against everything Batman stands for. Jean-Paul Valley proved himself unworthy of being Batman when he let Abattoir fall to his death in 'Mortal Remains' (Batman #508, June 1994).

Death through inaction is not an acceptable alternative in Batman's moral code. Admittedly there have been comics where he's tried to kill Ra's al Ghul, but the difference there is that in the comics he had foreknowledge of Ra's' regenerative capabilities. In the movie he didn't, because no such capabilities existed in Nolan's universe. A better depiction of Batman's attitude to saving an enemy can be found in the ending of Arkham City (2011). Watch the first two minutes of this video, and in particular Batman's line at the 57 second mark: "Do you want to know something funny? Even after everything you've done, I would have saved you."

That's the real Batman, right there.

Talia

He literally had no choice in that situation. Talia and her driver would have been dead in a couple of minutes anyway once the bomb went off, along with everyone else in Gotham. Batman's objective was not to kill, but to save life. If he hadn't taken that course of action, he would have condemned the entire population of Gotham to death through inaction.

are usually the ones who whined about Superman's recklessness and killing Zod in Man of Steel. Hypocrisy much?

I think the difference lies in the fact that Batman was originally conceived as a character that killed, whereas Superman wasn't. Batman's meant to be a dark, sinister character. Superman isn't. Batman is a human with limited resources who sometimes gets cornered in situations where he may have to kill. Superman's a godlike alien who can fly faster than the speed of light, travel through time and move planets. Unlike Batman, Superman has no excuse not to find an alternative. But most importantly of all, Batman can live with the guilt of killing, whereas the Superman in the comics has sworn an oath to relinquish his powers if he ever takes a life. Which is precisely what heppened in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986).

What really ticked off a lot of people about the Zod scene was that it just wasn't necessary. It wasn't even in the original script. The film was originally supposed to end with Zod getting drawn into the Phantom Zone along with all the other Kryptonians. And since the film was already a little overlong to begin with, they probably should have stuck with that original ending. Then they could have had Zod return in a later film. Instead Snyder decided to add on another fifteen minutes of CGI carnage in which Superman and Zod re-enact 9/11 before Supes snaps his opponent's neck. Nolan and Goyer both objected to this, but ultimately caved in to Snyder's vision.

I've got very mixed feelings about the scene myself. For now, I'm just waiting to see how they follow up on it in the next film. It's something that needs to be addressed.

Joker says to Batman "You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness", but then Batman kills Two-Face five minutes later.

But that was an accident. If Batman had intended to kill Two-Face, he would have snuck up on him and done it quickly and quietly. His objective in that scene was to rescue Gordon's son, not to kill Dent. He didn't consciously break his moral code, so there's no contradiction in his ethics.

Another interpretation I've encountered for that scene is that it represents the Joker's ideological triumph over Batman. The Joker tried to engineer a situation between the two ferries where one good person would cause the deaths of others. He failed at that, but he essentially succeeded in doing the same thing with Dent, Gordon and Batman. He created a scenario where either Dent – the city's paragon of virtue, its 'White Knight' – would kill an innocent, or else Batman, Gordon or some other GCPD officer would be forced to kill Dent. This ended the film on a morally gray note that's open to interpretation. Yes, Batman defeated the Joker by capturing him, but did the Joker defeat Batman on a more meaningful level?

Put that together with his inconsistent approach to realism,

The realism/fantasy issue is perhaps the biggest problem I have with the criticism of Nolan. It holds Nolan accountable to a manifesto to which he never actually committed himself. He may use certain techniques characteristic of cinéma vérité, but he's never claimed his films are kitchen sink dramas or 100% true to reality. Only that they were intended to have a more grounded sensibility than the older Batman films. He wanted Gotham to look like a real city and not like a soundstage. I think he accomplished that goal. He wanted to explore the functionality and origin of Batman's arsenal. And while he did probably overdo the expository dialogue, it was all in the pursuit of showing us an aspect of the mythos that the previous films had overlooked. He set out to make a Batman film that was more realistic than its predecessors, not to make a documentary about real crime in Chicago. It's the fans who've distorted his motives into something they can attack.

In this thread people have criticised Nolan for sucking the fun out of the Joker by making him more realistic than previous iterations, but they've also criticised him for making his vehicular chases too fantastic on the basis that this betrays his allegiance to realism and Batman's moral code. Against that sort of criticism, he can't possibly win. It creates a false dichotomy between verisimilitude and fantasy and says Nolan can't strike a middle ground equidistant between the two; and that any instance in the films where he veers too close to one at the expense of the other therefore reflects a contradiction or inconsistency in his writing. Now that's perfectly fine as the basis of a subjective aversion his work, but I don't think it's a fair basis for an objective denouncement of his craftsmanship.

Roger Ebert did something similar in his review of Batman 89. He claimed comic book fantasy and film noir were incompatible, and then proceeded to highlight aspects of film noir (for example, the characterisation of Bruce Wayne) as flaws in Burton's conceptualisation of the material. If he'd just accepted that film noir and comic book fantasy can cross-pollinate within a single work – and Batman 89's existence proves such a fusion can exist – then those things he saw as flaws would actually be merits that exemplify the film's innovative cross-genre stylings. But instead he insisted Burton couldn't have it both ways, and that any pretence at noir was to the film's detriment.

It's like if I was to criticise Batman Returns for being both campy and dark. The camp humour undermines the sense of darkness and threat, but the violence and dark atmosphere of the film negate the humour. If I evaluate the film in those terms, it's impossible for me to like it. Because at the end of the day, Batman Returns is both campy and dark. Burton had it both ways. That's its identity. It's a cross-genre film, the mercurial core of which fluctuates between darkness and humour. That balancing point allowed Burton to dip into either extreme to suit the tonal requirements of the narrative (you could criticise it for being tonally inconsistent if you're looking for flaws, or you can celebrate its tonal range as a strength if you're looking to praise it), and the end result is a unique film unlike any other entry in the series. The same is true of Nolan's Batman films. They're fantasy superhero films, but also urban crime dramas. If I can't accept that, and if I insist the film must be either completely realistic or completely fantastic, then I'm not giving the film, or Nolan, a fair chance.

I also think it's unfair to criticise Batman's moral hypocrisy in Nolan's films, while giving Burton a free pass for doing the exact same thing in Batman Returns. The fact Burton's film is more fantastical doesn't make the contradiction in its underlying moral framework any less problematic. Both directors had Batman verbally state that he wasn't above the law, yet both directors showed him deliberately taking human life. But in most cases, the loss of life was a collateral side effect of his real objective. Batman didn't blow up Axis chemicals to kill the Joker's men; he did it to cut off the supply of Smylex before the Joker's midnight parade. Likewise Bruce's objective in blowing up the League of Shadows' headquarters was not to kill as many people as possible, but to create a diversion to try and balance the uneven odds in his favour (and for all we know, the decoy Ra's may have been the only person to have died in that blast). Other deaths, like when Batman threw the goon down the cathedral stairwell in Batman 89, or when he killed Talia and her truck driver in TDKR, were desperate measures necessary to achieve a greater good.

