Some of my issues with the Nolan Batman films

[Ultron-7]

Wasn't that Holmes's fault?

Schedule conflict. She was already filming another film

 

[DarkMagic]

With some of the Back and forth going on in the Spoilers TDKR thread. It got me to thinking about the series and some problems I had with it.

First let me start off with the fact that I love the series and think it’s one of the best trilogy’s out there. I know this is Nolan’s Batman Universe but that does not mean it is not without some small problems.

These are just some issues I have always had and thought I would share and see if anyone else has the same issues.

1. Perhaps my biggest complaint is the Batman time line. From BB to TDK, how much time has passed?? A year?? Maybe a year and a half, tops? He then goes into hiding for eight years. Comes out of retirement and then is Batman again for a total of two or three days. Meaning he was Batman for One year six months and 3 days. Not long enough IMO to become the legend.

2. He allows Ra's al Ghul to die. IMO it’s the same as killing him and Batman does not kill. If Batman had no choice, then yes, it’s fine that he dies. But Bats says he won’t kill him but that does not mean he has to save him. If you, as a hero, can save someone and don’t act, knowing that the lack of action will allow him to die then what is the difference. Yes there is one. But IMO not for the Batman. I mean why not just let the Joker fall in the second film. He did not have to save him and apparently could walk away with a clear mind. I have no problem with Ra’s dieing. I just don’t think Batman would allow it if he could stop it.

3. He changes Rachel’s. I’m Sorry but Katie was fine in the first film and much much easier on the eyes. Maggie Gyllenhaal Giant Jowls were distracting through many of her scenes.

4. Two Face Dies. Look I know the whole “batman takes the fall” would have not been the same. But Two Face is a major villain. And again Batman just seems to let him die. If he can save Rachel from falling 30 stories up I think he could have saved Dent from one story. Just puts limits on the Batman’s ability and calls in to question his belief system. I know they could have come up with another idea to let Bat’s take the fall and allow Harvey to be put away behind lock and key with nobody believing the rants of a madman. They could have said Batman tried to kill Dent or something. Oh well.

5. Bane gets killed in an un eventful way. What the hell. I wanted/needed to see batman just kick this guys butt and rip that mask off and allow the police to restrain him. Why do villains in the films have to die but in the comics they can be allowed to live? Also he gets blasted by Catwoman and that’s it?? Just sort of a let down for a powerful villain.

6. No mention of the Joker. This is talked about at length in the other thread. Here are my thoughts that I posted in that thread.

Joker should not have been ignored. He should have been mentioned or recast. The Joker was here long before Heath and will be here long after. The character is bigger then any one actor. I am not saying base the whole film on him or give him a huge role but make some sort of acknowledgement.

I don't mind that he had no major role. As the Batman files book I have states (not a direct quote) "There is no reason to Joker's madness. One day he may let you live because he likes your shoes. The next day he might kill you because he likes your shoes"

In my mind Joker could have escaped but felt no need to act since Bane told the truth of Dent and the city was in chaos. Joker is a loner/sometimes leader and never a follower. But there needed to be some sort of mention. SOMETHING!! Because, yes it sort of wipes a big part of TDK away. Like most of it never happened. Even if they gave us a flashback of him in the cell when Rachel died.


8. Much to long of a wait between Batman being in the pit and finally getting to Gothem. Would have been different if Bane was doing some awesome evil stuff to help the time go by but instead it was rather boring and there was never a feeling of fear for the city. It is the main reason I think the film will suffer with repeated viewing.

9. Batman is gone. Who is going to train Robin???? Small complaint here as I can use my imagination to tell a story of Bats making an appearance here and there to help the new Robin/Nightwing/Batman/whatever.

Anyways those are my issues. With the exception of the lack of mention of Joker in TDKR which just makes him seem insignificant, these issues don’t really hurt the films. But they always bug me a bit.

What say you Batfriends.

First let me say that's a well thought-out post. It's refreshing to see a break-down like that, whether it is a favorable or unfavorable opinion of aspects of these films.

Here's my response as a fan of these films, but I think we have a lot of common ground on the individual points.

1. Yes, besides his first year out from BB to the end of TDK, he is rarely seen. But we know from the dialogue in the beginning of TDK "I don't like it, not tonight" when the criminal (drug dealer?) sees the batsignal, he has ALREADY had enough of an impact on the city become a legend in that short time. Heck, even the organized crime bosses are too scared of him to have a meeting at night. After he takes the blame for "killing" the city's "hero"-- Harvey Dent, his legend status is further cemented. Not as a good legend by any means, but who in Gotham can ever forget about the guy that killed the white knight. His dark legend is tied inextricable to Harvey's positive legend (at least for the next 8 years). Finally, after all of Gotham (and the world, no doubt watching on TV) apparently witnesses him go up in a nuclear explosion to save the city...his permanent legend is solidified. No one will ever forget the day that Batman gave his life for the city.

