Article: "DC Failures Brighten 'The Dark Knight' Trilogy Brilliance"

[The Laughing Fish]

Once again, DC has a big box office hit, no critical respect and some very angry fans with Suicide Squad, just like with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. And once again, DC looks further and further away from its old glory days when Christopher Nolan made their movies, specifically The Dark Knight.

But with every divisive or complete failure of a DC film, it becomes more and more improbable that DC never had a Dark Knight type film to begin with.

Eight years of failed attempts to match The Dark Knight have now dragged on and on. In lieu of actually traveling back in time to 2008, when DC was in charge of comic book cinema and the Marvel Cinematic Universe was barely born, DC has tried everything else to recapture what made that movie the biggest hit of its time. But the more it fails, the more obvious it becomes that it was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of success in every way.

The most glaring failure from all Dark Knight imitators, in DC or otherwise, is how copycats tried to make their blockbusters as dark and gritty as Nolan's. Specifically, DC's problem is that it chose the absolute wrong person to do so in Zack Snyder, and to lay the foundations of the DCEU in general.

Snyder's failures in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman have been rehashed over and over again, especially from how he drenched DC in darkness and tarnished Superman with it. What he didn't understand and is hopefully being forced to in Justice League, is that when Nolan drowned his comic book movies in darkness, it wasn't pitch black, over the top or pulverized with overblown CGI.

The Dark Knight is a movie that actually has humorous one-liners, not just one every 10-15 minutes. In addition to the Joker's obvious black-comedy routine, there's Alfred and Lucius Fox to banter with Bruce Wayne as well. And when the movie gets really dark, Nolan doesn't rub our noses in it the way Snyder does.

Snyder never would have had the kind of restraint Nolan had in filming the Joker's "pencil trick", and probably would have been more graphic to remind us that when the Joker burned down a pile of money, he was burning mob accountant Lao along with it. In addition, while the Joker's grand master plan to destroy Harvey Dent and Gotham's morality is nearly as convoluted as Lex Luthor's grand master plan to destroy Superman/God, it is actually based much more on logic and the Joker's sick, brilliant mind games rather than Lex's twitchy and nonsensical methods and motives.

Taking us into the heart of evil with devastating plans, the twisting of good souls, an entire city being brought towards Armageddon without giant monsters or nuclear bombs, and a man that makes the might of heroes and cities utterly useless is much more powerful darkness and drama than the kitchen sink of CGI, explosions, murder and third-grade philosophy Snyder throws into his DC films. It probably would have turned out the same way even if a Jesse Eisenberg was Nolan's Joker or if a Heath Ledger was Snyder's Lex as well.

The balance is also reflected in having actual heroism, and not just from costumed heroes. In The Dark Knight, Nolan and the Joker drive everyone to the brink to such an extent, it would have been plausible if the boats filled with Gotham citizens and criminals blew each other up like the Joker wanted in the third act. By that point, anything was possible, yet the citizens and criminals each spared the other without Batman's help at all. It reinforced that goodness was still possible, even after Nolan still gave the Joker the final victory of Harvey Dent/Two-Face's downfall.

In contrast, Batman v Superman built up the darkness to such an extent, the government actually wanted to nuke Superman to stop Doomsday without one second thought. Then when Superman did die, Bruce still talked about having hope even after the first 99 percent of the movie laughed off that notion altogether, in the absolute height of hypocrisy.

The Dark Knight was a movie all about fighting to have hope, even as Bruce's hope for Harvey to take up Batman's mantle in the light ultimately failed. Nonetheless, at least he and the movie tried to fight the Joker's nihilism with hope and heroism, wherever no such fight ever took place in Batman v Superman and was really barely fought in Man of Steel as well.

It took two successful smaller films like Memento and Insomnia, and one debut blockbuster in Batman Begins for Nolan to work the kinks out towards a Dark Knight level triumph. In contrast, Snyder had no discipline as he got bigger and bigger in 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch before bottoming out in the DC world. Nolan only gradually became a big special effects driven director and found the perfect balance between that and his indie cred in The Dark Knight, whereas Snyder just kept getting more bombastic and didn't have the actual ideas to back it up.

But while this explains why The Dark Knight and Nolan are far superior to Snyder and his DC films, there's still the matter of why the rest of DC hasn't lived up to them either.