For Batman to cognitively and purposefully break his moral code, he must intentionally end someone's life during a situation where an alternative exists. He did this once in Nolan's films: when he instructed Gordon to sabotage the monorail track and left Ra's to perish in the ensuing crash. He did it three times in Burton's films: when he tried to kill the Joker at the end of Batman 89, when he set the gang member on fire in Batman Returns, and the dynamite scene with the tattooed strongman. You could argue he did it a fourth time when he fired on the Joker's men during the parade, but I'm not 100% convinced he actually killed any of them. I think they may have just been warning shots to frighten them off so he could go mano-a-mano with the Joker.

When it comes to Batman's ethics, I get the impression you're more frustrated with the double standard displayed by Nolan's fans – criticising Burton's Batman for killing and refusing to acknowledge instances when Nolan's Batman does the same – rather than with Nolan himself. That's a frustration I can understand. But I don't understand penalising one director for doing something the other filmmaker did more excessively.

Of course there's nothing wrong with discussing the faults in a film, but I can't remember the last time anyone on Batman-Online said anything nice about Nolan. The negative stuff's gotten really disproportionate. He made three of the most critically and commercially successful Batman films of all time, restoring the franchise's dignity in the eyes of the general public. If it wasn't for the success of Nolan's films, I doubt we would have gotten the Arkham games or many of the recent animated films. Yet instead of celebrating this triumphant chapter in Batman's history, all we do is tear it down and focus on the negative.

I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss the flaws in his films, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing so. It would just be nice if we could discuss the good aspects of his films once in a while without every thread degenerating into Nolan hate.

[Silver Nemesis]

Well, it did obviously bother you a bit that people disagree with you, otherwise, you would not have taken the time to compose such a comprehensive presentation of your opinion. But that's natural - human instinct - to be bothered by opposition, so don't deny it with an off-the-cuff remark - embrace and acknowledge it as what fueled your self-expression.   and people have been slagging Nicholson's Joker for years, btw.

Pardon my slowness, but you've lost me here. Does this refer to something I wrote in an earlier post?

*incidentally, the theory that anarchy & chaos is fair is not particularly outlandish or farfetched. It's basically true, and so even his motivations - though it all sounds good for a crazy person to say - are not mad.

and don't misunderstand me, sir - or misquote me, i never said a thing about diminished intellect, nor did i imply that insanity leads to it. Mental clarity, however, is nearly always compromised in the insane, & Ledger's Joker is totally clear-headed & with a logical motive.

Fair point.

I'd also like to point out that 3/4 of what you listed there didn't make the final cut of the film

Actually most of the stuff I listed was in the film. If you mean we don't see the scheming itself dramatised, then that's true. We don't see that in The Dark Knight either. In both films we see the results of scheming in the form of action.

The Joker didn't randomly kill Ricorso on the spur of the moment. He has all his goons disguised as mimes mingling with the crowd, with a getaway car stationed just down the street. It was all planned out. Similarly there was nothing random about his attack on the museum. He phoned Vicki hours in advance, rigged gas canisters to the building's ventilation system, and even arranged to have a gas mask delivered to her table just prior to the attack. Totally premeditated and meticulously timed. Even the vandalism was planned in advance, as they made sure to bring all the paint they'd need to trash the art. Nicholson's Joker does a few spontaneous things, like shooting Bob or the "I'm melting!" bit. But when it comes to his main schemes to poison Gotham and kill Batman, his actions were every bit as calculating and premeditated as Ledger's Joker.

But I see what you're saying about spontaneous and irrational actions. He certainly displays a lot more of them than Ledger's Joker.

the unearthing/breaking down of a CIA nerve toxin

That's what the Joker was doing when he was cutting out photographs of dead bodies. Look on the desk and you'll see the CIA files from which he acquired the photos.

We know about his aptitude for chemistry from his police file, and Batman verbally explains to Vicki how he broke down the poison into a compound to taint "hundreds of chemicals at the source". Nicholson's Joker is a brilliant chemist in addition to his other qualities. As is the Joker in the comics.

timed poisoning of the GCPD

That was unfortunately ignored in the final cut. Which leads to the plot hole of why the police make no effort to interfere with the Joker's parade at the end of the film. It also makes the Joker's trip to Vicki's apartment rather pointless. He had an interesting reason for going there in the original script.

& mass production of counterfeit bank notes are all completely ignored in the final cut

We see the Joker throwing the banknotes to the crowd in the finished film. We just don't see a close-up shot of his face on them. Which is a pity, as the scene was a nice payoff for his earlier line about wanting his "face on the one dollar bill". Nevertheless, both the novelisation and comic book adaptation make it clear the banknotes were counterfeit.

Although... due to a lot of what you've said, the impression I get is that you misinterpreted quite a bit here as people nitpicking & trying to bring Nolan & his films down. Which generally, they weren't.

I honestly think a lot of it is nitpicking. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

You say that the thread has become one sided - to some degree, you're right,

Not just this thread, but discussion of the Nolan films in general. A lot of users joined Batman-Online as refugees from places like the IMDb and Batman-On-Film precisely because of how unbalanced the discussions had become on those sites. A climate of hostility towards Burton's films had emerged, where people were blindly worshipping Nolan and refusing to acknowledge any merit in Burton's films whatsoever. And I'm afraid a similar climate of intolerance has emerged towards Nolan's films on Batman-Online.

A few years ago I wouldn't have hesitated to start a thread on this site about any aspect of Nolan's films, because I knew I could get a fair, even discussion here. But now, if I want a balanced discussion about Nolan's films, I think I'd have to go somewhere else. I stopped posting on the IMDb Batman pages years ago because every thread ended up getting derailed by Burton haters. Now the exact same thing would happen here if I tried starting a thread about some aspect of Nolan's movies. We used to have a site rule that prohibited Burton vs. Nolan threads, precisely so we could avoid uneven fanboy comparisons. But that rule seems to have gone out the window now...

but you have to expect that sort of thing on a discussion forum. How could you not?

When did I say I didn't? Good conversation thrives on the civil exchange of opposing viewpoints. But Nolan haters also have to expect that if they come to a Batman fan site and start trashing one of the most beloved versions of Batman, then Batman fans are inevitably going to offer rebuttals to their criticisms. It doesn't mean their views are wrong, just that a lot of Batman fans will disagree with them.

Much of what has been written here has been legitimate criticism,

Some of it has been legitimate. But not all. At least not in my opinion.

& when it wasn't, it was simply people expressing their opinions in a pretty diplomatic way, which happen to go against the opinions of the majority (and apparently, you.)

If I've given the impression that I'm trying to moderate or police these boards, or in any way suppress freedom of speech, then I apologise. That's not my intent.

For the first time in years, a group of people are discussing Ledger & the Nolan films in realistic terms instead of mythic ones, & to be honest, I think that might have caught you a bit off guard.

