Rewatchability

[riddler]

Touching on a few points here;

FIGHT SCENES: this was by far BB's biggest flaw. The fight scenes were amateur. Nolan did show marginal improvement in the sequels but part of the appeal to superheroes is seeing them beat up bad guys.  To be honest I think this was arrogance on Nolans part. He knew he wasn't experienced in action, he should have hired a second unit.

HUNGER FROM NOLAN: One thing which Nolan prides himself on and his fanboys use as fodder is that he does not use a second unit or delete scenes. TDKR had BRUTAL editing with far too many scenes dragging on too long. I have a feeling not much effort was spent on post production. BB didn't have that problem. TDK there were scenes which should were cut too short; for instance the Joker's assault on the pent house ends with Batman saving Rachel yet the joker and the goons were still in the penthouse. Likewise the scene of Maroni watching Batman fight thugs in the club came out of nowhere and ended just as randomly (I also hated that he did that. Batman ran from the law the entire trilogy so shouldnt have gone in such a populated area with trained security bouncers. It was just as stupid as him returning to draw the cops off Bane in the 3rd film.

The idea of that was that he was angry about what he thought had happened to Gordon.

That was the point in TDKR too. It wasn't smart. He was making a sideshow of himself.

Well then if Nolan's point was to say that Bruce Wayne is stupid (which I agree he was in that series hence why he bankrupted Wayne Enterprises), that further emphasizes how Nolan truly didn't get the character he was working with.

It likely shows that he's a flawed character.

and you're okay with Nolan turning the 'worlds greatest detective' stupid because it gives him a flaw?

[Dagenspear]

and you're okay with Nolan turning the 'worlds greatest detective' stupid because it gives him a flaw?

I can and do accept many versions of Batman, including the ones that make bad decisions, have bat credit cards and have purposefully killed people.

[The Dark Knight]

That was the point in TDKR too. It wasn't smart. He was making a sideshow of himself.

It likely shows that he's a flawed character.

You know, your posts are really growing on me Dagenspear. I like your point of view in regards to the Nolan series, TDKR in particular. I'm beginning to see things from your perspective.

Well then if Nolan's point was to say that Bruce Wayne is stupid (which I agree he was in that series hence why he bankrupted Wayne Enterprises)

Taking a leaf from Dagenspear, I'll defend TDKR here for a bit.

As he said, Bruce was shown to be deeply flawed. Making a sideshow of himself during his comeback. Having a suicidal streak. Locking himself away from the world for up to a decade. And indeed...letting his company go to the dogs by not showing any interest in it.

There's quite a bit that's imperfect with Bale's Bruce and Batman. Instead of running from these issues, Dagenspear embraces them as legitimate plot points. Which is actually kind of cool and refreshing.

Bruce hands over the company to Tate, because simply, he doesn't have the passion, energy or interest to do so himself. The Nolan Bruce never did. Nor did he develop any of his gear. He left that all to Fox. And as we know, when he hands over to Tate that goes horribly wrong. Tate screws over Bruce and indeed all of Gotham.

The personal bankruptcy Bruce goes through is a result of Bane and Catwoman teaming up. So he couldn't really do much there anyway. But indeed, back to the main topic. Nolan's Bruce is maybe not stupid, but deeply flawed and different to the other versions in key areas. He was eager for a quick fix, and to hand over to a replacement and retire. While that's not my Bruce Wayne....you have to admit, it's offering something different to the table. For better or worse, you make your own decision.

[Edd Grayson]

I'll just say that it doesn't bother me so much what Nolan did with Batman, or if his movies succeeded or failed to send a clear message, but what bothers me is what some people say about those movies:  that they are the best Batman movies ever, the definitive version, that they are objectively superior to any other live-action interpretation, and that anyone who doesn't think so must have an inferior intellect or another problem.

I'm not referring to anyone on this board, everyone here is better than that.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'll just say that it doesn't bother me so much what Nolan did with Batman, or if his movies succeeded or failed to send a clear message, but what bothers me is what some people say about those movies:  that they are the best Batman movies ever, the definitive version, that they are objectively superior to any other live-action interpretation, and that anyone who doesn't think so must have an inferior intellect or another problem.

I'm not referring to anyone on this board, everyone here is better than that.

I have no problem if people get entertainment value from watching those movies. But it makes me laugh that anybody could believe that those films are "deep, intellectual high art", and have the audacity to insult others for not "getting them". But like you say, that doesn't quite happen here, thankfully.

I'm all for Batman having flaws and I'm not demanding him to be perfect all the time. The Keaton Batman's flaws could arguably be that he mostly lives as a loner inside his mansion and separates himself from Gotham society when he's not on duty as Batman. The only times he makes public appearances are when he feels that he needs to. Not to mention that he struggles to keep close relationships because of the double life that he lives. Romance is unsustainable for him.

If you go watch The New Batman Adventures, you'll notice how Batman becomes more detached compared to his behavior in BTAS, and his approach to crime-fighting becomes even more intense to the point that it ends up putting a strain on his relationship with Robin. This leads to a huge falling out between the two, and Dick Grayson quits being Robin for good. And the two never really made amends to fix their friendship, even when the they do work together as Batman and Nightwing for a few occassions.

