Rewatchability

[The Dark Knight]

Thank you.

No worries - keep it up.

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.

I've long had issues with TDK Rises. So I've seen this as a chance to wrap my head around the plot decisions.

[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 occasions.

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.

I really don't think you're in any position to make a dig at me like that. After all, I'm not the one who tries to have his cake and eat it too like you do, like acknowledging that Batman did break his no-kill rule throughout the series, but still insist he didn't really kill anyone and make an outrageous comment like "indirectly breaking your rule doesn't undermine it or the importance of it". I just can't take an opinion like that seriously.

What logical sense would it make for me to want to hate these movies? I'm not some juvenile, stubborn fanboy who only worships one interpretation of the character and dismisses the rest. I tried very hard to like these movies, but it simply didn't work out because I thought they were badly written, and not very well made. God, the fact that I gave my ideas on what would've made the films much better only goes to show that I do want to like them. If I really wanted to hate them, I'd say something like "these films should never have made been in the first place and Batman should never have been rebooted". Now that is a true hater, because they believe that no future movie will ever match or top their preferred interpretation of the character. Come to think of it, I thought I already explained myself to you in the "Is it weird..." thread back in the BF sub-forum?

I don't give a damn how popular these movies are or how much money they earned at the box office, these films are not above criticism. Not only do I think that they're not anywhere near as good as people make them out to be, I just happen to think they're not even good at a competent level. I'm not going to mince my words because it's "not cool" to dislike these films. Especially since I come across people like yourself who haven't made convincing or adequate arguments why the criticisms against the films are wrong. Nonetheless, if you want to ignore these flaws or don't even care about them, fine. That's your prerogative. And it's also my prerogative to use them as examples to explain why I don't like them.

Yes, you're right that every movie has flaws. But there is so much you can take until they become way too apparent and continuous, and rules get introduced only to get broken every single time without any consequences at all, or fail to give me characters to care about. For me, that's when a movie becomes bad. It starts from subjective things like the quality of the action and the acting, and then it gets to the writing. I could list down all the contradictory things and facts that occurs in this trilogy once again, but I won't bother since you'll just deny them, despite the fact you even acknowledge that Batman did break a rule. Regardless, I'm pretty sure you've come across a number of films that you really didn't like, even if some of them are rather popular ones, so you should at least empathize where I'm coming from. Everyone has their likes and dislikes after all. But I guess if people desperately want to like something, they become willing to deny and turn a blind eye to every flaw, right?

I am a Batman fan, but I'm not going to let blind loyalty to the character get in the way of what I really think about a film. And that doesn't make me less of a fan; quite the opposite in fact. I'm not a ten year old kid who is only excited to see the guy in the suit: I expect a well told story with characters to care about.

Bottom line: if you disagree, fine. I'm not going to tell you what to enjoy, nor do I have the right to do such a thing. But I'm not going to tolerate being accused as wanting to hate something on purpose despite pointing out the legitimate problems in these movies. That crap is not on. If my posts bother you so much, feel free to ignore me from now on. And if you want, I'll happily return the favour.

[Dagenspear]

I really don't think you're in any position to make a dig at me like that. After all, I'm not the one who tries to have his cake and eat it too like you do, like acknowledging that Batman did break his no-kill rule throughout the series, but still insist he didn't really kill anyone and make an outrageous comment like "indirectly breaking your rule doesn't undermine it or the importance of it". I just can't take an opinion like that seriously.

It's true. Breaking a rule doesn't take that rule away. Many people break rules, but the rules are still there. This rule isn't here because it's about guilt or being arrested. It's because it's right. I never said that he didn't actually kill anyone that I remember. I said that he didn't kill Ra's. I said that he killed Harvey. But I said that wasn't his fault because it wasn't his intention.

Come to think of it, I thought I already explained myself to you in the "Is it weird..." thread back in the BF sub-forum?

I replied to that.

