Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 92
  1. #76
    Incredible Member CrazyOldHermit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencermalley935 View Post
    I think Rises mainly gets a bad rep because because it deviates from the notion of Bruce waging a never-ending war on crime (which was never how the Nolan movies were set up).

    Take that out of the equation and it's not a bad movie in any way. Quite the opposite honestly.
    It's not that Bruce is supposed to wage a never-ending war on crime, it's that his reasons for giving up didn't seem to hold up and that plot point failed to live up to the promise of The Dark Knight's ending.

    "He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.”

    Four years later and it turns out that they never actually hunted him, because he was never seen again after that night. It didn't matter that he could take it. And he was neither a silent guardian nor a watchful protector, just a guy with a beard in an old mansion.

    Now granted, the movie attempts to address this with the Dent Act, a piece of legislation that denies parole to criminals convicted of participating in organized crime. This is a good idea, because it plays off of Harvey's first scene in The Dark Knight and makes Batman's sacrifice actually mean something. But the movie fails to follow through on the other half of the bargain. The point Gordon raised at the end of Begins, which was also raised by the Joker in The Dark Knight, is that Batman's existence will inspire escalation in the criminal realm. In The Dark Knight the mob died but it was being replaced by something much worse. The Dent Act put the final nail in the mob's coffin but it did nothing to address the threat of more criminals like the Joker. Yet in Rises that escalation just stalled out, so Batman had no more reason to exist at all.

    What I'm saying is this plot point feels contrived, based on it being so contradictory to the subtext of the previous two films, and since the entire movie launches off of this plot point the whole story is weaker right off the bat.

    This doesn't make the movie bad, but it does make it disappointing. At least to me.

    I also felt that Batman having the reputation of a killer was a neat way of addressing the problem Maroni brought up in the middle of TDK, which is that criminals were wise to Batman's one rule, so it's a little disappointing that it didn't pan out. But that's just a minor disappointment.
    Miller was right.

  2. #77
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyOldHermit View Post
    It's not that Bruce is supposed to wage a never-ending war on crime, it's that his reasons for giving up didn't seem to hold up and that plot point failed to live up to the promise of The Dark Knight's ending.

    "He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.”

    Four years later and it turns out that they never actually hunted him, because he was never seen again after that night. It didn't matter that he could take it. And he was neither a silent guardian nor a watchful protector, just a guy with a beard in an old mansion.

    Now granted, the movie attempts to address this with the Dent Act, a piece of legislation that denies parole to criminals convicted of participating in organized crime. This is a good idea, because it plays off of Harvey's first scene in The Dark Knight and makes Batman's sacrifice actually mean something. But the movie fails to follow through on the other half of the bargain. The point Gordon raised at the end of Begins, which was also raised by the Joker in The Dark Knight, is that Batman's existence will inspire escalation in the criminal realm. In The Dark Knight the mob died but it was being replaced by something much worse. The Dent Act put the final nail in the mob's coffin but it did nothing to address the threat of more criminals like the Joker. Yet in Rises that escalation just stalled out, so Batman had no more reason to exist at all.

    What I'm saying is this plot point feels contrived, based on it being so contradictory to the subtext of the previous two films, and since the entire movie launches off of this plot point the whole story is weaker right off the bat.

    This doesn't make the movie bad, but it does make it disappointing. At least to me.

    I also felt that Batman having the reputation of a killer was a neat way of addressing the problem Maroni brought up in the middle of TDK, which is that criminals were wise to Batman's one rule, so it's a little disappointing that it didn't pan out. But that's just a minor disappointment.
    I agree, and to add to that I don't like that Bruce finds out about Rachel's letter. I liked the sentiment at the end of The Dark Knight that basically says Bruce has done so much for Gotham that he deserves to not know about it.

    I remember seeing the end of The Dark Knight and being excited by the prospect of the next film having a rogue Batman. A Batman that is truly working outside of the law. I'm disappointed that we didn't get that, but I will admit that that may have been an unfair expectation on my part.

    Also, does the movie really give you a reason why he quit? Is it that the scene with Alfred left such an impact on him that he decided right then and there to hang up the cape after defeating Bane? As it stands in the movie it feels like Bruce quitting may have been a last minute decision. However, that can't be right because he altered his will. So that would mean that Bruce was already planning on quitting before he was thrown in the Pit. Idk, I may be thinking about this too much.
    Last edited by Batfan Beyond; 02-17-2019 at 01:15 AM.

