Rewatchability

[The Laughing Fish]

I rewatched BB recently and it's strange how it emerges as arguably the strongest of the whole trilogy.

The crew wanted to tell this story, the cast were mostly 100% invested in each of their characters, the mostly original story had enough riffs on various popular comics to be interesting to the core fanbase, it legitimately did show stuff that was completely new to Batman cinema (even if the comics had been doing it for decades), the action scenes were innovative to Batman films at the time, the film took itself seriously but not too seriously and it ended on a note that suggested, well, escalation. And yeah, I guess the sequels did escalate but not really in ways that anybody had been looking forward to and I think many cast members were on auto-pilot after BB.

I admit that Nolan's Batman isn't "my Batman" as they say on some other forum I forget the name of but I still think the above has some validity to it.

Well, calling the action scenes in BB "innovative" is putting it way too nicely for my liking.  I thought other than the sword battle between Bruce and the fake Ra's while the temple was burning down, the fight scenes were a complete  disaster. Without a doubt, the most poorly directed that I've ever seen in a big budget Hollywood blockbuster. Now I know I've criticised the action in the sequels for not being very well choreographed, but at least you can tell who is getting hit by whom. In contrast, BB's fight scenes are so incoherent that you'd have to hit the remote control to watch them in slow motion. Very amateurish stuff, and I can't believe that nearly got away from constant criticism. I didn't think the humour was any good either; they're just a collection of cliche, crappy one liners, like "I got to get me one of those". It wasn't funny when Will Smith said it in Independence Day, and it's not funny here, especially since it refers to that ugly Tumbler.

Personally, I prefer the video game adaptation of BB. Yes, the gameplay might be repetitive, but at least you get to play as Bale's Batman where he doesn't use that stupid voice all the time, the action is obviously better, and he does just a little bit more of investigative work no matter how meager it might be. It's arguably a template to the Arkham video games too. Besides, the ending of the game has Bale delivering a monologue that closely defines Batman than any of that pseudo-intellectual crap that was said in the entire trilogy:

I once made the mistake of thinking Ra's al Ghul was dead. But when men make themselves symbols, they shed their mortality. Henri Ducard and Jonathan Crane are already gone. Just like Bruce Wayne. He's only a mask. A cover for the face criminals now fear. All that's left...is Batman.

[The Dark Knight]

I rewatched BB recently and it's strange how it emerges as arguably the strongest of the whole trilogy.

The crew wanted to tell this story, the cast were mostly 100% invested in each of their characters, the mostly original story had enough riffs on various popular comics to be interesting to the core fanbase, it legitimately did show stuff that was completely new to Batman cinema (even if the comics had been doing it for decades), the action scenes were innovative to Batman films at the time, the film took itself seriously but not too seriously and it ended on a note that suggested, well, escalation. And yeah, I guess the sequels did escalate but not really in ways that anybody had been looking forward to and I think many cast members were on auto-pilot after BB.

I admit that Nolan's Batman isn't "my Batman" as they say on some other forum I forget the name of but I still think the above has some validity to it.

I agree Nolan and the crew had a fire in their belly which is very evident in BB.

I think Nolan still had the passion in TDK Rises - the runtimes got longer each time. But his areas of focus weren't always the best. Even with the established framework Nolan gives us in TDKR, there was a lot of potential.

I think especially with Bruce escaping the pit. The climb itself is actually a great scene. I get chills when the bats fly out of the wall, and the music is great too. In my opinion not showing how Bruce returned to Gotham was unfortunate. It could have been a highlight of the trilogy and would've strengthened Bruce as a character by showcasing his skill set, and further demonstrating his  determination, and the insane obstacles he is up against.

That's why BB worked well. It focused on Bruce and Batman more, and I think by focusing on the Gotham siege so much, Nolan lost his way in that respect. Yes, we need a worthy threat for our hero to face. But we also need to be entertained.