Suicide Squad is a movie directed by David Ayer, who started out in smaller, character driven action movies just like Nolan did. Like Nolan, Ayer starts his DC movie with a lot of exposition before getting to actual action. Yet while The Dark Knight and most of Nolan's movies start with a lot of info-dumps and subplots, they usually take their time to establish their worlds, build their characters and tension and have everything make sense before the chaos begins.

In contrast, Suicide Squad's exposition and introductions are both dragged on and rushed at the same time, with all their time wasted chugging through plot points at the expense of character. There is no logic to any of it, whether through Ayer's own deficiencies or the film's now infamously chaotic editing process.

And in the case of Jared Leto's Joker, if Ayer's original plan was to build him up like the Jaws shark before he struck, almost like Nolan did with Ledger's Joker, it didn't work. Like Nolan, Ayer had an award-winning actor who had just played a groundbreaking gay character and could sink into any role. Unlike Nolan, Ayer didn't know how to use him, and left him unrestrained to use disturbing Method tactics that were really an utter waste of time.

Suicide Squad is the second straight time DC chose the wrong director to follow in Nolan's footsteps. Yet that doesn't mean they should have just stuck with Nolan all along either.

Even Nolan couldn't live up to The Dark Knight in The Dark Knight Rises, and he bears some responsibility for producing Man of Steel and Batman v Superman and letting Snyder copy him in the first place. While Nolan has achieved more than DC in the last eight years, he still hasn't come close to The Dark Knight again either, although he's more likely to get back there first.

If the answer is for DC is to find someone with a lighter touch, even that has had its drawbacks. DC did try to be light with Green Lantern in 2010 and failed miserably, and the attempt to make Suicide Squad lighter in the final cut ended up as a bad mix too. Justice League and Wonder Woman each had funny Comic-Con trailers, yet Suicide Squad proved such trailers could be very misleading.

It seems whether they are dark or light, or have divisive or trustworthy directors, DC movies after Nolan and after The Dark Knight can't possibly win. Perhaps the bitter truth is that they never will, at least not on a Dark Knight level.

The Dark Knight was the absolute perfect storm, as it was made at a time where Nolan had reached his peak, at a time where the Bush era was almost over and the MCU era hadn't quite started yet, at a time where Ledger tapped into something unprecedented in comic book films before it was too late, and at a time where audiences were ready to embrace this exact kind of superhero story.

Now those audiences are more likely to reject such darkness, or call for Rotten Tomatoes' destruction in response to loud backlash against it. Now the search for people like the 2007-era Nolan and Ledger has been fruitless for a decade, the darkness of real life is crushing enough without wanting to paralyze our superheroes in it, and Marvel has made DC management more incompetent at every turn.

Perhaps we will never see a movie like The Dark Knight again, at least in DC's current era. The more DC tries and fails to prove that wrong, the more unlikely and improbable it was that they ever pulled off such a miracle in the first place.

Source: http://www.themovienetwork.com/article/dc-failures-brighten-dark-knight-trilogy-brilliance



Forgive me, but I need to rant. What a load of crap, but typical from hordes of hypocrites who defend TDK.

There's a lot of drivel from this article that makes me laugh. "Then when Superman did die, Bruce still talked about having hope even after the first 99 percent of the movie laughed off that notion altogether, in the absolute height of hypocrisy." This is absolutely rich, considering that this author conveniently forgot that Batman framing himself for Dent's crimes so the poor masses don't lose hope over the truth, totally contradicted his belief that "people are ready to believe in good" at the end of the boat scene.

Besides, what he said about BvS in that regard isn't even true. If he had paid any attention, he'd realise that despite all the prejudice and misguided hatred people had for Superman, he still sacrificed himself to save the planet; further inspiring Batman to regain hope and carry on his legacy. But somehow, this "brilliant" author missed that.

"Third-grade philosophy Snyder throws into his DC films"...right, as if Nolan is any better here.

I also think it's very rich to complain Eisenberg's Lex and his plans was nonsensical, while trying to justify TDK's Joker as "brilliant or logical". You mean like that whole Gordon faked death subplot that nobody could've anticipated? Or Joker says he hates plans despite the fact every he does is based on some planning and calculation? Or Dent would actually buy into Joker's idiotic monologue and suddenly become a cold-blooded killer...while at the same time, sparing Joker even though he ruined his life?! Yet people think they can complain about the Martha moment? Give me a break.

Hell, I don't even agree that Nolan knew exactly what he was doing with the Joker, since the Joker doesn't even get a proper conclusion, and there's no way he'd sit by and let the Dent cover-up take place. I didn't care for Suicide Squad that much and one of the reasons is because it had too many characters than it needed to have. But most of the characters in Nolan's films come across as plot devices, and poorly constructed ones at that.