I don't give a damn how popular these movies are or how much money they earned at the box office, these films are not above criticism. Not only do I think that they're not anywhere near as good as people make them out to be, I just happen to think they're not even good at a competent level. I'm not going to mince my words because it's "not cool" to dislike these films. Especially since I come across people like yourself who haven't made convincing or adequate arguments why the criticisms against the films are wrong. Nonetheless, if you want to ignore these flaws or don't even care about them, fine. That's your prerogative. And it's also my prerogative to use them as examples to explain why I don't like them.

You haven't made a convincing argument about why this movie is wrong. You've ignored facts from the movies in these discussions.

Yes, you're right that every movie has flaws. But there is so much you can take until they become way too apparent and continuous, and rules get introduced only to get broken every single time without any consequences at all, or fail to give me characters to care about. For me, that's when a movie becomes bad. It starts from subjective things like the quality of the action and the acting, and then it gets to the writing. I could list down all the contradictory things and facts that occurs in this trilogy once again, but I won't bother since you'll just deny them, despite the fact you even acknowledge that Batman did break a rule. Regardless, I'm pretty sure you've come across a number of films that you really didn't like, even if some of them are rather popular ones, so you should at least empathize where I'm coming from. Everyone has their likes and dislikes after all. But I guess if people desperately want to like something, they become willing to deny and turn a blind eye to every flaw, right?

Consequences aren't what rules are about. What you care about is your responsibility. Him breaking his rule incidentally isn't a contradiction. I'm fairly sure that happening was the point.

Bottom line: if you disagree, fine. I'm not going to tell you what to enjoy, nor do I have the right to do such a thing. But I'm not going to tolerate being accused as wanting to hate something on purpose despite pointing out the legitimate problems in these movies. That crap is not on. If my posts bother you so much, feel free to ignore me from now on. And if you want, I'll happily return the favour.

The problems that you cite aren't the problems the movie has. And it does have problems. But I'm very sorry you feel that way about me.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Dagenspear]

Thank you.

No worries - keep it up.

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.

I've long had issues with TDK Rises. So I've seen this as a chance to wrap my head around the plot decisions.

I'm very sorry if I made it seem I was talking about you. I was talking about many people who trash these movies because they don't live up to their idea of the character. I come at batman in the Burton films, but I don't attack the movies. But I've taken to accepting that all the Burton/Schumacher films are a tremendous arc for Bruce Wayne from a vigilante to a legitimate hero. That's not to say that the Burton films don't have big flaws, but I don't trash those films by cracking about how the penguin magically gets the schematics to the batmobile. I just pretend that penguin's group has engineers that reverse engineered the schematics by examining images of the batmobile. Thank you again!

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[The Laughing Fish]

It's true. Breaking a rule doesn't take that rule away. Many people break rules, but the rules are still there. This rule isn't here because it's about guilt or being arrested. It's because it's right. I never said that he didn't actually kill anyone that I remember. I said that he didn't kill Ra's. I said that he killed Harvey. But I said that wasn't his fault because it wasn't his intention.

Consequences aren't what rules are about. What you care about is your responsibility. Him breaking his rule incidentally isn't a contradiction. I'm fairly sure that happening was the point.

Good God. What kind of logic is that?! What's the point of having rules if there are no consequences for breaking them?!

You have to be trolling me, because I refuse to believe anybody could be this dense.

If cops and soldiers break the law themselves, or do something very unethical and betray what they stood for, they get disgraced and kicked out of the force/military. Yes, the rules are still there for everybody else to follow, but those who don't will face the consequences. Even when cops and soldiers who are well within their right to kill a criminal when lives are at stake when they believe it's necessary, still need to answer to their superior officers to find out whether their actions were the right choice. And when an inquiry results that their decision to act was unnecessary for whatever reason, they end up losing their jobs, even if they thought they were doing the right thing.

If people break the law, they face the consequences depending on the severity of the crime, either by paying a fine, being sent to community service or by going to jail.

If a person breaks a promise or a rule they imposed onto somebody, they risk facing the consequences of losing that other person's trust. Many family disputes and relationship breakups, or even a breakdown in business relationships happen when people go against their word.