2. I really really agree with this point. "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you." Yes dude, YOU DO HAVE TO SAVE HIM, you're the hero, you're supposed to be better than just letting someone die, even if they are a killer. I absolutely agree with you here. As long as Batman has the ability to save someone, even the villian, he should do it.

3. This is not Nolan's fault. He didn't fire Katie, she made herself unavailable. She had a scheduling conflict. Rumor is Tom Cruise prevented her from signing for the sequel.

4. I believe Batman would have saved Two-Face if he could have. But he had been stabbed by the Joker earlier in the night, then shot (in his armor...but still it powerful enough to knock him down) by Two-Face so he wasn't in top form. Add to that that he also has to save the innocent kid who Two-Face has a 50% chance of shooting if the coin lands bad side up. Batman is not gonna play the odds with a kids life, and there is no time or strength to do some fancy move that both disarms Harvey and saves both him and the kid. So he goes with all he can do, the ugly, brute force tackle. He's got only two arms---one's got to hold on the the 90 lb kid, and one's got to grab the ledge. Or he could have taken his chances and tried to grab the 200lb villianous man with one arm, hoping he would "decide" to also keep holding on to the 90lb kid for Batman (making the total weight on Batman's arm almost 300lb) while trying to hold on to the ledge. He couldn't risk the innocent kid to try to save the non-innocent Harvey.

5. Getting shot by the Batpod cannon may not be as eventful as if there was another big fight like in the sewers and this time Batman was victorious--but we did kind of get that. Batman definitely was beating Bane was about to "win" the fight had Miranda/Talia not surprised him with the old knife to the gut trick. Whether he would have just ripped off his mask or otherwise killed him is debatable. I understand not liking the way he went out, but as for the question of "Why do villains in the films have to die but in the comics they can be allowed to live?" I think it answers itself. In movies, for the most part, there is no intention of telling another story with the villain in a sequel (of course, there are exceptions). Killing off the villain gives finality to a film (or film series) and shows that the specific threat has been vanquished. In serialized comics, you want the villian available in future installments to challenge the hero again and again, endlessly.

6. I agree, this film probably would have benefitted by at least a mention of the Joker. I definitely didn't want to see him recast, whether for a large role or just a cameo as a prisoner though.

8. (there is no #7 above ) I kind of agree with you here, but on the other hand, I did get the feeling of ever increasing chaos while Batman was locked up. Cops who were lucky enough not to be trapped undergroud were being hunted like dogs, Scarecrow was running farce trials, and special forces guys were being killed and strung up from the bridges for all the world to see. That's a pretty scary town to be trapped in.

9. Yes I absolutely agree with this point. Blake has definitely shown he has the rage and the heart to be Batman...he is just missing the extensive training necessary. But someone once said "Training is NOTHING. Will is EVERYTHING." Like you said, I'd like to believe Bruce will arrange for Blake's training, if not train him himself.

I agree completely with at least 3 or 3.5 of your 8 points, but I think the rest or part of the rest have good justifications for why they are that way. In any case, that was a great post and I enjoyed engaging with it.

 

[thedarkknight]

I agree with you on pretty much all of it. Ignore the people who say you are wrong, that's just their opinion. When I stated my complaint about the happy ending, I was told I didn't understand the movie.

 

[devilof76]

That's pretty much the approach I'm taking to criticisms of the trilogy. You didn't like it? I'm sorry to hear that, and no, I don't want to hear why.

 

[Calcifer]

With some of the Back and forth going on in the Spoilers TDKR thread. It got me to thinking about the series and some problems I had with it.

First let me start off with the fact that I love the series and think it’s one of the best trilogy’s out there. I know this is Nolan’s Batman Universe but that does not mean it is not without some small problems.

These are just some issues I have always had and thought I would share and see if anyone else has the same issues.

1. Perhaps my biggest complaint is the Batman time line. From BB to TDK, how much time has passed?? A year?? Maybe a year and a half, tops? He then goes into hiding for eight years. Comes out of retirement and then is Batman again for a total of two or three days. Meaning he was Batman for One year six months and 3 days. Not long enough IMO to become the legend.