Yeah, I know I'm repeating myself here, but I got to say it again: the most disturbing thing, and this writer isn't the only has said this, is TDK is described as "hopeful" and "uplifting". How?! It's a film that contradicts itself in every step of the way. There's nothing at all hopeful that Batman does, after all the fuss over his "one rule", he kills Two-Face to save a kid, which not only makes the whole moral dilemma with the Joker meaningless, but he could've spared Gotham so much trouble. The boat scene is nothing more but lip service, which Batman himself doesn't even believe in because he makes a cowardly decision that gives the entire town a false sense of security, which only allows Bane to take advantage of years later and uses it to subject the entire town into more misery. That's hopeful?! If TDK wanted out that message, it would've had Batman defeat Joker by revealing the truth about Harvey and people moving on, reinforcing that they ARE ready to believe in good. Otherwise, no they're not, and the message is hollow, and Batman taking the fall undermines every heroic thing he has ever done.

I'll just sum up this post, BvS is hardly perfect, and despite watching the UE, I still have my own personal gripes with it. I think it's too long, and I'll honestly say it can be a drag at times. But at least I can appreciate that movie for having heroes come to terms with their failures and redeem themselves in the end, and show bravery despite being treated with scorn and distrust. That's a lot more of positive and hopeful than anything I got from TDKT. You tell me which is more heroic: Superman charging at Doomsday with the Kryptonite spear despite knowing he could get killed and declaring his determination to protect a divisive world that mostly doubted or despised him...or Batman faking his death for no real reason, and decides to leave Gotham because it's a place that gives him misery; while at the same time, he gives the keys to the Batcave to someone else?

There's a whole lot of rubbish in this article, but I've said enough. TDK's greatest legacy is you can never under-estimate how a cult-minded following can brainwash anyone. The fact it's considered to be some kind of masterpiece is a travesty.

[The Dark Knight]

B89 and BR are still the best in the franchise. So the author of this opinion piece can go suck a big hot dog. Oh, and Ben Affleck wipes the floor with Christian Bale.

[thecolorsblend]

I don't mind someone playing favorites. If the Nolan trilogy is sentimental for a lot of people, good for them.

But this idiotic idea that billion dollar grosses are the first, last and only benchmark for financial success is simply untrue. MOS, BVS and SS are all objectively profitable by every metric to which we have access. Indeed, only a fool can argue otherwise.

It looks to me like WB realized they needed to make a course correction so they made a course correction. But the adjustment they needed to make (according to some) is tone, not narrative. Style, not substance. They needed to tweak the presentation; the product itself is fine.

Mind you, I don't expect much from someone who regards these challenges as failures on DC's part rather than on WB's part. The rivalry isn't Marvel Comics vs DC, people. It's Marvel Studios vs WB.

I affirmed the primacy of individual preference above. That gives me the right to argue that I don't have major problems with the DCEU so far. I'm concerned about Superman (somewhat) but mostly I enjoy what we've been given. Especially the Batman stuff, which is some of the finest we've ever gotten in my opinion.

Maybe the DCEU can hit those billion dollar figures and maybe it can't. But dollar for dollar and pound for pound, it's more profitable and more entertaining than anything Marvel Studios produced during its first three films and the future looks even stronger.

People seriously need to chill out on this stuff.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't mind someone playing favorites. If the Nolan trilogy is sentimental for a lot of people, good for them.

Normally, I'd accept the notion "to each their own"...but I can't do it for that trilogy, particularly the second film. I struggle to comprehend how people completely overlook the positives in BvS and complain how dark it is, while insisting a far more miserable film like TDK is a "triumph". That's like saying Superman Returns got the "spirit" of Superman closer than what we saw in anything starring Henry Cavill. It's baffling.

As for people comparing box office figures as a benchmark to success, I too think it's rubbish. The first two Captain America films earned far less money than Civil War, but that doesn't make them financial failures. In fact, I still insist The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier are both superior and were Cap-focused as opposed to Avengers 2.5.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm concerned about Superman (somewhat) but mostly I enjoy what we've been given.

I'm quite confident about this actually. People are assuming because Superman is thought dead he won't show up until the last 30 minutes. I think a Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? dream sequence could happen for the first half, playing against the segments of Batman forming the League.

