This really upsets me

[thecolorsblend]

Like Nora Fries was required to die and Alfred to live.

If you're referring to B&R, nonsense! She survived the movie.

[Edd Grayson]

Like Nora Fries was required to die and Alfred to live.

If you're referring to B&R, nonsense! She survived the movie.

I was referring to the fact that Victor could not find a cure for her stage of the disease yet, while he could give Batman one for Alfred. I should have said that. The way I put it, it was incorrect.

[johnnygobbs]

I am happy to read intelligent arguments as to why he could save Dawes but not the Princess.

It could be that one narrative required that Batman be able to save Rachel while the other narrative required that Batman be unable to save the Ice Princess.

Yeah, I'm not that keen on that type of argument because it basically excuses characters acting out of character given the needs of the film's plot, and that's generally a sign of poor writing.  I do appreciate however that we're talking about two different franchises.  I would be even more peeved off if Batman was somehow able to save Rachel in the Burton/Schumacher franchise yet still let the Princess die.    In fact, I can't understand how he was able to save both Chase and Robin from descending to their fate in Batman Forever. 

[The Laughing Fish]

I am happy to read intelligent arguments as to why he could save Dawes but not the Princess.

It could be that one narrative required that Batman be able to save Rachel while the other narrative required that Batman be unable to save the Ice Princess.

Yeah, I'm not that keen on that type of argument because it basically excuses characters acting out of character given the needs of the film's plot, and that's generally a sign of poor writing. 

Yeah, I remember agreeing with you about this a couple of times in the past, but in BR's case, I reckon it is a case of poor staging rather than poor writing. If the Ice Princess immediately fell to her death as soon as the bats flew out of the box and frightened her, then that would've made more sense why Batman was shocked and couldn't react. But her demise in the film was long enough to give him more time to try to save her.

But as for your comment about the contrast between those who like Burton and dislike Nolan? In Nolan's case, I was put off by how his Batman did things that were far more negligent than what any other film interpretation did to date. I've complained about this ad nauseum, and I'm not going to go through them again.

[Dagenspear]

I was referring to the fact that Victor could not find a cure for her stage of the disease yet, while he could give Batman one for Alfred. I should have said that. The way I put it, it was incorrect.

Alfred was at a different stage in the disease than Nora.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[Edd Grayson]

I was referring to the fact that Victor could not find a cure for her stage of the disease yet, while he could give Batman one for Alfred. I should have said that. The way I put it, it was incorrect.

Alfred was at a different stage in the disease than Nora.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I know that, but it was convenient that Freeze had a cure for Alfred right at the end of the film, wasn't it?

Anyway, I feel I went off-topic with this too much.

[JokerMeThis]

I'm not really sure how Batman could've saved the Ice Princess. Maybe I'm missing something but it all seemed to happen too fast once Batman made it to the roof. Penguin planned it all too well.

And in TDK Batman was stupid to tell Joker to "Let her go!"  Joker couldn't help but point out the irony and let her go literally. Maybe if Bale's Batman hadn't been so stupid as to use those words Joker might not have let her go, at least not so soon. If anything I think Bale's Batman behaved more stupidly than Keaton's Batman did on the roof with the Ice Princess. 

[Edd Grayson]

No one ever said Bale's Batman was a genius. But he has his fans.

I only liked him in BB, and that's it.

[Wayne49]

I don't think you can really compare the two because Batman films in their infancy did not enjoy the special effects and story pacing that movies by this time have acquired. Different times and a different audience. In 1992 it would have been inconceivable for him to leap off the roof and make a believable catch and save with the effects as they were at that point in time. Burton very much had Batman grounded with a kind of pulley system that allowed him to get away when he needed to, but was not quite as effective in saving others at that point unless he was falling with them as he did with Vale in the first film.

Plus you have to remember hero films were still not the rabid success they are in today's industry. It would have been difficult to justify the expense in staging a rescue scene like that since the story responsibilities carried greater weight for him to take the blame for her fall. Plus these were no other films creating rescue spectacles like they do today. It was just different times and I think you have to wear different hats when you watch these movies.

[Edd Grayson]

Personally, many "old" superhero films and action films in general I find to be more fun and heartfelt that some newer ones. Special Effects aren't everything.