Oh, it hasn't caught me off guard at all. And it's not the first time it's happened in years. Not on this site. I'm afraid it's been going on here for a long time now. Mostly since around 2010/2011. Being relatively new to the site, you wouldn't have noticed the change. But the general attitude towards Nolan on these boards used to be a lot fairer. Sure, we'd call him out over his mistakes. But we also gave credit where credit was due.

Which is natural, because you are among the ones who find the films to be great.

I don't recall ever saying they were great films. I just don't think they're the worthless, celluloid faecal matter certain other site members are making them out to be. As long-time site members will attest, I've voiced plenty of criticism of Nolan's films in the past. But I also celebrated their strengths. They don't have to be either masterpieces of disasters. A moderate viewpoint is possible.

But most of the people who posted recently in defense of Jack aren't Burton or Nicholson fanatics –

I really don't want to sound like I'm pulling seniority of posting history or anything like that, but if you'd been on the site as long as I have, and had spent as much time chatting with these guys as I have, you'd know that most of the people trashing Nolan in this thread are diehard Burton fans. That doesn't make their opinion any less valid, of course.

I think perhaps a little site history may help shed light on the issue. Batman-Online was originally a fan site for Batman 89 and Batman Returns called Batman Movie Online. All other Batman products – the comics, the TV shows, the videogames, and the Schumacher and Nolan films – were confined to a subsection of the site. Over time the site grew and expanded to become more of a general Batman site, unaffiliated with any one specific interpretation. But if you look at the number of posts for each section of the site, you'll find that the Burton boards have over 11,000 posts, while the Nolan boards have barely 4,000. There has always been a pro-Burton bias on this site. I'm biased myself. Look at the features I've written for the site and you'll see I put more effort into defending Batman Returns than any other film. I did that because I felt the criticism of the movie, especially with regards to its comic accuracy, was overwhelmingly unjust. In most of the threads criticising Nolan's films – which, unfortunately, has become more or less every Nolan thread since 2012 – I've either not participated or I've added my own criticisms to the mix.

This is the first time in ages I've actually bothered to offer rebuttals to other people's criticisms, because I think the range of views here needs to be evened out. Otherwise we risk alienating prospective new sites members who may visit us only to be deterred by all the Nolan hate.

nor do they bear any great resentment for Ledger, Nolan or Bale.

Their posting histories suggest otherwise.

As you can tell from my post, the unremitting worship of Heath's performance is something i find a little exhausting, so i took advantage of the fact that I'd found somewhere on the web where it was actually safe to say I didn't find his performance to be oscar-worthy, that to me the Dark Knight Trilogy felt like color-washed action/cop dramas that spoke at length of a number of ponderous, philosophical themes without actually exploring them.

And that's a valid viewpoint. I've no problem with you expressing it.

I probably didn't word my Joker post as gracefully as i should have; some of what i wrote was a little boorish & abrasive,

There was nothing wrong with your post. If there's a problem here, it's apparently me having given the impression of criticising you, which was not my intention. I'm sorry if I did that. You should feel free to express yourself any way you like.

But alas, he wasn't referring to Batman Returns. As you yourself are keen to point out, we should be cognizant of that to which we're reacting

The function of riddler's post was to compare the discernibility of flaws in Burton's films against those in Nolan's. In the third sentence of his post, he wrote "the burton films ". Plural. Maybe I should have quoted the entire paragraph, but I just assumed everyone would understand what I meant.

though Batman '89 is not without it's flaws, as he stated, they (apart from the subjective stuff) aren't particularly obvious (narrative things, etc.); it's a very different film from Batman Returns, which, in my opinion, was rife with them.

Agreed.

Ah, I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the realistic setting/relentlessly bleak & serious tone/grandiose nature of Nolan's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Burton's films, the Adam West TV show or anything that wasn't directed by Christopher Nolan up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down.

so, you see? it goes both ways, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

Which is precisely the point I was trying to make with Laughing Fish. It's hypocritical to chastise the behaviour of one fanbase, then do the exact same thing ourselves. If we can see how idiotic it is when others do it, why is it any less idiotic when we do it?

Although I have to say, I've never heard anyone cite "realistic setting/relentlessly bleak & serious tone/grandiose nature" as an excuse to gloss over the plot holes in Nolan's films. Usually they'll offer justifications – some good, some bad – but never just "because its' realistic/bleak/serious". I have, however, heard many Burton fans dismiss gaping plot holes in his films on the basis that they're meant to be fairytales, and therefore exempt from internal logic.

at any rate, my intention is not to cause some kind of flare-up, i just wanted to clear the air on where i stand & use the forum for what it was intended - to express my personal views on various batman related media, and to maybe get people to consider things in a different light. i see it says you're on the staff, so i'll say thanks for letting me diddle around on the forum.

And you're very welcome here. I've never modified anyone's posts on this site, except to move/merge topics on the comic boards into the appropriate location. Provided it's within the site rules (no swearing, politics, etc) no one will ever censor your posts here. We need all the new members we can get to keep the discussions fresh. Don't let my long-winded rambling posts put you off. And try not to let them put you to sleep either.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't think it was cruel. Alfred got exactly what he wanted: he got to live out his retirement in Tuscany, assured in the knowledge that Bruce was finally out of danger and living a happy normal life with someone he loved. Fox assumed control over Wayne Enterprises. Gordon also looked pretty happy at the end. Order had been restored to his city and he no longer had to cover for Dent's crimes. Blake got to see all the orphaned kids in Gotham receive a new home and a better way of life. And Bruce entrusted him with his greatest secret, leaving him the option of becoming the new Batman if he so chose. Bruce took care of everyone.

Be though as it may, I still think he could've managed to do all of that without having to fake his death as Bruce Wayne. He could've announced to hand over all his assets to his close friends while announcing his desire to leave Gotham for good. Sure, it may be less 'dramatic' and 'compelling' to watch but it's certainly more logical than Bruce Wayne fooling everyone into thinking he died.

If someone says they loved a film when it first came out, but love it less now they've had time to think about it, then I can understand that. But if someone says they loved a film when they first saw it, but now hate it passionately and think it's unredeemable 0/10 drivel, then I find that a little hard to believe. Films don't change over time, only people's attitudes towards them. And for someone's attitude to change so radically in just a year or two suggests an external influence has likely affected their opinion.

I think lots of people here fall in the first category you mentioned. I haven't seen, or at least don't remember right now, someone saying they loved TDK the first time they saw it but now they completely hate it. Some of the users here who used to love it seem to still have some respect for it, which is very different compared to someone like me who never liked it.

Nolan worshippers didn't waste time trashing the sixties Batman or Schumacher's films, because those weren't perceived as a threat. They did target Burton's film because those were regarded as the classic 'dark' and 'serious' Batman films to beat. Likewise Burton fans aren't currently threatened by Snyder's film. I think for several reasons.