God, in the real world people who don't even mean to break their rules still end up facing the negative ramifications of their actions.

What makes Batman's case unique is he had a self-imposed rule, which is not to kill. It's never explored what certain degrees or exceptions are there when breaking the rule is okay. All he says is killing is wrong. You can debate about "intent" all you want, but the fact is he broke his rule. How can you say consequences aren't what rules are about? That's ignorant to me. If Batman doesn't regret breaking his own rules and nothing happens as a result, then why should I care about him or take him seriously? Nothing's at stake then. Why does he even have a code and justified it against the deadly Joker if it's only putting people in harm's way... when this is the same guy who justified killing Ra's al Ghul when millions of people's are at stake? Likewise, if he didn't mean to get people killed, I'd thought he'd be devastated, instead of trying to justify himself.

If Batman showed any regret for killing Ra's al Ghul, then I could've accepted why he resisted killing the Joker. If Batman's reason for retiring because he felt guilty for killing Two-Face, then that too would've worked . And if we get to the whole symbolism nonsense, Batman and Gordon would've realized that lying about Harvey Dent was a terrible mistake would've been worthwhile. But none of these things happened on screen because the films didn't explore them. And it makes the character's actions less sense. Because if killing Ra's was right, then he should've applied the same action against Joker as well. The movies made a big deal about his code and it ended up being a complete waste of time. Whereas, the Batman Beyond version stayed true to his no-gun policy by retiring after he was forced to use a gun at one stage. That's how committed he was to keep that rule. He could've justified that he aimed a gun to protect himself, but he didn't care about that, even though he had every right to use that as an excuse. In his mind, he thought that he can't be Batman any more if it reaches the moment where he has to arm himself with a weapon that a coward used to murder his parents. The rule was that important to him, and he lived up to it. THAT is how you develop a character arc.

And besides, you admitted in other threads that Batman did break his rule against Ra's before, but still deny he killed him.

You haven't made a convincing argument about why this movie is wrong. You've ignored facts from the movies in these discussions.

So I guess anyone else here who share similar opinions about these movies as I do (even if they're probably not nearly as unforgiving as I am) haven't made any convincing arguments about what's wrong with them either? At least people like me can back up our opinions with logic. I'm sorry, but when I read your faulty justification why Batman didn't break his rules, it puts me off from spending time or having the inclination to read your so-called 'facts'.

The problems that you cite aren't the problems the movie has. And it does have problems. But I'm very sorry you feel that way about me.

Hey, all I did in this thread was expressing my opinions and used examples and facts to back up my arguments. I was being rational. I didn't attack you or anyone else. Everything in this thread was going okay until you made the baseless accusation that I want to dislike the films. If there is any tension growing, it's because of what you said.

But hey, if being in denial and making illogical excuses helps people to enjoy the films, then it's not my problem.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

I'm doing just fine thanks. I hope God blesses you and those around you though.

I've had my say in this thread. I'm out of here.

[Dagenspear]

Good God. What kind of logic is that?! What's the point of having rules if there are no consequences for breaking them?!

You have to be trolling me, because I refuse to believe anybody could be this dense.

The point of rules is so we know what to do. Not that there are consequences. If there aren't consequences to rules and laws, would that make it okay to break them? No. You follow rules because you know that they're the right thing to do. Not because you might be hurt because you break them.

If cops and soldiers break the law themselves, or do something very unethical and betray what they stood for, they get disgraced and kicked out of the force/military. Yes, the rules are still there for everybody else to follow, but those who don't will face the consequences. Even when cops and soldiers who are well within their right to kill a criminal when lives are at stake when they believe it's necessary, still need to answer to their superior officers to find out whether their actions were the right choice. And when an inquiry results that their decision to act was unnecessary for whatever reason, they end up losing their jobs, even if they thought they were doing the right thing.

If people break the law, they face the consequences depending on the severity of the crime, either by paying a fine, being sent to community service or by going to jail.