The second act could be Lois successfully finding a way to revive Superman, which I imagine will involve the codex. He wakes up in a weakened state and gets the black suit on. At this point, Steppenwolf has overrun the League in combat and things look dire. But Superman comes back and saves the day.

The last act could be Superman fully recovered, back in his red and blue suit, addressing the world. Becoming the public face of the group.

[thecolorsblend]

I don't mind someone playing favorites. If the Nolan trilogy is sentimental for a lot of people, good for them.

Normally, I'd accept the notion "to each their own"...but I can't do it for that trilogy, particularly the second film. I struggle to comprehend how people completely overlook the positives in BvS and complain how dark it is, while insisting a far more miserable film like TDK is a "triumph". That's like saying Superman Returns got the "spirit" of Superman closer than what we saw in anything starring Henry Cavill. It's baffling.

The people who love Nolan but despise BvS do make for an interesting phenomenon, I'll grant you that.

Maybe I'm just getting old or something but I find I'm not as invested in the either/or types of positions anymore. There's a lot to enjoy about the Nolan trilogy. It will never be my definitive Batman but it has a lot of solid points going for it. End of the day, Batman is bigger than any filmmaker or artist or whatever so there's room for everybody... which the more, ahem, committed Nolan lovers would do well to remember.

[The Dark Knight]

BvS was so good that I'm in a zen state of mind. It's like fighting a war. During the war it's stressful and draining on your body and soul. But then you win. You're at peace. You have claimed victory. That's how I feel with Batfleck. The barbs from the Nolanites will always be there, but it's basically water off a duck's back. I can send cruise missiles back in reply, but even if I don't, that's okay. IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE. I finally have what I want - and in some cases, it's actually BETTER than what I wanted.

I don't need Tomato meters or polls to tell me what I really like.

[The Laughing Fish]

The people who love Nolan but despise BvS do make for an interesting phenomenon, I'll grant you that.

Maybe I'm just getting old or something but I find I'm not as invested in the either/or types of positions anymore. There's a lot to enjoy about the Nolan trilogy. It will never be my definitive Batman but it has a lot of solid points going for it. End of the day, Batman is bigger than any filmmaker or artist or whatever so there's room for everybody... which the more, ahem, committed Nolan lovers would do well to remember.

Believe me, I definitely would never discourage anyone for taking a diplomatic and positive approach to this sort of thing. It's just opinions simply differ on this regard. As they say in Italian, "A ciascuno il suo".

BvS was so good that I'm in a zen state of mind. It's like fighting a war. During the war it's stressful and draining on your body and soul. But then you win. You're at peace. You have claimed victory. That's how I feel with Batfleck. The barbs from the Nolanites will always be there, but it's basically water off a duck's back. I can send cruise missiles back in reply, but even if I don't, that's okay. IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE. I finally have what I want - and in some cases, it's actually BETTER than what I wanted.

I don't need Tomato meters or polls to tell me what I really like.

For all the complaints about how dark BvS is, I think it's a fascinating film which explores Superman's plight and loyalty to a troubled world despite adversary and skepticism, and his influence, "humanity" and bravery enables Batman to shake out of his blind rage and cynical worldview, and redeem himself as the hero he was meant to be. Has TDKT, despite all the overblown praise, given us a character arc as compelling by comparison? My answer is a resounding no.

[The Laughing Fish]

I found another blog entry from a BvS who argues the DCEU films tend to explore the 'realistic' ramifications than supposedly Nolan's series or the MCU.

I won't post the entire blog, but here is some of his analysis.

Entertainment doesn't have to be silly; it can be thought-provoking and reflective of our current society. It doesn't have to be silly entertainment, even though we might fall into the trap of wanting entertainment to escapist. Indeed, there's a reason the US government paid Warner Bros. and Disney oodles of money during World War 2 to produce propaganda cartoons, or produced Why We Fight. That's because films are powerful: they're audio visual tools that broadcast their message to a viewer receptive to the message. We know films affect us on a psychological level. That's why to talk about human society, you have to talk about the ways that society entertains itself. Entertainment is intrinsic to society and its importance cannot be overstated. In that sense, it's only natural; not poor taste.

That's where Batman v Superman and Man of Steel come in. Man of Steel showed how distrusting we are of outsiders, and that more than ever should be readily apparent, given the current president-elect of the US, Donald Trump, built a campaign on anti-immigrant rhetoric. Batman v Superman carried that theme over, and interlaced it with how the powerful throw their clout around in their best interest, even if that means fooling the public with hate speech and a corrupt news media that will dogpile and perpetuate whichever narrative gives it the most views—another thing that should hit close to home.