I'll be judging Snyder's movie and characterization of Batman by merit. If it's good, great, I'll embrace it as part of many Batman interpretations I like e.g. Adam West, Burton, BTAS, Bronze Age, Arkham games etc. I couldn't care less what film critics say; in fact, I don't find any of them credible at all. I even disagree with critical reviews for movies that I did like! And I certainly couldn't care less if stupid fanboys have to tear down Burton in favour of Snyder's take.

Nolan's fans criticise Batman for killing in Burton's films but don't acknowledge him killing in the Dark Knight trilogy? Well that's the fans' mistake, not Nolan's.

I say it's both. Those type of fans are indeed clueless, but that doesn't mean that Nolan should escape any criticism for wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Like I was trying to say before, no matter how contradictory Burton's Batman was towards the end of BR, it's no more egregious than Nolan's Batman constant flip-flopping in ALL three films. Put that together with Batman saying "No guns, no killing" to Catwoman but then uses guns to kill Talia, that makes it worse than anything that Burton's Batman did in my opinion.

RE: Arkham City, agreed, although I do remember that someone on another forum argued that Batman technically 'killed' Solomon Grundy, although Grundy was a zombie. Interesting. Let's not forget that Batman tried to save Ra's after Wonder Tower blew up but was forced to back away when Ra's tried to kill him while committing suicide.

He literally had no choice in that situation. Talia and her driver would have been dead in a couple of minutes anyway once the bomb went off, along with everyone else in Gotham. Batman's objective was not to kill, but to save life. If he hadn't taken that course of action, he would have condemned the entire population of Gotham to death through inaction.

I'm certainly aware he had no choice, but once again it goes back to the argument I was trying to make: if Batman knows deep down that lethal force is required when too many lives are at stake, then what was the point of him not killing the Joker? Joker was threatening to kill thousands of people stranded on the boats; not to mention he already killed a lot of people before that. I'll go even further by suggesting that Batman is endangering everyone in Gotham for not killing the Joker because the latter proved if he can escape from jail the first time he's locked up, then he's capable of anything. Logically speaking - by not killing him, Batman is allowing the risk of a deranged madman to escape from jail one day and do more harm. This is something I've always had a problem with modern comics and even in the Arkham games, but at least Batman in those stories was consistent with his actions, unlike Nolan and Burton to a lesser extent.

You may argue that Ra's and Talia al Ghul were more of a threat than Joker for trying to destroy Gotham completely, but it can be argued that Joker would've the done the same thing if he had his way. I don't believe he was any less dangerous than either of those two or Bane.

I think the difference lies in the fact that Batman was originally conceived as a character that killed, whereas Superman wasn't. Batman's meant to be a dark, sinister character. Superman isn't.

Be though as it may, it annoys me that many people who revere Nolan's films tend to claim the trilogy makes Batman as a 'symbol' that inspires people. But then they quickly to change their tune by saying "Batman is a dark character" whenever it's convenient. Don't get me wrong BTW, I'm not saying you're one of those people, but it's an observation that falls in line with fans who have double standards.

What really ticked off a lot of people about the Zod scene was that it just wasn't necessary. It wasn't even in the original script. The film was originally supposed to end with Zod getting drawn into the Phantom Zone along with all the other Kryptonians. And since the film was already a little overlong to begin with, they probably should have stuck with that original ending. Then they could have had Zod return in a later film.

By that rationale alone, fair enough. I actually really liked Zod as a villain. But in saying that at least I bought the idea that Superman was caught in a life or death situation since he had no possible alternatives to stop Zod, who managed to avoid the Phantom Zone. Superman killing Zod wasn't too different than Batman killing off Ra's, Two-Face or Talia, but at least he didn't pretend to have a moral code, nor did he ever contradict himself either. On top of the fact that unlike Batman, Superman was devastated that he had to take a life to save others. And regarding the overlong ending, the same thing could easily be said about each ending in Nolan's films, but I digress.

But that was an accident. If Batman had intended to kill Two-Face, he would have snuck up on him and done it quickly and quietly. His objective in that scene was to rescue Gordon's son, not to kill Dent. He didn't consciously break his moral code, so there's no contradiction in his ethics.

Mate with all due respect, I think you're clutching at straws here. Dent's death looked anything but accidental. If you recklessly lunge at someone who is standing right on the edge of a building and knock them over, the chances are you will likely kill that person. If Batman was really unaware of that, then he really is an idiot. But if Batman tried to wrestle with Dent to get the gun away from him, but Dent suddenly tripped by accident and fell to his death, then yes I'd agree. Instead, Batman literally threw caution out the window and pushes Dent right off the building, going down with him. Sure, the first objective was to save Gordon's son...but then again why did he use restraint against a mass-murdering psychopath who was killing people left, right and center, and nearly killed a thousand more?

Another interpretation I've encountered for that scene is that it represents the Joker's ideological triumph over Batman. The Joker tried to engineer a situation between the two ferries where one good person would cause the deaths of others. He failed at that, but he essentially succeeded in doing the same thing with Dent, Gordon and Batman. He created a scenario where either Dent – the city's paragon of virtue, its 'White Knight' – would kill an innocent, or else Batman, Gordon or some other GCPD officer would be forced to kill Dent. This ended the film on a morally gray note that's open to interpretation. Yes, Batman defeated the Joker by capturing him, but did the Joker defeat Batman on a more meaningful level?

Considering Batman already got his hands dirty in BB, I'd say the Joker didn't need to force any outcome against Batman at all.

The realism/fantasy issue is perhaps the biggest problem I have with the criticism of Nolan. It holds Nolan accountable to a manifesto to which he never actually committed himself. He may use certain techniques characteristic of cinéma vérité, but he's never claimed his films are kitchen sink dramas or 100% true to reality. Only that they were intended to have a more grounded sensibility than the older Batman films. He wanted Gotham to look like a real city and not like a soundstage. I think he accomplished that goal. He wanted to explore the functionality and origin of Batman's arsenal. And while he did probably overdo the expository dialogue, it was all in the pursuit of showing us an aspect of the mythos that the previous films had overlooked. He set out to make a Batman film that was more realistic than its predecessors, not to make a documentary about real crime in Chicago. It's the fans who've distorted his motives into something they can attack.

While I don't have a problem with Gotham turned into a realistic city, it's nothing new that I haven't seen before because almost every other superhero movie is set in a real city. And call me crazy, but I think showing things like how every piece of Batman's equipment works is a waste of time. It doesn't really add anything to the plot, and we can use our imagination how he assembles his equipment: he's rich. This is a similar problem I had with the first Iron Man movie, which as much as I liked it, I could've done without the overlong scenes of Tony Stark building his armored suit during the entire second act.