If a person breaks a promise or a rule they imposed onto somebody, they risk facing the consequences of losing that other person's trust. Many family disputes and relationship breakups, or even a breakdown in business relationships happen when people go against their word.

God, in the real world people who don't even mean to break their rules still end up facing the negative ramifications of their actions.

But those consequences aren't the reason you should follow the rules or the laws. You should follow them because it's the right thing to do.

What makes Batman's case unique is he had a self-imposed rule, which is not to kill. It's never explored what certain degrees or exceptions are there when breaking the rule is okay. All he says is killing is wrong. You can debate about "intent" all you want, but the fact is he broke his rule. How can you say consequences aren't what rules are about? That's ignorant to me. If Batman doesn't regret breaking his own rules and nothing happens as a result, then why should I care about him or take him seriously? Nothing's at stake then. Why does he even have a code and justified it against the deadly Joker if it's only putting people in harm's way... when this is the same guy who justified killing Ra's al Ghul when millions of people's are at stake? Likewise, if he didn't mean to get people killed, I'd thought he'd be devastated, instead of trying to justify himself.

He didn't kill Ra's. He killed Harvey, but that was incidental. And there were consequences to that. You should care about him because he does the right thing as much as he can. Why else would you care about him?

If Batman showed any regret for killing Ra's al Ghul, then I could've accepted why he resisted killing the Joker. If Batman's reason for retiring because he felt guilty for killing Two-Face, then that too would've worked. And if we get to the whole symbolism nonsense, Batman and Gordon would've realized that lying about Harvey Dent was a terrible mistake would've been worthwhile. But none of these things happened on screen because the films didn't explore them. And it makes the character's actions less sense. Because if killing Ra's was right, then he should've applied the same action against Joker as well. The movies made a big deal about his code and it ended up being a complete waste of time. Whereas, the Batman Beyond version stayed true to his no-gun policy by retiring after he was forced to use a gun at one stage. That's how committed he was to keep that rule. He could've justified that he aimed a gun to protect himself, but he didn't care about that, even though he had every right to use that as an excuse. In his mind, he thought that he can't be Batman any more if it reaches the moment where he has to arm himself with a weapon that a coward used to murder his parents. The rule was that important to him, and he lived up to it. THAT is how you develop a character arc.

And besides, you admitted in other threads that Batman did break his rule against Ra's before, but still deny he killed him.

I didn't say that. I said he kind of did. He didn't kill Ra's and that's a fact. He kind of did in the sense that he had a hand in his death, but he didn't kill him.

So I guess anyone else here who share similar opinions about these movies as I do (even if they're probably not nearly as unforgiving as I am) haven't made any convincing arguments about what's wrong with them either? At least people like me can back up our opinions with logic. I'm sorry, but when I read your faulty justification why Batman didn't break his rules, it puts me off from spending time or having the inclination to read your so-called 'facts'.

He did break his rule with Harvey. I said that several times. He even did with that the driver. But he didn't with Ra's.

Hey, all I did in this thread was expressing my opinions and used examples and facts to back up my arguments. I was being rational. I didn't attack you or anyone else. Everything in this thread was going okay until you made the baseless accusation that I want to dislike the films. If there is any tension growing, it's because of what you said.

But hey, if being in denial and making illogical excuses helps people to enjoy the films, then it's not my problem.

I said that because you ignore what happens in the films. That isn't rational.

I'm doing just fine thanks. I hope God blesses you and those around you though.

I've had my say in this thread. I'm out of here.

Please, I beg you not to use God's name with sarcasm. That's not for me. That's for you. I don't want you to hurt yourself spiritually. God loves you no matter what though.

I mean this with complete and utter sincerity:

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Edd Grayson]

 I don't think you are wrong on the meaning of rules, Dagenspear, but there is something else to consider. Yes, people should follow rules because it's the right thing to do, but if there are no consequences to breaking them whatsoever, the rules won't have any power, and many people might break them freely.

I think it would have been better if these movies didn't stress the "one rule" so much, we all know Batman is a good guy, but in some situations a hero has to choose between killing a villain and letting innocents be killed. He couldn't let Two-Face shoot the boy, so he had to do something, even if it meant possibly killing him.