2. He allows Ra's al Ghul to die. IMO it’s the same as killing him and Batman does not kill. If Batman had no choice, then yes, it’s fine that he dies. But Bats says he won’t kill him but that does not mean he has to save him. If you, as a hero, can save someone and don’t act, knowing that the lack of action will allow him to die then what is the difference. Yes there is one. But IMO not for the Batman. I mean why not just let the Joker fall in the second film. He did not have to save him and apparently could walk away with a clear mind. I have no problem with Ra’s dieing. I just don’t think Batman would allow it if he could stop it.

3. He changes Rachel’s. I’m Sorry but Katie was fine in the first film and much much easier on the eyes. Maggie Gyllenhaal Giant Jowls were distracting through many of her scenes.

4. Two Face Dies. Look I know the whole “batman takes the fall” would have not been the same. But Two Face is a major villain. And again Batman just seems to let him die. If he can save Rachel from falling 30 stories up I think he could have saved Dent from one story. Just puts limits on the Batman’s ability and calls in to question his belief system. I know they could have come up with another idea to let Bat’s take the fall and allow Harvey to be put away behind lock and key with nobody believing the rants of a madman. They could have said Batman tried to kill Dent or something. Oh well.

5. Bane gets killed in an un eventful way. What the hell. I wanted/needed to see batman just kick this guys butt and rip that mask off and allow the police to restrain him. Why do villains in the films have to die but in the comics they can be allowed to live? Also he gets blasted by Catwoman and that’s it?? Just sort of a let down for a powerful villain.

6. No mention of the Joker. This is talked about at length in the other thread. Here are my thoughts that I posted in that thread.

Joker should not have been ignored. He should have been mentioned or recast. The Joker was here long before Heath and will be here long after. The character is bigger then any one actor. I am not saying base the whole film on him or give him a huge role but make some sort of acknowledgement.

I don't mind that he had no major role. As the Batman files book I have states (not a direct quote) "There is no reason to Joker's madness. One day he may let you live because he likes your shoes. The next day he might kill you because he likes your shoes"

In my mind Joker could have escaped but felt no need to act since Bane told the truth of Dent and the city was in chaos. Joker is a loner/sometimes leader and never a follower. But there needed to be some sort of mention. SOMETHING!! Because, yes it sort of wipes a big part of TDK away. Like most of it never happened. Even if they gave us a flashback of him in the cell when Rachel died.


8. Much to long of a wait between Batman being in the pit and finally getting to Gothem. Would have been different if Bane was doing some awesome evil stuff to help the time go by but instead it was rather boring and there was never a feeling of fear for the city. It is the main reason I think the film will suffer with repeated viewing.

9. Batman is gone. Who is going to train Robin???? Small complaint here as I can use my imagination to tell a story of Bats making an appearance here and there to help the new Robin/Nightwing/Batman/whatever.

Anyways those are my issues. With the exception of the lack of mention of Joker in TDKR which just makes him seem insignificant, these issues don’t really hurt the films. But they always bug me a bit.

What say you Batfriends.

You hated that they recast Rachel, but you would be ok with it if he had recast Joker? ( Heaths performance as the joker will never be forgotten and recasting him would be disrespectful imo) ..and I always though Katie not being in tdk was not Nolan's choice but all to do with her husband taking control and not allowing her.( although I could very well be wrong about that)

 

[Voorhees27]

That's pretty much the approach I'm taking to criticisms of the trilogy. You didn't like it? I'm sorry to hear that, and no, I don't want to hear why.

Ive never felt the need to get so technical when it comes to movies, sports, etc. Does that make me less intelligent?

 

[devilof76]

Not in my book.

Art is too personal for me to kvetch (is that the right word?) about it. Nine times out of ten, I have zero interest in humoring anyone else's opinion of what I watch. I don't know what it accomplishes, other than to waste my time.

 

[Murderofcrows71]

With some of the Back and forth going on in the Spoilers TDKR thread. It got me to thinking about the series and some problems I had with it.

First let me start off with the fact that I love the series and think it’s one of the best trilogy’s out there. I know this is Nolan’s Batman Universe but that does not mean it is not without some small problems.

These are just some issues I have always had and thought I would share and see if anyone else has the same issues.

1. Perhaps my biggest complaint is the Batman time line. From BB to TDK, how much time has passed?? A year?? Maybe a year and a half, tops? He then goes into hiding for eight years. Comes out of retirement and then is Batman again for a total of two or three days. Meaning he was Batman for One year six months and 3 days. Not long enough IMO to become the legend.