That is why these movies are brilliant (well, one of many reasons). They are not dark for darkness' sake; they're dour to convey a specific and particular tone. They are not making light of real world issues, and therein lies the problem with many a critic and viewer alike. These films are not escapist; they are instead reflective. I've seen the excuse that Christopher Nolan's masterful Dark Knight trilogy was also dark, but reviewed well with critics and audiences, and that these films are deficient because of that. If you look at Zack Snyder's two films and Nolan's two films, then deduce that they're comparable because they're earnest... well you're doing neither auteur anything resembling justice.

The Dark Knight trilogy, far more than the DCEU movies, romanticize Batman. In a quote that is often misrepresented, Zack Snyder once said in an interview:

Everyone says that [that the movies are dark] about [Christopher Nolan's] Batman Begins. "Batman's dark." I'm like, okay, "No, Batman's cool." He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn't, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that's how that would go.

It's true. Christopher Nolan's masterwork isn't dark; it's cool and it's escapism. In Nolan's Batman, you can indulge in the fantasy that is Batman without any of the repercussions. You can watch Bruce Wayne blow up a monastery full of ninjas, but because you never see their bodies burning, them screaming in agony, and them maimed and dying it's okay. Batman can ram through a trailer in a chase scene, and because Nolan never showed their bodies, it's okay. Catwoman can shoot Bane with a high powered rifle and kill him, but because the movie doesn't dwell on it and she says a one-liner, it's okay. All of these examples remove the consequences from the heroes' actions. It allows you to indulge in the fantasy and think these heroes are great, but that feeling of elation you get is disingenuous as the films just pretend that people aren't dying.

Again, I am not belittling Nolan's work here. For all people complain about how dark Nolan's movies are, his themes tend to skew more idealistic than most other filmmakers. From his central theme of love transcending time and space in Interstellar, to him showing that the good in man will prevail in the end in The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan views humanity very optimistically. Zack Snyder, on the other hand tends to end his movies in bittersweet ways—there is never a clean triumph. Victory is earned with blemishes. Zack Snyder isn't entirely idealistic, nor is he pessimistic. He's both, as most things in life tend to be. That's our world: things are rarely purely one thing or another; most times things are both to varying degrees. There is a misconception that Batman v Superman and Nolan's movies are comparable because they're DC movies about Batman, but that's where their similarity starts and ends: Snyder's films skew darker than Nolan's.

Zack Snyder has, on more than one occasion, talked about how consequences are very important to him. How he can't have characters mowing down people without showing their bodies and the grisliness of the action. How he thinks it's irresponsible and glorifying violence not to do that. In that respect, Batman v Superman is a deconstruction of the concept of consequence-free action. If you want to see the cool batmobile rampage through the streets, you will, but you will also see the consequences of it ramming through cars. You want to see Batman beating up criminals? Okay, but you'll see how their limbs snap when he hits them and how they scream in agony when he takes them down. Truly, there is nothing wrong with this, nor is there anything wrong with Nolan's approach; both are different and there's room for both. The issue is we don't need everything to be escapist. Sometimes facing the reality of the situation is necessary.

Now while I agree with the blogger that Snyder deserves some credit for not covering up Batman's brutality and shows it as a sympton of how cynical he has become, I completely disagree with him over his description of Nolan's stuff viewed as "romanticising and escapism". How many times have we read over the years from so-called critics who praised Nolan's series for its "cerebral storytelling full of complex moral dilemmas which deconstructs and humanises Batman" and make claims that it's a reflection of our post-9/11 world, while overlooking the lack of repercussions of Batman's behavior and actions and its many share of plot holes that people ignore (but certainly would've condemned if they appeared in the DCEU)? Never mind that we're constantly bombarded of being presented the mundane processes of how the Batsuit works to make it realistic. Worse, the lack of repercussions have led to so many polarising excuses to defend Batman's inconsistencies, which gives me the impression there's some serious intellectual dishonesty going on by fans.

In fact, I find the claim that Snyder's films are darker than Nolan's to be extremely superficial and does them a disservice. Again, no matter how violent and brutal Batman is for the most part in BvS, he got to redeem himself and actually learn from his mistakes (unlike Bale), while trying to atone for his guilt for his prejudice towards Superman by trying to gather the Justice League. I won't exaggerate how sophisticated it is, it doesn't need to be. It does the job. That's far more hopeful than what I got with Bale, sadly.