The thing is, once again, people like me simply thought Nolan's attempt at realism was poorly executed. If you're going for a more realistic movie and one that takes itself so seriously, then some of us simply expect for the movie to do better than wanting us to believe a man can survive a deadly disfigurement, or a man could simply recover a serious back injury by getting his vertebra punched. Nolan's films are not any more realistic than your standard action film, so one shouldn't get all surprised if people are annoyed if the movies change certain "comic-booky" characteristics while at the same time go for other ideas that are just as unrealistic, like the aforementioned examples. If the director wants to keep all of that, fine - the film shouldn't take itself so seriously then, and I think it's wrong to assume that most people have an agenda against Nolan in favour of Burton's or whoever else.

As for BR, if your argument is that it's not a masterpiece either, I definitely agree with you. But like it or not for some people, the combination of the two tones help them find it watchable - it works for them and they most of them KNOW the film isn't pretending to be high art. It might have subtext here and there, but for some people, it's a film where they can enjoy it for what it is, popcorn fun. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But if you're arguing that too many people think it's a masterpiece, fine. As for TDK Trilogy being a crime drama - I think that's an insult to the genre. Frank Miller's Year One was closer to that sort of genre, but this trilogy does a poor attempt of that.

I also think it's unfair to criticise Batman's moral hypocrisy in Nolan's films, while giving Burton a free pass for doing the exact same thing in Batman Returns.

When it comes to Batman's ethics, I get the impression you're more frustrated with the double standard displayed by Nolan's fans – criticising Burton's Batman for killing and refusing to acknowledge instances when Nolan's Batman does the same – rather than with Nolan himself. That's a frustration I can understand. But I don't understand penalising one director for doing something the other filmmaker did more excessively.

Again, no matter how contradictory Burton's Batman was towards the end of BR, I don't think it's any more egregious than Nolan's Batman constant flip-flopping in ALL three films.

Look, if Nolan had made it very clear that Batman wasn't open to killing anyone unless the stakes are too high, nobody would've complained in the first place. If Bruce had said "I won't kill a defenseless human being" in the sense that person is already beaten, that's fine; and that the film didn't lead people into believing he won't kill at all. Because when you have the character do something that's completely opposite of what he had just declared moments before regardless whether he meant to do or not, well I'm sorry but that's just not good storytelling. But you know what's the worst thing about Bruce in that scene in the temple? After getting who knows how many people killed, he didn't seem too affected by it at all. And this was shortly after it was revealed what the League's true goal was was, and yet it still didn't didn't phase him. For all the talk about how 'more realistic' these films are, none of the characters come across as if they're actual human beings. And that sort of stupidity ruins the film's verisimilitude for me. And that's not only one example where Nolan's Batman never really look bothered that he killed anyone. Compare that to how Superman reacted after killing Zod in Man of Steel, or how horrified Oliver Queen felt when he first killed a mercenary on the island in Arrow, that's pretty bad.

Once again, the fact that Nolan's Batman thought killing Ra's and Talia al Ghul and Two-Face was necessary only makes his sparing of the Joker no sense at all and even more reprehensible, unless you want to argue that Joker was not a bigger threat than any of them. If Joker appeared and killed again in the TDKR then people might have realised what I meant, but Joker was never played again due to tragic circumstances in real life. No matter what Burton's Batman said, at least he was more consistent with who he killed compared to this, and those he didn't never continued to cause mayhem like the Nolan's Joker did (and, for the record, I always believed Burton's Batman killed all the crooks at Axis Chemicals, the flame breather and strongman in BR).

Of course there's nothing wrong with discussing the faults in a film, but I can't remember the last time anyone on Batman-Online said anything nice about Nolan. The negative stuff's gotten really disproportionate. He made three of the most critically and commercially successful Batman films of all time, restoring the franchise's dignity in the eyes of the general public. If it wasn't for the success of Nolan's films, I doubt we would have gotten the Arkham games or many of the recent animated films. Yet instead of celebrating this triumphant chapter in Batman's history, all we do is tear it down and focus on the negative.

I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss the flaws in his films, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing so. It would just be nice if we could discuss the good aspects of his films once in a while without every thread degenerating into Nolan hate.

I don't know about that, I'm pretty sure Arkham Asylum and City were planned for quite some time, and most of the animated films are based on comics that had existed ten to more than twenty years ago (i.e. Under the Red Hood, TDK Returns).

Movies tend to be subjective anyway, it's not based on what critics say, how much money it makes at the box office or even how popular it is. People may like whatever they want, but I do think they need to brought down a peg to realize these films are not that great at the very least. Honestly, I think it's about time more people begin to have a clearer evaluation on how good these movies really are. It wouldn't surprise me that some people are sick and tired that these films are seen as the benchmark and yet they have even more problems than other movies have been accused of having. Are people focusing on the negatives more? Perhaps, but given the mess his scripts are despite how serious the movies are, I think that's fair game.

Once again, I don't speak for anyone else apart my own, but I stand what I said about Nolan's movies and I don't find Nolan in particular to be a very good storyteller in the slightest. The only movies I liked from Nolan were Memento and The Prestige. But otherwise I find nothing intellectual or clever in any of his movies, especially these ones. Aside from being rather boring, they're not even intelligent. And yes, I believe it's a terrible interpretation of Batman and I stand by that.

[Silver Nemesis]

Be though as it may, I still think he could've managed to do all of that without having to fake his death as Bruce Wayne. He could've announced to hand over all his assets to his close friends while announcing his desire to leave Gotham for good. Sure, it may be less 'dramatic' and 'compelling' to watch but it's certainly more logical than Bruce Wayne fooling everyone into thinking he died.

The other thing to remember is that Bruce's life was already in ruins before he fought Bane. Bane had taken almost everything from him. And while Bruce probably could have straightened most of that out, it would have taken a long time and placed his own financial affairs under an uncomfortable level of scrutiny. Add to that the fact that many people out there knew his secret identity - the people who witnessed his first fight against Bane, and the people in the Pit - and the life of Bruce Wayne becomes even less secure. Faking his own death was the simplest way to protect himself from reprisals. If everyone thinks he's dead then no one can blackmail him or hunt him down.

RE: Arkham City, agreed, although I do remember that someone on another forum argued that Batman technically 'killed' Solomon Grundy, although Grundy was a zombie. Interesting. Let's not forget that Batman tried to save Ra's after Wonder Tower blew up but was forced to back away when Ra's tried to kill him while committing suicide.

Indeed. Another very good example.

I'll go even further by suggesting that Batman is endangering everyone in Gotham for not killing the Joker because the latter proved if he can escape from jail the first time he's locked up, then he's capable of anything. Logically speaking - by not killing him, Batman is allowing the risk of a deranged madman to escape from jail one day and do more harm. This is something I've always had a problem with modern comics and even in the Arkham games, but at least Batman in those stories was consistent with his actions, unlike Nolan and Burton to a lesser extent.

There is something to be said for the comic book Batman killing the Joker, and the real reason it's never happened is because DC needs to keep their most popular villain alive. But the same situation doesn't necessarily exist in Nolan's universe. Bale's Batman doesn't know for certain that the Joker will ever escape again and kill more people. It's far more likely the Ledger Joker would receive the death penalty anyway after all the trouble he'd caused. But that shouldn't really be Batman's decision to make.