Just imagine it. Bruce sneaking back into his city which has been locked down by the militia forces. Getting a fake passport and landing back in America. Hiding underneath a vehicle which then crosses over to the main island, or whatever. Walking across the frozen river and accessing a secret entrance. Anything. But we get nothing.

But in the final product it feels like a plot hole when it really shouldn't.

There are some good sequences in the movie, and really, well done to Nolan for completing his vision and seeing this thing out. But I feel it could've been a whole lot more and that's what I find frustrating about the movie.

[Dagenspear]

I rewatched BB recently and it's strange how it emerges as arguably the strongest of the whole trilogy.

The crew wanted to tell this story, the cast were mostly 100% invested in each of their characters, the mostly original story had enough riffs on various popular comics to be interesting to the core fanbase, it legitimately did show stuff that was completely new to Batman cinema (even if the comics had been doing it for decades), the action scenes were innovative to Batman films at the time, the film took itself seriously but not too seriously and it ended on a note that suggested, well, escalation. And yeah, I guess the sequels did escalate but not really in ways that anybody had been looking forward to and I think many cast members were on auto-pilot after BB.

I admit that Nolan's Batman isn't "my Batman" as they say on some other forum I forget the name of but I still think the above has some validity to it.

Well, calling the action scenes in BB "innovative" is putting it way too nicely for my liking.  I thought other than the sword battle between Bruce and the fake Ra's while the temple was burning down, the fight scenes were a complete  disaster. Without a doubt, the most poorly directed that I've ever seen in a big budget Hollywood blockbuster. Now I know I've criticised the action in the sequels for not being very well choreographed, but at least you can tell who is getting hit by whom. In contrast, BB's fight scenes are so incoherent that you'd have to hit the remote control to watch them in slow motion. Very amateurish stuff, and I can't believe that nearly got away from constant criticism. I didn't think the humour was any good either; they're just a collection of cliche, crappy one liners, like "I got to get me one of those". It wasn't funny when Will Smith said it in Independence Day, and it's not funny here, especially since it refers to that ugly Tumbler.

Personally, I prefer the video game adaptation of BB. Yes, the gameplay might be repetitive, but at least you get to play as Bale's Batman where he doesn't use that stupid voice all the time, the action is obviously better, and he does just a little bit more of investigative work no matter how meager it might be. It's arguably a template to the Arkham video games too. Besides, the ending of the game has Bale delivering a monologue that closely defines Batman than any of that pseudo-intellectual crap that was said in the entire trilogy:

I once made the mistake of thinking Ra's al Ghul was dead. But when men make themselves symbols, they shed their mortality. Henri Ducard and Jonathan Crane are already gone. Just like Bruce Wayne. He's only a mask. A cover for the face criminals now fear. All that's left...is Batman.

Because that doesn't sound like pseudo-intellectual crap.

[Vampfox]

Of all the Nolan Batman movies I find TDKR to be the hardest to rewatch. My biggest problem is that Batman is hardly in it. Seriously people like to complane about Batman's screen time in Batman Returns, but he has even less screen time in this movie. After Bane breaks his back and he's sent to the pit their's about a good 20 minutes where we don't even see him. Nolan seemed way more interested in Blake then Bruce.

[thecolorsblend]

Well, calling the action scenes in BB "innovative" is putting it way too nicely for my liking.  I thought other than the sword battle between Bruce and the fake Ra's while the temple was burning down, the fight scenes were a complete  disaster. Without a doubt, the most poorly directed that I've ever seen in a big budget Hollywood blockbuster.

True but this was all mostly new stuff for a Batman film. Nolan expanded the visual language of Batman cinema. Good or bad, he brought new and more modern ideas to the table.

Now I know I've criticised the action in the sequels for not being very well choreographed, but at least you can tell who is getting hit by whom.

In fairness, what I think Nolan was going for in BB was a sort of visual collage where we "feel" the impact of the punches and whatnot... without necessarily getting a literal beginning, middle and end-style presentation of the fights. We're free to debate how well he accomplished the task and how good an idea that really was anyway but I can't help thinking that's what he was aiming for.