Interestingly, this is what the blogger has to say about the destruction in MOS:

Earlier this year, Go Compare did a tally of the top 653 most deadly films. The list chronicled the films with the most onscreen deaths and ordered them accordingly. With how strong the backlash to Man of Steel's destruction was, surely it topped the list. Well... it didn't make top ten, top fifty, or even top one hundred. Ultimately, as far as the death count went, Man of Steel ranked 243rd. So why, then, did it feel like there was so much death? Well, before answering that I wish to compare Man of Steel's climax with the 10th place holder's:



If The Avengers is number 10 on that list, well above every Michael Bay movie ever, and Man of Steel is 243rd, how can Man of Steel's destruction and death feel so much more impactful? Simple, really. The Avengers doesn't show the conflict from the perspective of the civilians. It pretends people aren't getting killed en masse. Its destruction and death is a prop. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not disparaging the film for this. It never set out to be more than a fun, escapist blockbuster, and that is entirely okay. Man of Steel, however, has the destruction shown from the people running away's perspectives. It shows their bodies getting mangled by the Black Zero's gravity. The destruction and death matter, we're faced with the reality that people are dying, and it's focused on—it is decidedly not escapist—and that's why this drummed up so many emotions.

This death and destruction led directly into Batman v Superman, where we see it play out again from a different perspective, showing just how integral to the DCEU's narrative this battle is. Now I'm not saying Man of Steel is Hacksaw Ridge, but both are cut from the same cloth. They both try to hammer home the cost of battle, but one is an R-rated movie and the other a comic book movie. People went into one expecting escapism and went into the other expecting realism. People did not expect this kind of earnestness from a Superman movie, clinging to, indeed, the member berries of the Donner films—craving that escapism where one could believe a man could fly. This is not to knock the Donner films, mind you, as they were good for their time, but we need to understand and accept that the time of those movies have passed and that we need more contemporary movies reflective of our world.

Escapism has created some of the most significant stories of our generation. Indeed, George Lucas has gone on record saying he created Star Wars initially because kids needed something to look up to and look forward to in a time where every movie was. At the time, the world needed escapism. In our current climate, where there is so many cinematic universes and blockbuster franchises, all dealing various kinds of escapism, there's nothing wrong with one franchise attempting to be reflective of our world and deconstructionist in its approach to heroics.

While it's a fascinating comparison between Avengers and MOS, I have to disagree with the claim about people didn't expect any earnestness in the latter. We knew what we were getting into, the film was always marketed as a 'realistic' and serious portrayal of Superman.

Source: https://cynicscapeblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/acts-of-terrorism-escapism/

[thecolorsblend]

"Third-grade philosophy Snyder throws into his DC films"...right, as if Nolan is any better here.

Can't believe I missed this in the OP.

But it is true. One thing that drives me up the wall about The Dark Knight is how the Joker uses "chaos" interchangeably with "anarchy". It's like he doesn't know the difference between the two. By extension, I think this applies to the Nolan brothers as well.

In brief, anarchy is extremely limited law and extremely limited government. It's hard to point to a functional model of anarchy because anarchy is one of those rare forms of government which has arguably never been attempted (although I would argue Occupy Oakland came damned close). But that's the theory of it, at least. Your "government" may be the guy who is the "mayor" of your city block. The idea is to put power as close (by proximity) to the people as possible.

Chaos is completely different. Anarchy is microscopic government. Chaos is no government, no law, no nothing.

Now, one could reasonably hypothesize that chaos is the end product of anarchy... but, as above, there's no case study anybody can point to where anarchy has ever been attempted so that point is impossible to prove via evidence.

This may seem like a trivial complaint. But I don't think it is. The Joker as presented in TDK would understand the difference between anarchy and chaos. He would (or should) know better than to use them interchangeably with each others. It drags me out of the movie every time.

Nolan wanted to create sophisticated, literary films with his trilogy. Minor slip-ups like that are egregious for a film series which claims to dot all the i's and cross all the t's in it's themes, morality and philosophy.

People are welcome to say anything they want about Snyder but I see no real attempt at such pretentious thinking. And the philosophy it attempts to illustrate is done so consistently -- and without the pop-political science goofs, I might add.

To me, it shouldn't be a matter of Nolan being better than Snyder or vice versa. They're both Batman. Just different Batmen. But if someone else wants to play this stupid game over which one is more sophisticated, Nolan isn't the clear champ that some of his cheerleaders might want to believe.