By that rationale alone, fair enough. I actually really liked Zod as a villain.

Have you heard the rumours about Luthor using Zod's remains as part of his scheme in BvS? If it's true, we might see some variation of Zod returning after all. Maybe Bizarro Zod?

On top of the fact that unlike Batman, Superman was devastated that he had to take a life to save others.

Superman appeared devastated during the same scene, but in the subsequent scenes he appeared perfectly happy and content. That's what I mean when I say I'm waiting to see how they follow up on it in BvS. His guilt has to be long lasting, not just a transient spur of the moment thing. Frankly, I'd prefer not to have a Superman burdened with a guilt complex in his very first movie. But since Snyder's backed us into that corner, the issue needs to be addressed.

And Batman definitely did show remorse over Dent's death. He didn't scream "Noooooooo!" like Darth Vader, but the regret was definitely there in Bale's performance during that final scene between him and Oldman. There was sorrow during Talia's death scene too, but the plot moved along so quick that we didn't have time to explore it in great depth. I admit he wasn't too cut up over Ra's though. But unlike the deaths of Dent and Talia, Ra's death was something he wanted.

And regarding the overlong ending, the same thing could easily be said about each ending in Nolan's films, but I digress.

I strongly agree. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to the cinema in recent years, enjoyed the first two acts of a film, only to find myself dozing off during the overblown CGI finale. Its a common problem in practically every modern blockbuster. Even the good ones. I think it has something to do with producers not wanting to cut effects footage they've spent so much money on.

Mate with all due respect, I think you're clutching at straws here. Dent's death looked anything but accidental. If you recklessly lunge at someone who is standing right on the edge of a building and knock them over, the chances are you will likely kill that person.

Batman knocked himself and Gordon's son over the ledge too. Doesn't mean he intended to commit suicide and take Gordon Jr with him.

Batman was still injured from the beating the Joker gave him, and the point-blank bullet to his gut didn't do him any favours either. He was weakened and acting in desperation. Dent flipped the coin and Batman had less than a second to react. So he hurled himself at him, and all three of them went over the edge together in the struggle. It was a clumsy action for sure, and it resulted in Dent's death. But it wasn't done for the express purpose of ending his life. If Batman could have prevented Two-Face from falling, he would have, just as he'd saved the Joker in the previous scene. But he had Gordon's son in one arm, and his other arm was occupied holding on for dear life. Once the three of them tumbled over the precipice, there was nothing Batman could do to save Dent.

If he'd really wanted to kill Dent, why did he reveal himself to him and engage him in conversation? He could have simply snuck up behind him and snapped his neck if that was his real objective. I just don't believe for a second that Batman consciously chose to end Dent's life. It was a clumsy accident resulting from desperate action.

Sure, the first objective was to save Gordon's son...but then again why did he use restraint against a mass-murdering psychopath who was killing people left, right and center, and nearly killed a thousand more?

The difference between a soldier and an executioner is a soldier kills in battle, whereas an executioner kills prisoners who've already lost the battle and are at their mercy. Killing the Joker once he'd defeated him would have been an execution.

And call me crazy, but I think showing things like how every piece of Batman's equipment works is a waste of time. It doesn't really add anything to the plot, and we can use our imagination how he assembles his equipment: he's rich.

But it's not simply about money. It's also about the element of secrecy and showing how those devices fit into the bat-motif. That's a narrative in itself, and one that's been told in the comics, but never in a previous movie. In Batman 89 the Joker asks "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" Batman Begins answered that question, and I've heard a lot of people say it's one of their favourite aspects of the film. It explains the logical rationale behind things which might otherwise seem silly. Comic fans already understood that rationale, but a lot of general audience members didn't.

It's also important to remember that the previous film, Batman and Robin (1997), had been heavily criticised for showing Batman whip out an endless supply of improbable items on the spur of the moment (bat-skates, bat credit card, an endless number of grappling lines, etc). By offering a more grounded approach to Batman's arsenal of weapons, Nolan was promising the audience he wouldn't make the same mistake.

If you're going for a more realistic movie and one that takes itself so seriously, then some of us simply expect for the movie to do better than wanting us to believe a man can survive a deadly disfigurement, or a man could simply recover a serious back injury by getting his vertebra punched.

But they're fantasy films. As you yourself say:

Nolan's films are not any more realistic than your standard action film,

The 'realism' in Nolan's films essentially boils down to a greater emphasis on logical process (explaining the rationale behind the outwardly irrational), allusions to contemporary social anxieties (post-9/11 angst, terrorism, compromised security, etc) and a visual language that makes the stories feel more immediate and less removed from our own lives (Gotham being a real city instead of an artificial fantasy construct, a more realistic portrayal of how the police/government might react to a comic book crisis). But ultimately they're still superhero fantasy films.

the film shouldn't take itself so seriously then

I saw The Dark Knight a few times when it first came out, but didn't watch it much in the years that followed. Last year I finally watched it again and I was struck by two things. Firstly, the movie was funnier than I remembered it being. Secondly, it wasn't anywhere near as dark and serious as I remembered it being. You may find the same thing if you give it another chance.

and I think it's wrong to assume that most people have an agenda against Nolan in favour of Burton's or whoever else.

On a Tim Burton Batman fan site, it's not that much of a stretch.

As for BR, if your argument is that it's not a masterpiece either, I definitely agree with you.

Don't get me wrong, I love Batman Returns, warts and all. I was just trying to illustrate how it's possible to highlight two apparently contrasting aspects of a film and use that disparity as a basis for criticism. I think the contrasting tones of Batman Returns make it interesting and unique. I feel the same way about the contrast between fantasy and realism in The Dark Knight.

But like it or not for some people, the combination of the two tones help them find it watchable - it works for them and they most of them KNOW the film isn't pretending to be high art.

Exactly.

As for TDK Trilogy being a crime drama - I think that's an insult to the genre. Frank Miller's Year One was closer to that sort of genre, but this trilogy does a poor attempt of that.

All Batman films are crime dramas on some level. Even the 1966 film. Crime fiction is a broad genre with many diverse subdivisions.

Look, if Nolan had made it very clear that Batman wasn't open to killing anyone unless the stakes are too high, nobody would've complained in the first place. If Bruce had said "I won't kill a defenseless human being" in the sense that person is already beaten, that's fine

But that's exactly what he did say: "I'm no executioner [...] I will go back to Gotham and I will fight men like this, but I will not become an executioner." Killing Ra's was effectively an execution. Killing the Joker once he'd defeated him would have been an execution. Killing Dent in the struggle to save Gordon's son wasn't; Dent was in control of that situation, not Batman. The same goes for Talia.

But you know what's the worst thing about Bruce in that scene in the temple? After getting who knows how many people killed, he didn't seem too affected by it at all.