  3. #78
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencermalley935 View Post
    1. I don't think he really needed Alfred to get back to Gotham, it was just convenient, It stands that he still traveled the world without resources in Batman Begins and he most certainly could do it again in reverse.
    In Begins he was gone for seven years. For all we know it could've taken him a year to get to the other side of the world. When Bruce gets out of the prison in Rises he has 22 days to get back.

    Here's the thing the answer to the question of how Bruce got back could literally be anything, but what makes it frustrating as a viewer is that the film gives you nothing. I'm not asking for an extended sequence of how he got back, but just me give something. A line of dialogue, Bruce coming out of a truck like the people from the government, literally anything is better than nothing.

    I'm not one of these people that agrees with most of the nitpicks people have about the first two films. I don't care how the Joker planted bombs in the hospital, I don't care how The Joker left the Harvey Dent fundraiser, I don't care to know how Batman can survive a fall from a building while being on fire, etc... However, Rises just pushed the envelope a little too far in terms of what it thought it could get away with. But that's just me, and like I said I do like a lot about it.

  4. #79
    Spectacular Member Spencermalley935's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Four years later and it turns out that they never actually hunted him, because he was never seen again after that night. It didn't matter that he could take it. And he was neither a silent guardian nor a watchful protector, just a guy with a beard in an old mansion.
    Personally, I had no real desire to see Batman being chased as the primary focus of the next movie because it's way too obvious he'd be redeemed in the end somehow and as a result, that plot line would feel like a drag. As you said, Batman's sacrifice needs to mean something, preserving Harvey Dent's reputation can't just be a contrivance to make Batman a fugitive vigilante again. Anther thing, Batman wouldn't just be another name on the wanted list like in Begins, He'd be public enemy number one, The police would be focusing all of their efforts on catching him over the actual criminals.

    I think Bruce was perfectly justified in his decision to stop. He said he's whatever Gotham needs him to be, so it makes sense that he won't be whatever Gotham doesn't need him to be. I understand wanting to see Batman operate as a fugitive vigilante but in my opinion, We got enough of that in Batman Begins.

    .
    The point Gordon raised at the end of Begins, which was also raised by the Joker in The Dark Knight, is that Batman's existence will inspire escalation in the criminal realm. In The Dark Knight the mob died but it was being replaced by something much worse. The Dent Act put the final nail in the mob's coffin but it did nothing to address the threat of more criminals like the Joker. Yet in Rises that escalation just stalled out, so Batman had no more reason to exist at all.
    The problem with trying to continue the whole "rise of the freaks" is that you can't really escalate once you use the Joker because he really is the top of that mountain. The Dark Knight was very much about the theme of escalation played to it's logical conclusion and I don't feel it's sequel was required to continue. You'd have to do something even bigger than what the Joker did and I don't really see how that would happen with someone like Riddler, Black Mask etc.

    I also felt that Batman having the reputation of a killer was a neat way of addressing the problem Maroni brought up in the middle of TDK, which is that criminals were wise to Batman's one rule, so it's a little disappointing that it didn't pan out. But that's just a minor disappointment.
    If Batman continued but still never killed anyone, Wouldn't some people find it suspicious that he only murdered those specific five people and Harvey Dent but no one else?.

  5. #80
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batfan Beyond View Post
    In Begins he was gone for seven years. For all we know it could've taken him a year to get to the other side of the world. When Bruce gets out of the prison in Rises he has 22 days to get back.

    Here's the thing the answer to the question of how Bruce got back could literally be anything, but what makes it frustrating as a viewer is that the film gives you nothing. I'm not asking for an extended sequence of how he got back, but just me give something. A line of dialogue, Bruce coming out of a truck like the people from the government, literally anything is better than nothing.

    I'm not one of these people that agrees with most of the nitpicks people have about the first two films. I don't care how the Joker planted bombs in the hospital, I don't care how The Joker left the Harvey Dent fundraiser, I don't care to know how Batman can survive a fall from a building while being on fire, etc... However, Rises just pushed the envelope a little too far in terms of what it thought it could get away with. But that's just me, and like I said I do like a lot about it.
    I honestly don't think it pushed the envelope too far personally. In Begins he spent several years learning how to survive with literally nothing. So by the time Rises came around he would have had a lot of experience and skill. Once he climbed out of the pit all he had to do was walk over to the town next to it, call up someone he trusted, and get some supplies sent to him. To be honest, I could do that, and I don't have the training that Batman has.