Nolan's Batman is constantly two steps behind the villains and he's so gullible and incompetent that he ends up making the situation a lot worse, and it always gave me the impression that he never learned anything about the criminal mind. That was the whole reason he left Gotham and traveled around the world in BB, remember? It doesn't help that the guy makes up a lot of rules and intentions but then flip-flops whenever it's convenient, going completely out-of-character. So yes, because of the lack of consistency of the writing and the fact that he never learns from his mistakes in all three films, I'd definitely call him stupid.

[riddler]

Sorry to say I just can't accept a version of Batman where Bruce Wayne is stupid. That's like saying "let's make a Flash film where Barry Allen is slow so that he'll have a flaw"

[The Dark Knight]

Sorry to say I just can't accept a version of Batman where Bruce Wayne is stupid. That's like saying "let's make a Flash film where Barry Allen is slow so that he'll have a flaw"

I think an important point is Bale's Bruce saw Batman as merely something to use, not to be.

He was disinterested in areas and very trusting of allies. The other Batmen weren't like that, and I'm glad they weren't. I wouldn't want this to be the norm. But for one narrative? I can take it.

In any case, Affleck's version will cream TDK Trilogy, I'm sure.

[Dagenspear]

Sorry to say I just can't accept a version of Batman where Bruce Wayne is stupid. That's like saying "let's make a Flash film where Barry Allen is slow so that he'll have a flaw"

It's not stupidity. It's just a guy who makes mistakes.

[Dagenspear]

That was the point in TDKR too. It wasn't smart. He was making a sideshow of himself.

It likely shows that he's a flawed character.

You know, your posts are really growing on me Dagenspear. I like your point of view in regards to the Nolan series, TDKR in particular. I'm beginning to see things from your perspective.

Well then if Nolan's point was to say that Bruce Wayne is stupid (which I agree he was in that series hence why he bankrupted Wayne Enterprises)

Taking a leaf from Dagenspear, I'll defend TDKR here for a bit.

As he said, Bruce was shown to be deeply flawed. Making a sideshow of himself during his comeback. Having a suicidal streak. Locking himself away from the world for up to a decade. And indeed...letting his company go to the dogs by not showing any interest in it.

There's quite a bit that's imperfect with Bale's Bruce and Batman. Instead of running from these issues, Dagenspear embraces them as legitimate plot points. Which is actually kind of cool and refreshing.

Bruce hands over the company to Tate, because simply, he doesn't have the passion, energy or interest to do so himself. The Nolan Bruce never did. Nor did he develop any of his gear. He left that all to Fox. And as we know, when he hands over to Tate that goes horribly wrong. Tate screws over Bruce and indeed all of Gotham.

The personal bankruptcy Bruce goes through is a result of Bane and Catwoman teaming up. So he couldn't really do much there anyway. But indeed, back to the main topic. Nolan's Bruce is maybe not stupid, but deeply flawed and different to the other versions in key areas. He was eager for a quick fix, and to hand over to a replacement and retire. While that's not my Bruce Wayne....you have to admit, it's offering something different to the table. For better or worse, you make your own decision.

Thank you. It's like this: You don't have to like it. I'm not saying you have to. But it's not a flaw in the writing. You can view as a flaw in the interpretation all you want. But almost every version of the character on screen is a flawed interpretation. The one that is the closest to not being so flawed is the DCAU version.

[Dagenspear]

I'll just say that it doesn't bother me so much what Nolan did with Batman, or if his movies succeeded or failed to send a clear message, but what bothers me is what some people say about those movies:  that they are the best Batman movies ever, the definitive version, that they are objectively superior to any other live-action interpretation, and that anyone who doesn't think so must have an inferior intellect or another problem.

I'm not referring to anyone on this board, everyone here is better than that.

I have no problem if people get entertainment value from watching those movies. But it makes me laugh that anybody could believe that those films are "deep, intellectual high art", and have the audacity to insult others for not "getting them". But like you say, that doesn't quite happen here, thankfully.

I'm all for Batman having flaws and I'm not demanding him to be perfect all the time. The Keaton Batman's flaws could arguably be that he mostly lives as a loner inside his mansion and separates himself from Gotham society when he's not on duty as Batman. The only times he makes public appearances are when he feels that he needs to. Not to mention that he struggles to keep close relationships because of the double life that he lives. Romance is unsustainable for him.

If you go watch The New Batman Adventures, you'll notice how Batman becomes more detached compared to his behavior in BTAS, and his approach to crime-fighting becomes even more intense to the point that it ends up putting a strain on his relationship with Robin. This leads to a huge falling out between the two, and Dick Grayson quits being Robin for good. And the two never really made amends to fix their friendship, even when the they do work together as Batman and Nightwing for a few occassions.

Nolan's Batman is constantly two steps behind the villains and he's so gullible and incompetent that he ends up making the situation a lot worse, and it always gave me the impression that he never learned anything about the criminal mind. That was the whole reason he left Gotham and traveled around the world in BB, remember? It doesn't help that the guy makes up a lot of rules and intentions but then flip-flops whenever it's convenient, going completely out-of-character. So yes, because of the lack of consistency of the writing and the fact that he never learns from his mistakes in all three films, I'd definitely call him stupid.

TDKT Bruce didn't do that. I'm sad to say that it reaches a point where it seems like you want to dislike it.