And apparently part of that was logistics. The Batman costume kept falling apart during those action scenes so Nolan decided to cut around the action rather than graphically show it.

I didn't think the humour was any good either; they're just a collection of cliche, crappy one liners, like "I got to get me one of those". It wasn't funny when Will Smith said it in Independence Day, and it's not funny here, especially since it refers to that ugly Tumbler.

No argument... except even those cliched one-liners were more than we got in the sequels.

I'm not arguing that the movie is the greatest thing to ever happen to Batman. You all know me better than that. But (A) it's a lot more fun than the sequels and (B) it was new and powerful vision of Batman at a time when he really needed it. It's nowhere remotely close to definitive for me (and I'm starting to think "definitive" is an impossible thing for Batman in any medium to ever reach) but it hasn't aged as terribly as I originally expected. It's hardly timeless but I suspect TDKRises and especially TDK will be a lot harder to watch in the coming years.

[Dagenspear]

Of all the Nolan Batman movies I find TDKR to be the hardest to rewatch. My biggest problem is that Batman is hardly in it. Seriously people like to complane about Batman's screen time in Batman Returns, but he has even less screen time in this movie. After Bane breaks his back and he's sent to the pit their's about a good 20 minutes where we don't even see him. Nolan seemed way more interested in Blake then Bruce.

It doesn't change what the story is about.

[The Laughing Fish]

Well, calling the action scenes in BB "innovative" is putting it way too nicely for my liking.  I thought other than the sword battle between Bruce and the fake Ra's while the temple was burning down, the fight scenes were a complete  disaster. Without a doubt, the most poorly directed that I've ever seen in a big budget Hollywood blockbuster.

True but this was all mostly new stuff for a Batman film. Nolan expanded the visual language of Batman cinema. Good or bad, he brought new and more modern ideas to the table.

Now I know I've criticised the action in the sequels for not being very well choreographed, but at least you can tell who is getting hit by whom.

In fairness, what I think Nolan was going for in BB was a sort of visual collage where we "feel" the impact of the punches and whatnot... without necessarily getting a literal beginning, middle and end-style presentation of the fights. We're free to debate how well he accomplished the task and how good an idea that really was anyway but I can't help thinking that's what he was aiming for.

And apparently part of that was logistics. The Batman costume kept falling apart during those action scenes so Nolan decided to cut around the action rather than graphically show it.

From what I understand, we were supposed to watch the murky fight scenes as if we could see from the crooks' point of view as they have no idea what hit them, and neither should we. Be though as it may, that's still no excuse for how incoherent and incompetent the action turned out. I might have accepted that effect if it was used only once during Batman's first appearance at the docks, but not for every single action scene involving him. It undermines the whole premise that he's a martial artist, and makes every battle extremely underwhelming and anticlimactic, i.e. the League and Ra's. When I watch an action movie, I want to tell what's going on. Relying on sound effects as a gimmick isn't going to cut it.

That's the first time I've heard about the suit falling apart. It's puzzling because the Batsuits in the Burton/Schumacher series only had  movement issues, and yet, the fight scenes in those films were far better executed than anything in this trilogy. The short alley fight between Batman and the Joker's ninja swordsman alone is better than what we saw here. Nolan really should've hired a second unit director for this sort of expertise.

I'm not arguing that the movie is the greatest thing to ever happen to Batman. You all know me better than that. But (A) it's a lot more fun than the sequels and (B) it was new and powerful vision of Batman at a time when he really needed it. It's nowhere remotely close to definitive for me (and I'm starting to think "definitive" is an impossible thing for Batman in any medium to ever reach) but it hasn't aged as terribly as I originally expected. It's hardly timeless but I suspect TDKRises and especially TDK will be a lot harder to watch in the coming years.