To be fair, we don't get to see Bruce's reaction to what happened. We go straight from the explosion to the scene of him saving Ducard/Ra's. I doubt he was too happy about the way things turned out. The fact he didn't stick around to wait for Ra's to awaken tells us he must have felt pretty bad about what happened.

For all the talk about how 'more realistic' these films are, none of the characters come across as if they're actual human beings.

Are real human beings one hundred percent consistent all of the time?

I don't know about that, I'm pretty sure Arkham Asylum and City were planned for quite some time, and most of the animated films are based on comics that had existed ten to more than twenty years ago (i.e. Under the Red Hood, TDK Returns).

The Arkham games – particularly the glider mechanics – were heavily influenced by Nolan's films, and I doubt Warner Bros would have put so much money into making those games had it not been for the renewed interest in Batman that followed the release of Batman Begins. A few Batman games had been released after Batman and Robin came out, but they were much smaller, cheaper games than the Arkham series. It was Nolan who revitalised the public interest in the franchise, thereby making a big budget video game commercially viable.

With regards to the animated films, they were originally supposed to feature lots of different DC characters. And the early films followed through with that idea. But if you look at the recent and upcoming films, they're all based around Batman. Sadly the films featuring Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and the other characters simply didn't sell amongst the general public, so now what was meant to be a DC universe series has been reduced to a Bat-centric series. Here in the UK they haven't even released most of the non-Batman animated films. And why is the general public so much more receptive to animated Batman films than any other superhero? And why, since 2008, has that receptivity become such a lucrative cash cow for Warner Bros?

[The Laughing Fish]

Faking his own death was the simplest way to protect himself from reprisals. If everyone thinks he's dead then no one can blackmail him or hunt him down.

Of course, if he doesn't disguise himself like in the end of the movie, it'll be a matter of time till everyone in the world finds out he's still alive. 

Have you heard the rumours about Luthor using Zod's remains as part of his scheme in BvS? If it's true, we might see some variation of Zod returning after all. Maybe Bizarro Zod?

I'd take all rumours for that movie right now with a grain of salt.

And Batman definitely did show remorse over Dent's death.

Not from what I saw. But then again I thought Bale's acting in these movies have been so incredibly poor for someone of his caliber. Having said that, I thought he showed one moment of humanity when he was stabbed by Talia.

I strongly agree. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to the cinema in recent years, enjoyed the first two acts of a film, only to find myself dozing off during the overblown CGI finale. Its a common problem in practically every modern blockbuster. Even the good ones. I think it has something to do with producers not wanting to cut effects footage they've spent so much money on.

I was actually trying to say Nolan's films have poor pacing too, but yes, I do agree that most films with CGI tend to be overlong nowadays.

If he'd really wanted to kill Dent, why did he reveal himself to him and engage him in conversation?

Look, I know what you're trying to say, but I just found the whole scene completely unconvincing and poorly staged. I know you're trying to reason that he was injured by the time he faced Dent, but Batman still wasn't weak enough to not lunge at him. Regardless how desperate, I thought it was utterly ridiculous and deadly for Batman to do that. If Batman wanted to stop Dent then he could've simply snuck Dent from behind like a ninja and disable him. You know, like he used to in Batman Begins? After all, it was unbelievable that Gordon, his wife or Dent failed to notice that Batman was still alive and leaped out of nowhere like that. No matter how desperate, if you lunge at two people standing on the edge like that then you should expect the worst to happen, but the way it especially happened so quickly just made what should have been a tragic scene so laughable.

The difference between a soldier and an executioner is a soldier kills in battle, whereas an executioner kills prisoners who've already lost the battle and are at their mercy. Killing the Joker once he'd defeated him would have been an execution.

As you already know though, Nolan wanted to have it both ways because Batman got Ra's killed after he was beaten. So which one is it then? Is Batman a soldier or an executioner?

The ending of the first film had especially opened a can of worms and it was very hard to take hearing Sal Maroni and Joker taunt Batman about his inability to break his "one rule" when we all know he already broke it a long time ago. So no matter what Joker does, Batman won't cross that line...but he will for everyone else when the going gets tough? It's this kind of stupidity that makes Nolan's films vague, moreso than the last few minutes of Batman Returns, and the director has to be blamed for this lack of consistency.

So the hero thought he had to take a lethal course of action under the circumstances against one defeated mass-murderer, but then he restrained himself from doing the same thing against another defeated (and even more heinous) mass-murderer, at the expense of an entire town's safety? That is exactly what I thought when I watched this movie for the first time. Again, people can't be blamed for this if the director wants to have his cake and eat it too. I'd rather a Batman who intends to kill (like Burton) or one who won't kill at all (the comics).

But that's exactly what he did say: "I'm no executioner [...] I will go back to Gotham and I will fight men like this, but I will not become an executioner." Killing Ra's was effectively an execution. Killing the Joker once he'd defeated him would have been an execution. Killing Dent in the struggle to save Gordon's son wasn't; Dent was in control of that situation, not Batman. The same goes for Talia.

See above.

But they're fantasy films. As you yourself say:

They sure are fantasy films. I just happen to think they're very bad, shallow fantasy films. Feel free to disagree if you want though.

I saw The Dark Knight a few times when it first came out, but didn't watch it much in the years that followed. Last year I finally watched it again and I was struck by two things. Firstly, the movie was funnier than I remembered it being. Secondly, it wasn't anywhere near as dark and serious as I remembered it being. You may find the same thing if you give it another chance.

I've watched this film four times within the last couple of years and my reaction has always been negative. Each time I always thought that the first forty minutes were okay, but the film quickly gets worse towards the half-way mark and becomes harder to watch towards the end. As for the film being funnier than you remembered, eye of the beholder I guess. I don't see anything funny in that film at all, except the poor choice of words line. For me it wasn't really a matter of it being too dark, I just found it to be boring, pretentious, overlong, plodding, full of unlikable characters and mostly poorly acted apart from one or two performances.

I understand that you like the film, and I have no problems with that, but I personally thought it was an overblown piece of crap and have no desire to see it ever again. That being said, TDKR gives me a good laugh here and there I tend to enjoy that as long as I treat it as a comedy.  But like the other two, that film is way too long to watch from start to end.

Are real human beings one hundred percent consistent all of the time?

No, but it still doesn't change my opinion that Nolan's characters don't feel human at all. Even Arrow's characters feel more humane than TDK, and Arrow is a show full of cheesy soap opera actors.

[Silver Nemesis]

I'd take all rumours for that movie right now with a grain of salt.

Very wise.

Not from what I saw. But then again I thought Bale's acting in these movies have been so incredibly poor for someone of his caliber. Having said that, I thought he showed one moment of humanity when he was stabbed by Talia.

It's difficult to articulate grief through a mask, but Bale did it during that final scene.

It's just a shame about that voice... 

I was actually trying to say Nolan's films have poor pacing too, but yes, I do agree that most films with CGI tend to be overlong nowadays.

I enjoy the finales in Nolan's films more than those in most other contemporary blockbusters, chiefly because he favours practical effects over CGI. I also admire him for shooting on 35mm instead of digital.