2. He allows Ra's al Ghul to die. IMO it’s the same as killing him and Batman does not kill. If Batman had no choice, then yes, it’s fine that he dies. But Bats says he won’t kill him but that does not mean he has to save him. If you, as a hero, can save someone and don’t act, knowing that the lack of action will allow him to die then what is the difference. Yes there is one. But IMO not for the Batman. I mean why not just let the Joker fall in the second film. He did not have to save him and apparently could walk away with a clear mind. I have no problem with Ra’s dieing. I just don’t think Batman would allow it if he could stop it.

3. He changes Rachel’s. I’m Sorry but Katie was fine in the first film and much much easier on the eyes. Maggie Gyllenhaal Giant Jowls were distracting through many of her scenes.

4. Two Face Dies. Look I know the whole “batman takes the fall” would have not been the same. But Two Face is a major villain. And again Batman just seems to let him die. If he can save Rachel from falling 30 stories up I think he could have saved Dent from one story. Just puts limits on the Batman’s ability and calls in to question his belief system. I know they could have come up with another idea to let Bat’s take the fall and allow Harvey to be put away behind lock and key with nobody believing the rants of a madman. They could have said Batman tried to kill Dent or something. Oh well.

5. Bane gets killed in an un eventful way. What the hell. I wanted/needed to see batman just kick this guys butt and rip that mask off and allow the police to restrain him. Why do villains in the films have to die but in the comics they can be allowed to live? Also he gets blasted by Catwoman and that’s it?? Just sort of a let down for a powerful villain.

6. No mention of the Joker. This is talked about at length in the other thread. Here are my thoughts that I posted in that thread.

Joker should not have been ignored. He should have been mentioned or recast. The Joker was here long before Heath and will be here long after. The character is bigger then any one actor. I am not saying base the whole film on him or give him a huge role but make some sort of acknowledgement.

I don't mind that he had no major role. As the Batman files book I have states (not a direct quote) "There is no reason to Joker's madness. One day he may let you live because he likes your shoes. The next day he might kill you because he likes your shoes"

In my mind Joker could have escaped but felt no need to act since Bane told the truth of Dent and the city was in chaos. Joker is a loner/sometimes leader and never a follower. But there needed to be some sort of mention. SOMETHING!! Because, yes it sort of wipes a big part of TDK away. Like most of it never happened. Even if they gave us a flashback of him in the cell when Rachel died.


8. Much to long of a wait between Batman being in the pit and finally getting to Gothem. Would have been different if Bane was doing some awesome evil stuff to help the time go by but instead it was rather boring and there was never a feeling of fear for the city. It is the main reason I think the film will suffer with repeated viewing.

9. Batman is gone. Who is going to train Robin???? Small complaint here as I can use my imagination to tell a story of Bats making an appearance here and there to help the new Robin/Nightwing/Batman/whatever.

Anyways those are my issues. With the exception of the lack of mention of Joker in TDKR which just makes him seem insignificant, these issues don’t really hurt the films. But they always bug me a bit.

What say you Batfriends.

Not to mention Batman would never quit being Batman and leave Gotham, Bruce is Batman, Bruce Wayne is the made up alter ego. The first Robin is Richard Grayson, to take John Blake and at the end judt say here's the keys to the cave and oh by the way his middle name is Robin.... Pretty bad writing in my opinion. If this was an older and more debilitated Dark Knight returns inspired Bats he would have brought extra gadgets in his utility belt which he never used once in TDKR to cover all possible outcomes. Personally I love Batman Begins, the Ra's being killed thing didn't bother me because I knew he could be brought back anytime via the Lazarus Pits. Both of the Dark Knight movies don't feel like Batman films to me, infact you could take Batman and bane or the Joker out of the stories and fill them with a random action/crime drama hero and villain and nothing in the story would change much.

 

[Batty]

Not in my book.

Art is too personal for me to kvetch (is that the right word?) about it. Nine times out of ten, I have zero interest in humoring anyone else's opinion of what I watch. I don't know what it accomplishes, other than to waste my time.

I feel the same way. I know what I like and what I don't. I don't feel the need to try and prove others wrong. Beside, we have more than enough people here who already do that.

 

[attom44]

Fortunately there aren't any problems..... The movie is awesome!

 

[wofford29]

Not in my book.

Art is too personal for me to kvetch (is that the right word?) about it. Nine times out of ten, I have zero interest in humoring anyone else's opinion of what I watch. I don't know what it accomplishes, other than to waste my time.