In terms of fun: eye of the beholder I suppose. I reckon Tom Hardy's Bane with his pompous demeanor and laughable story in TDKR is more watchable than constantly being explained why Bruce needs to overcome his fear of bats from beginning to end. But having said that, I kinda agree with you in hindsight that the BB's story is better than the sequels. It's just that I also think BB is the most poorly directed out of all three.

In terms of doing something "new"? In my opinion, these films benefit from the enormous backlash surrounding Joel Schumacher. I really do believe that people's expectations in the franchise got so incredibly low following Batman & Robin that it got to the point that nearly everybody was desperate to embrace a new movie that took itself more seriously, and willingly ignore the most obvious flaws. Batman being arguably the most popular superhero in pop culture for decades is another factor to consider. Whereas for instance, and as much as it annoys me to say it, Superman seems to be looked down upon in comparison, and the films and comics in that franchise tends to be scrutinized a lot more. And in some cases, they get unfairly criticised for faults that some Batman media are just as guilty for having.

It's shame really. The Schumacher films definitely have their own faults, but unlike the Nolan films, I thought BF and B&R have some admirable plot points. It's too bad those positives get overlooked. It makes me wonder if the overacting was toned down a bit, the humour was better written and if the films had no erotic costumes, would they have gotten a much better reception? Because there are great movies hidden within those two. In my opinion anyway.

[The Dark Knight]

A separate point here.

I like the concept of people revisiting their past.

Alfred said in BB that he'd never give up on Bruce. But fast forward about a decade and it's interesting to see how things change. I'm definitely not the same person I was a decade ago. Opinions change, sometimes daily or weekly. Even promises we swore never to break can be undone with the passing of time. And with time, as Bruce says in MOTP, "it just doesn't hurt so bad anymore."

But with TDKR Bruce, he was frozen in time and didn't want to move on. Alfred did. He was simply fed up with Bruce's lethargic lifestyle and likelihood of death. So indeed - Alfred breaking his "never" promise isn't a problem to me.  Because situations do change. We can be pushed into making decisions we hadn't planned on making. Alfred was loyal to a tee, but even loyalty has its limits. And he has a life of his own to live, given his age.

I don't exactly buy Bruce's reasons for becoming a hermit, but I do think it's quite interesting. If you don't change as a person, others around you will. And you'll be left all alone. I think it's a lesson for us all. We have to be greater than what we suffer, or like Bruce you are stagnant. When we do 'wake up', it's probably going to be too late. Life can pass you by very quickly.

[The Laughing Fish]

Great insight TDK. You put more insight in Alfred leaving Bruce than the film itself. 

If memory serves me right, we were told that Bruce hadn't been seen by the general public for years, and he had become reclusive because of his depression over Rachel's death. Alfred knew the truth about Rachel...and yet he still chose to keep it a secret and let Bruce languish and mistakenly believe he would've gotten together with Rachel if she were still alive? Alfred's excuse for burning Rachel's letter was he didn't want to cause Bruce any more anguish, but if anything, it actually did more harm than good.

It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know about anyone else here, but if I knew the truth about something that a friend of mine didn't, I'd tell them before their depression could get any worse. Isn't that common sense?

[The Dark Knight]

A theme of the movie is the consequences of past actions. In TDK we are left with the message that lying to make someone feel better is okay - be it Gordon and Batman lying about Dent to Gotham, or Alfred lying to Bruce about Rachael's decision about her personal life. There is a short term good that comes from it, but ultimately there is a long term bad. If you look at things that way, I actually don't there is a contradiction of themes from both movies. It's just that the passing of time changes the context.

It seems Alfred tried to coax Bruce out into public life with every method except the truth. The message then become more wholesome. Like Superman, truth, combined with justice, is the only way forward. The truth may be hard to accept, and in some cases people may deteriorate further. But once they get through that period, wounds are healed and people simply move on.

Did TDK Rises handle this coherently? Maybe not. But I'm sure the above was the intention. And as you can see, I trying to give TDK Rises another shot.

Let's see how long that lasts.