If Batman wanted to stop Dent then he could've simply snuck Dent from behind like a ninja and disable him. You know, like he used to in Batman Begins?

He could have done that, but he chose to try reasoning with Harvey instead. This was the first time Batman had encountered him since he'd become Two-Face, and he didn't realise how far gone his mind was. The battle for Gotham's soul was the battle to save Dent. So Batman tried appealing to his good side. He failed. And from that moment on he was at a disadvantage. It was a bad call. He should have snuck up on him and physically disarmed him. But Batman was already staggering and uncoordinated when he left the Joker at the construction site. He then got shot at point-blank range, was lying on the floor (possibly unconscious), and barely reacted in time to see Dent flip his coin. Weakened and at the end of his tether, he desperately lunged at Dent in an attempt to save Gordon's son. It doesn't require skill or strength to simply hurl your body at someone. It was a clumsy uncoordinated action. This was not Batman at his peak like he was in Batman Begins, and he'd already forsaken the element of surprise by revealing himself to Dent.

Batman's human, he makes mistakes. And that whole scene is supposed to represent one of his greatest failures, the consequences of which leave him permanently injured and outlawed. It would make no sense for Batman to want Harvey dead. He even calls Dent a "hero" during that final scene. At no point did he consciously choose to end Harvey's life. So I still maintain there's no contradiction in his ethics. He would have saved Dent just as readily as he saved the Joker, had he been able to.

As you already know though, Nolan wanted to have it both ways because Batman got Ra's killed after he was beaten. So which one is it then? Is Batman a soldier or an executioner?

He's a soldier. His only conscious lapse from his moral code was when he allowed Ra's to die. All other deaths were collateral accidents resulting from his efforts to save other people. Dent died so Gordon and his family could live. Talia died so everyone in Gotham could live. The objective was always to save life, not to end it. However that's not the case in Burton's films, which contain several instances of Batman ending people's lives unnecessarily in situations where alternatives existed (the fire breather, the tattooed strongman).

Part of what makes Nolan's Batman films interesting is that they place the heroes in situations that are not only physically difficult, but ethically challenging too. Nolan's heroes are constantly confronted with difficult moral decisions, and they don't always choose the right options. The battles are never just purely physical; there's always a moral and psychological layer to them. And that's one of the reasons people enjoy analysing them so much.

So the hero thought he had to take a lethal course of action under the circumstances against one defeated mass-murderer, but then he restrained himself from doing the same thing against another defeated (and even more heinous) mass-murderer, at the expense of an entire town's safety? That is exactly what I thought when I watched this movie for the first time.

Here you're highlighting one contentious issue in Batman Begins and using it as an excuse to condemn The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. I prefer to evaluate each film independently as self-contained works. I'm not going to condemn Batman Forever as "stupid" because it shows Bruce telling Dick it's wrong to take revenge by killing, even though he did it himself in Batman 89. That doesn't mean both films are flawed, it just means an intertexual disparity exists between them; and that perhaps Batman 89 is at fault for showing Batman deliberately taking human life (debatable).

And once again, you could apply this exact same criticism to Burton's Batman. He won't kill Shreck – a powerful racketeer who controls the media, has tremendous political power, is complicit in all of the Penguin's evil machinations, who tried to kill Selina, who murdered Fred Atkins and who knows how many other people, yet is apparently immune to the law (remember Catwoman's line: "Aren't you tired of this sanctimonious robber baron always coming out on top when he should be six feet under?"). Batman won't kill that guy. But he will happily murder a mindless goon who, as far we know, never did anything more severe than hit a Salvation Army Santa with a toy sleigh.

I'd rather a Batman who intends to kill (like Burton) or one who won't kill at all (the comics).

The Batman in the comics has killed literally hundreds of people. It doesn't mean it's logical to condemn every issue where he doesn't kill on the basis of their being inconsistent. The issues where he kills are the ones at fault. Likewise the flaw you're outlining relates to Batman Begins. And the very thing you're accusing Nolan of getting wrong in Batman Begins (and I agree with you on that score) is something he got right in the next two films. But you're calling him out for that too. He can't win. It seems that by making one mistake in Batman Begins, he's ruined all the sequels in your eyes.

They sure are fantasy films. I just happen to think they're very bad, shallow fantasy films. Feel free to disagree if you want though.

I'm afraid I do. But maybe I'm wrong and you're right. Who can say?

As for the film being funnier than you remembered, eye of the beholder I guess. I don't see anything funny in that film at all, except the poor choice of words line.

Perhaps I should rephrase that. What I meant was there are far more humorous moments in the film than I'd remembered there being. Whether we personally find them funny is immaterial. I don't personally find most of the jokes in the Burton-Schumacher series funny. But the attempt at humour is there. Which is why I don't rate the criticism that The Dark Knight is completely humourless.

I've watched this film four times within the last couple of years and my reaction has always been negative.

I understand that you like the film, and I have no problems with that, but I personally thought it was an overblown piece of crap and have no desire to see it ever again.

I hope you don't mind me asking, but if you hate the film so intensely, why have you watched it four times in the last two years? I like the film and I've only watched it twice during that equivalent time span.

That being said, TDKR gives me a good laugh here and there I tend to enjoy that as long as I treat it as a comedy. 

As you say, eye of the beholder.

No, but it still doesn't change my opinion that Nolan's characters don't feel human at all. Even Arrow's characters feel more humane than TDK, and Arrow is a show full of cheesy soap opera actors.

I feel the opposite. I don't dislike Arrow per se, but it's got that whole low budget teen soap opera thing that's typical of CW shows. Smallville and Supernatural both had the same vibe, where the actors looked like adolescent GAP models and were clearly cast according to looks rather than acting ability. The writing on those shows all too often emphasises petty interpersonal squabbles in place of meaningful conflict, and that's one of the most common pitfalls inexperienced and unskilled writers fall into. Since the showrunners have often cited Nolan's trilogy as a major influence, the whole series comes off as a teen-oriented Dark Knight-lite. I know the actors aren't really teens, but they radiate an air of immaturity about them. In fairness, that's probably more to do with the way the scripts are written. By contrast, Nolan's films had Oscar-calibre actors playing fully rounded characters struggling with complex moral dilemmas, and each following their own personal arc within the wider overarching narrative. But as you say, it's all subjective. I'm probably being too harsh on Arrow. I haven't seen much of the second season, which I gather is an improvement over the first.

I am looking forward to The Flash series though. I'd rather it wasn't a CW production, but I'll take what I can get in the present DC drought. But I think WB has made a mistake by not connecting these shows to their cinematic universe. Marvel's got Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Carter, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and The Defenders in production – all TV shows taking place in the MCU. And the characters in those shows will all likely appear in the films at some point, even if only as cameos. Right now WB is trying to cram as many characters into one movie as possible to get their own cinematic universe rolling. They'd be wiser to capitalise on these TV shows to help them catch up.