I feel the same way. I know what I like and what I don't. I don't feel the need to try and prove others wrong. Beside, we have more than enough people here who already do that.

Can I join your team?

 

[ironwez20]

Lets not forget that Detective Ramirez was allowed to live. She must know what Two Face was up to. What happened to her. Somewhat big plot hole that I was suprised was not mentioned somehow in TDKR

Yes!!!!!! That's what I want to know as well. What did two faces slap kill her ???

 

[Voorhees27]

Not in my book.

Art is too personal for me to kvetch (is that the right word?) about it. Nine times out of ten, I have zero interest in humoring anyone else's opinion of what I watch. I don't know what it accomplishes, other than to waste my time.

I feel the same way. I know what I like and what I don't. I don't feel the need to try and prove others wrong. Beside, we have more than enough people here who already do that.

Can I join your team?

.

 

[The Josh]

I enjoy engaging in the discussions with certain folks but I am picky with who I engage with in those discussions.

 

[devilof76]

I also don't mind bite-sized opinions. I'm always curious.

Wall of text? Not so curious.

I feel the same way. I know what I like and what I don't. I don't feel the need to try and prove others wrong. Beside, we have more than enough people here who already do that.

Can I join your team?

.

 

[Frank]

Jaws, I agree it sucks that in just about every superhero movie up until the Avengers cluster (Cap & Thor), the main villains aren't kept around past one outing (I assume Red Skull is still floating around). We know Nolan definitely had plans for Ledger's Joker in a third film and the whole thing just sucks that it fell out the way it did. I gotta be honest, a certain amount of Joker fatigue has set in. I'm glad I didn't have to watch a recycled Ledger performance or a wanna be try to fit in.

We all knew there had to be a follow up, but I can't think of a way that a Joker appearance wouldn't be wince-inducing. It's the elephant in the room though definitely.

 

[galmando]

Regarding point 7, what bothers me is that he seems to have gotten his limp from that fall after taking out Dent, but any other time he's fell from that height he's just slowly glided down using his cape

When he drops Eric Roberts, the railing is about as high as that ledge, and we can't say it was unexpected because Bane kicks him off the railing in the sewers and he drops safely to the floor below in his gliding fashion, even when he's knackered

It's kinda like 'plot armor', just seems convenient...

I'm shocked at how defensive some people are of this trilogy and seem to be really against people expressing opinions that could be considered negative

It's just a film and not something to get too aggressive about

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I would've just posted this in the Batman threads. They are few, but you have allies there.

 

[DarkMagic]

Regarding point 7, what bothers me is that he seems to have gotten his limp from that fall after taking out Dent, but any other time he's fell frin that height he's just slowly glided down using his cape

When he drops Eric Roberts, the railing is about as high as that ledge, and we can't say it was unexpected because Bane kicks him off the railing in the sewers and he drops safely to the floor below in his gliding fashion, even when he's knackered

It's kinda like 'plot armor', just seems convenient...

I'm shocked at how defensive some people are of this trilogy and seem to be really against people expressing opinions that could be considered negative

It's just a film and not something to get too aggressive about

I don't really know when he got his limp/knee damage. Yeah he seems to be limping to the Batpod after TDK, but he was just stabbed and shot before falling off the ledge...I think he is more than a little knackered. I agree, though, he could've at least partly opened his cape when falling from the ledge after saving Gordon's son.

I also agree with the point that it's not something to be too aggressive about, but then, what is considered being too aggressive? To me, too aggressive is when differences of opinion lead to personal attacks...but short of that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having strong differing opinions, and expressing them strongly. This is, after all, a discussion board.

If someone makes a point about something that could be a flaw or considered negative, and someone responds to that point with a "defense" of the choice made by the writers/actors/filmmakers is that being "too defensive"? Is the mere act of responding and disagreeing to a criticism of the film being "too defensive"?...if so, doesn't it follow that the mere act of having a criticism of the film is "too offensive"?

Of course, both scenarios are silly. There is nothing wrong with having critical opinions of the film...just as there is nothing wrong with responding to those critical opinions with opinions that defend the film. As long as the discussion is on the points of the film and the challenging/defending the opinions expressed---and NOT on personally attacking the person expressing the opinion---there is absolutely nothing wrong with either p.o.v. (for or against) in the discussion.

 

[galmando]

^^ i was referring to Devilof06 (something like that) and his comments

They just seemed a tad too defensive and offered no input into the subject other than 'my time is too important to debate such things'

Just seems a little arrogant and arrogance frustrates me. Nothing to say? Then simply don't say anything