[riddler]

Guys one request; can we please knock off all the use of the word 'God", religion isn't even tolerated in the off-topic forums let alone the Batman ones? Thanks


A rule is not a rule if it has no consequences for breaking it. At best it is a guideline.  And the fact that Bale breaks his own rule whenever he feels like it, makes it a guideline at best.

Nolan fans have used this 'no killing rule' as one of the many reasons why their films are godlike and Burtons films were amateurs. They've used Keaton killing the Joker and smiling after strapping dynamite to the goon as fodder for their arguments many times. But explain what is any different than the Jokers death in 89 vs Two faces in TDK? They only difference is Bale stated many times he doesn't kill while Keaton made no such promise. I think we all remember before TDK when Nolanites claimed villains shouldn't be killed period and Burton had no business killing the Joker before backtracking once Nolan killed two face (and later Bane, Talia and even batman)

By the way, Bale announcing to bad guys including the Joker that he has a no-killing rule is another example of the stupidity of the character; Batman is there to create a symbol to intimidate bad guys, announcing he wont kill severely reduces his intimidation presence especially the guns on his bat vehicles.

[Dagenspear]

Guys one request; can we please knock off all the use of the word 'God", religion isn't even tolerated in the off-topic forums let alone the Batman ones? Thanks


A rule is not a rule if it has no consequences for breaking it. At best it is a guideline.  And the fact that Bale breaks his own rule whenever he feels like it, makes it a guideline at best.

Nolan fans have used this 'no killing rule' as one of the many reasons why their films are godlike and Burtons films were amateurs. They've used Keaton killing the Joker and smiling after strapping dynamite to the goon as fodder for their arguments many times. But explain what is any different than the Jokers death in 89 vs Two faces in TDK? They only difference is Bale stated many times he doesn't kill while Keaton made no such promise. I think we all remember before TDK when Nolanites claimed villains shouldn't be killed period and Burton had no business killing the Joker before backtracking once Nolan killed two face (and later Bane, Talia and even batman)

By the way, Bale announcing to bad guys including the Joker that he has a no-killing rule is another example of the stupidity of the character; Batman is there to create a symbol to intimidate bad guys, announcing he wont kill severely reduces his intimidation presence especially the guns on his bat vehicles.

Bruce didn't kill joker in batman 89. Bruce didn't kill bane in tdkr. And he didn't kill talia in tdkr.

He doesn't tell people what his rule is. He didn't announce that to anyone outside catwoman in tdkr and ra's in ra's.

Rules are there to tell us what we should do. Whether there's punishment or not doesn't matter. You should still follow them because it's right.

rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms:   regulation, ruling, directive, order, act, law, statute, edict, canon, mandate, command, dictate, decree, fiat, injunction, commandment, stipulation, requirement, guideline, direction; formalordinance
"health and safety rules"
2.
a strip of wood or other rigid material used for measuring length or marking straight lines; a ruler.
verb
1.
exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people).
"Latin America today is ruled by elected politicians"
synonyms:   govern, preside over, control, lead, dominate, run, head, administer, manage More
2.
make parallel lines across (paper).
"a sheet of ruled paper"

Bruce broke the rule once, maybe twice if you stretch it. But there was consequences for the first one. The second, for all intents and purposes, he doesn't know about.

What nolanites say doesn't effect the movie.

I'm sure if there was an issue it would have been brought up.

[Dagenspear]

I don't think you are wrong on the meaning of rules, Dagenspear, but there is something else to consider. Yes, people should follow rules because it's the right thing to do, but if there are no consequences to breaking them whatsoever, the rules won't have any power, and many people might break them freely.

I think it would have been better if these movies didn't stress the "one rule" so much, we all know Batman is a good guy, but in some situations a hero has to choose between killing a villain and letting innocents be killed. He couldn't let Two-Face shoot the boy, so he had to do something, even if it meant possibly killing him.

But that's not an issue for everyone. But thank you.