    What I think stretches disbelief is that John Blake was able to figure out Bruce was Batman just because he could sense he was dealing with the same pain. When I saw that scene I was really shocked.

  6. #81
    Mighty Member 9th.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minerboh View Post
    Ιf Batman 89 was... a bad film then what can be said for Batman Forever and the Batman And Robin which almost wiped out Batman from the cinematic map almost completely?
    That's impossible, those nipple costumes are forever etched into our memory.

  7. #82
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cmbmool View Post
    I hope fans of Batman can look at this Youtube video which goes into depth about Batman 89 film and how it explains that while it is an enjoyable film it is A BAD BATMAN themed film...

    However as fans of Batman what do you think of this Youtube video ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR5Iteeiq2M

    B89 and Batman Returns are my all time favorite Batman films and are definitely Elseworld tales. But amazing !!!

  8. #83
    Extraordinary Member adrikito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    6,515

    Default

    I liked this film, almost like Batman Nolan films.

  9. #84
    Fantastic Member Last Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    327

    Default

    In the most basic, fundamental way, Batman is a good Batman film. I feel like if the no-kill rule were so fundamental to the character, Finger and Kane would have thought of it before the character ever debuted. And if being true to a villain's characterization and origin were so important, then nobody would have ever accepted Lex Luthor being changed into a businessman who delegates the science work to his employees instead of doing it himself. Seriously, why is it OK for Lex to be so fundamentally changed and have that be the preferred version of the character by nearly everyone, but make the Joker a mobster who killed the Waynes and it's like burning a Bible? Or for that matter, why is it OK for Ra's Al Ghul to be a white guy from Ireland who has lived for 50 years rather than 500 years and whose goal is to destroy criminally corrupt cities rather than reduce Earth's human population to save the environment? And to top it all off, have him be merged with one of the characters that mentored Bruce on his journey to become Batman? A notorious Batman villain being the guy who trained Bruce and taught him about fear and theatricality is OK, but include the Joker in Bruce's backstory and you never hear the end of it, I guess.

    Personally, I don't mind the alterations and retcons and reimaginings all that much, but some comic fans can be absolutely bonkers when it comes to being true to source material, and they apply their outrage very inconsistently when you consider how many alterations superhero movies have made to the source material over the past 20 years and how frequently the comics themselves are retconned and reimagined.

    Another thing I'd like to note is just how gaga Superman fans are over any and all callbacks to the original rowdy, lawbreaking Superman of the early golden age, but any mention of golden age Batman and it's always "that version doesn't count!".

  10. #85
    Spectacular Member Spencermalley935's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son View Post
    In the most basic, fundamental way, Batman is a good Batman film. I feel like if the no-kill rule were so fundamental to the character, Finger and Kane would have thought of it before the character ever debuted. And if being true to a villain's characterization and origin were so important, then nobody would have ever accepted Lex Luthor being changed into a businessman who delegates the science work to his employees instead of doing it himself. Seriously, why is it OK for Lex to be so fundamentally changed and have that be the preferred version of the character by nearly everyone, but make the Joker a mobster who killed the Waynes and it's like burning a Bible? Or for that matter, why is it OK for Ra's Al Ghul to be a white guy from Ireland who has lived for 50 years rather than 500 years and whose goal is to destroy criminally corrupt cities rather than reduce Earth's human population to save the environment? And to top it all off, have him be merged with one of the characters that mentored Bruce on his journey to become Batman? A notorious Batman villain being the guy who trained Bruce and taught him about fear and theatricality is OK, but include the Joker in Bruce's backstory and you never hear the end of it, I guess.

    Personally, I don't mind the alterations and retcons and reimaginings all that much, but some comic fans can be absolutely bonkers when it comes to being true to source material, and they apply their outrage very inconsistently when you consider how many alterations superhero movies have made to the source material over the past 20 years and how frequently the comics themselves are retconned and reimagined.

    Another thing I'd like to note is just how gaga Superman fans are over any and all callbacks to the original rowdy, lawbreaking Superman of the early golden age, but any mention of golden age Batman and it's always "that version doesn't count!".
    Including Ras Al Ghul to Bruce's origin actually added to the story and also set him up as a dark mirror to Bruce, A father figure with a similar backstory who Bruce ultimately must move beyond to become the hero he's meant to be. Making the Joker the criminal who killed Bruce's parents not only doesn't really add anything to that movie, It also completely changes the nature of their dynamic and simplifies it to a point where it's substantially less interesting. It's no longer Order vs Chaos, It's just two guys who want to kill each other for revenge.

    The changes made to Lex Luthor are looked upon fondly because it's generally believed to be a improvement over what came before while still ringing true to the essence of that character. The whole mobster angle the Joker sports in the 89 film isn't necessarily a downgrade but it's certainly not an improvement either.

  11. #86
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son View Post
    In the most basic, fundamental way, Batman is a good Batman film. I feel like if the no-kill rule were so fundamental to the character, Finger and Kane would have thought of it before the character ever debuted. And if being true to a villain's characterization and origin were so important, then nobody would have ever accepted Lex Luthor being changed into a businessman who delegates the science work to his employees instead of doing it himself. Seriously, why is it OK for Lex to be so fundamentally changed and have that be the preferred version of the character by nearly everyone, but make the Joker a mobster who killed the Waynes and it's like burning a Bible? Or for that matter, why is it OK for Ra's Al Ghul to be a white guy from Ireland who has lived for 50 years rather than 500 years and whose goal is to destroy criminally corrupt cities rather than reduce Earth's human population to save the environment? And to top it all off, have him be merged with one of the characters that mentored Bruce on his journey to become Batman? A notorious Batman villain being the guy who trained Bruce and taught him about fear and theatricality is OK, but include the Joker in Bruce's backstory and you never hear the end of it, I guess.

    Personally, I don't mind the alterations and retcons and reimaginings all that much, but some comic fans can be absolutely bonkers when it comes to being true to source material, and they apply their outrage very inconsistently when you consider how many alterations superhero movies have made to the source material over the past 20 years and how frequently the comics themselves are retconned and reimagined.

    Another thing I'd like to note is just how gaga Superman fans are over any and all callbacks to the original rowdy, lawbreaking Superman of the early golden age, but any mention of golden age Batman and it's always "that version doesn't count!".
    I think it mostly comes down to ignorance. I mean this entire thread was made to highlight a Youtube video where the poster argues that it's a bad Batman adaption and not once does he ever reference the Golden Age comics.

    First off, I don't think people are generally aware that the 89 Batman was based on the golden age. Second, I don't think a lot of Batman fans are even familiar with the Golden Age version of the character. I challenge any fan to read the pre-Robin Batman comics and then say that this film wasn't faithful to the source material. The main things that are different is Joker's origin, and Joker killing Batman's parents.

  12. #87
    Spectacular Member Spencermalley935's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batfan Beyond View Post
    I think it mostly comes down to ignorance. I mean this entire thread was made to highlight a Youtube video where the poster argues that it's a bad Batman adaption and not once does he ever reference the Golden Age comics.

    First off, I don't think people are generally aware that the 89 Batman was based on the golden age. Second, I don't think a lot of Batman fans are even familiar with the Golden Age version of the character. I challenge any fan to read the pre-Robin Batman comics and then say that this film wasn't faithful to the source material. The main things that are different is Joker's origin, and Joker killing Batman's parents.
    The Golden Age of Batman comics is not really considered to be a "golden age" by many fans though and the maker of this video did reference the Golden Age when he declared how Bill Finger, not Bob Kane is the man responsible for the Batman we all know and love.

  13. #88
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,394

    Default

    Those early Golden Age Batman comics are actually a chore to read. A lot of superhero comics from that era, 1939-1941, have aged really poorly, and I find those early Batman stories to be shockingly poorly written. It really took a while for Kane and Finger to find their footing in writing decent stories.

  14. #89
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencermalley935 View Post
    The Golden Age of Batman comics is not really considered to be a "golden age" by many fans though and the maker of this video did reference the Golden Age when he declared how Bill Finger, not Bob Kane is the man responsible for the Batman we all know and love.
    That's besides the point. When he's discussing how the film does a bad job at adapting the comic he's not referring to the Bob Kane/ Bill Finger version of the character. Instead he does what a lot of fans do which is to compare the film to the modern interpretation of the character. I'm sure HiTop films is oblivious to the fact that the goal of the movie is to get back to to the roots of the character by using the pre-Robin Finger/ Kane version of the character. This misconception goes beyond this video, Kevin Smith is another person that seemingly is unaware of that fact as well.

  15. #90
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Those early Golden Age Batman comics are actually a chore to read. A lot of superhero comics from that era, 1939-1941, have aged really poorly, and I find those early Batman stories to be shockingly poorly written. It really took a while for Kane and Finger to find their footing in writing decent stories.
    Yeah, I agree they're not the greatest. However, I do like the pulpy feel that's inherent to them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •