Is There No One Else?

[pinstrike]

This is not the world I thought I'd grow up in.
I never thought I would look at Batman as something to be missed or mourned, or anything other than celebrated.
I have seen the Dark Knight. I have wept and screamed and pulled the hair from my head, I defaced the disc. I took comprehensive notes when I returned the second time as to why it not only fails as a Batman film, but as a hole-ridden plot--again.

Am I the only one with principle enough to loathe this film and Christopher Nolan and David Goyer for what they have done to Batman? For what cannot be ignored or undone?

Please, I ask you. Any of you with principle, dignity, or backbone enough to loathe the highest grossing film of all time, let me know you exist. So that this world may no longer seem so fucking wrong. That I may not seem so alone in this fight for the integrity of an until-now unblemished and perfect franchise.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 14, 2008 18:34:16 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

This is not the world I thought I'd grow up in.
I never thought I would look at Batman as something to be missed or mourned, or anything other than celebrated.
I have seen the Dark Knight. I have wept and screamed and pulled the hair from my head, I defaced the disc. I took comprehensive notes when I returned the second time as to why it not only fails as a Batman film, but as a hole-ridden plot--again.

Am I the only one with principle enough to loathe this film and Christopher Nolan and David Goyer for what they have done to Batman? For what cannot be ignored or undone?

Please, I ask you. Any of you with principle, dignity, or backbone enough to loathe the highest grossing film of all time, let me know you exist. So that this world may no longer seem so fucking wrong. That I may not seem so alone in this fight for the integrity of an until-now unblemished and perfect franchise.

Well for one it did very well but it wasn't the highest grossing film either.

But I have to ask you, you really think the older Batman movies, particularly the one with George Clooney in it was better and unblemished?

[pinstrike]

Absolutely. "Batman" by Tim Burton was inspired by the director's love of Batman as a child, and that love was essential to the integrity he kept in the film. Darker, yes, but it only embossed the darker elements, rather than introduce "new" ones at the expense of that integrity. Same goes for "Batman Returns". The villains' stories were tweaked only enough to again, exemplify the darker, macabre element. But the attitude of the characters, and their relationship to Batman and Gotham remained the same, if not better.
Batman Forever was, to me, the premier achievement of the 90's film industry. Why?
What it did was take the exact, pure comic book style of the time and directly put it on film. The colorful, splatterpunk stuff--the exaggerated banter, the LOOK and STORIES of the villains--the purity of it is astounding. It has not been achieved since. And Val Kilmer kicked ass.
Batman and Robin gets a lot of shit. George Clooney is a god of an actor and was a logical choice for Batman. Mr. Freeze was roided out because, again, that's how he WAS in the comics then. It is low on the ladder, but it is still GOOD.

ALL of these films got certain things right that cannot be gotten wrong.

1. The villains. The story is only as good as the villains. They presented formidable threats to Batman that everyone could appreciate, and their origins and attitudes made sense and correlated well, if not perfectly, for the fans.
--The Joker--PERFECT. Where in the comics he goes from being a petty crook goon to a vat of chemicals to super-psycho genius, in BATMAN he was already intelligent, and a strategist BEFORE becoming the Joker. Makes more sense for a more "real" based medium.
--The Penguin--Maintaining the Penguin's style as a high class villain, Burton made him an orphan in a sewer. Perfect again. Gives him hatred and a motive and an astounding, macabre capacity for evil.
--Catwoman--The relationship with Batman is the iconic love/hate/whatthehell that it is in the comics, and her origin falls in with the Batman mythos of "All it takes is one bad day to release your id". Also, full body leather. Good.
--Two Face--Tommy Lee Jones can jump through some holes, let me tell you. Really, go watch the film, tell me if you've ever seen anyone jump through as many holes as he does with as much grace. I dare you. His obsession with duality was perfect. His style was perfect. His LOOK was perfect.
--The Riddler--Perfectly cast, perfectly acted. He commits crimes to prove how smart he is.

2. Batman is "Bruce Wayne". NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. In his mind, he IS Batman. Bruce Wayne is the ALTER EGO. Bruce died when his parents hit the pavement.

3. Batman is a genius, who developed his own technology. This is also purposeful--IF HE USED HIS COMPANY'S PRODUCTS, HE WOULD EASILY BE FOUND OUT. This was explored, but left unresolved in the film Dark Knight. Why? Don't feel bad. Goyer and Nolan can't figure it out either. That's why they didn't fucking resolve it.

These are things Nolan fucking ignored. It is possible to make a movie that is open to new audiences, but stays faithful to the value of the original ideas. Ask Burton, Schumacher, ask Michael Bay for his example, TRANSFORMERS.

Nolan never loved Batman. He doesn't care. He saw it was something to stick his dick in and he did. Batman is not something to be lifted by retards who have to cover their mouths when they eat so they don't dribble on themselves. It is to approached like any other firmly established piece of art.

And I am the only one who gives a shit.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 15, 2008 14:33:47 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Absolutely. "Batman" by Tim Burton was inspired by the director's love of Batman as a child, and that love was essential to the integrity he kept in the film. Darker, yes, but it only embossed the darker elements, rather than introduce "new" ones at the expense of that integrity. Same goes for "Batman Returns". The villains' stories were tweaked only enough to again, exemplify the darker, macabre element. But the attitude of the characters, and their relationship to Batman and Gotham remained the same, if not better.

A person's heavy bias and sometimes fanboyism doesn't always make it "better" it can also be detrimental because they feel their version of something is better than anybody else's. It helps to be able to think outside of the box, it is good to keep things the same in core value, but some concepts just don't go through when transferred to the big screen.

Batman Forever was, to me, the premier achievement of the 90's film industry. Why?
What it did was take the exact, pure comic book style of the time and directly put it on film. The colorful, splatterpunk stuff--the exaggerated banter, the LOOK and STORIES of the villains--the purity of it is astounding. It has not been achieved since. And Val Kilmer kicked ass.

The 90's Batman began to slowly dwindle away, it became a joke to people, but it wasn't just Batman. Superhero movies had a tendency to be awful. Also people were younger when these movies were out so they didn't have the same expectations.

I'm not saying the "Biff! Sock! Pow!" was a bad thing, but it was also taken to a superficial level in some of his media. That attitude wouldn't work with audiences in this day in age, because they are looking for something more. It is the same way that the very old versions of some characters were bad as they didn't have much depth.

Batman and Robin gets a lot of shit. George Clooney is a god of an actor and was a logical choice for Batman. Mr. Freeze was roided out because, again, that's how he WAS in the comics then. It is low on the ladder, but it is still GOOD.

The character didn't have much depth or development though, there just wasn't enough internal conflict with him or ANY of the characters. Conflict makes great characters, and it also makes great movies.

ALL of these films got certain things right that cannot be gotten wrong.

1. The villains. The story is only as good as the villains. They presented formidable threats to Batman that everyone could appreciate, and their origins and attitudes made sense and correlated well, if not perfectly, for the fans.
--The Joker--PERFECT. Where in the comics he goes from being a petty crook goon to a vat of chemicals to super-psycho genius, in BATMAN he was already intelligent, and a strategist BEFORE becoming the Joker. Makes more sense for a more "real" based medium.

JN's joker was entertaining... for it's time, but nowadays the HL joker would be considered more "real" due to his view on a corrupted world. It is said he actually has a form of "super sanity". I believe it was a good direction to take the character, and it was a risk that paid off.

--The Penguin--Maintaining the Penguin's style as a high class villain, Burton made him an orphan in a sewer. Perfect again. Gives him hatred and a motive and an astounding, macabre capacity for evil.

Haven't seen this movie since I was a kid, and I know I'm one of the older members of the boards. Is this the one where he bites the guys nose or something?

--Catwoman--The relationship with Batman is the iconic love/hate/whatthehell that it is in the comics, and her origin falls in with the Batman mythos of "All it takes is one bad day to release your id". Also, full body leather. Good.

The recent Catwoman movie was awful though and I don't think even you can deny that either.

--Two Face--Tommy Lee Jones can jump through some holes, let me tell you. Really, go watch the film, tell me if you've ever seen anyone jump through as many holes as he does with as much grace. I dare you. His obsession with duality was perfect. His style was perfect. His LOOK was perfect.

It had more of the "comic" look I agree, as did most of the characters. It was more superficial though, which isn't necessarily horrible for the time. This two face didn't come in until late in the movie so unfortunately he didn't get the same growth as the true two face that he needed, but he was a good "one face". I know that is a bad joke.

--The Riddler--Perfectly cast, perfectly acted. He commits crimes to prove how smart he is.

Riddler wasn't in this movie so I won't comment.

2. Batman is "Bruce Wayne". NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. In his mind, he IS Batman. Bruce Wayne is the ALTER EGO. Bruce died when his parents hit the pavement.

I'm pretty sure the movie was trying to portray his obsession with Batman, it is really a dual part of him. Batman is truly obsessed to the point of slightly bad mental health when it comes to villains. Obviously Bruce had to be trained and develop that exact persona, but he was always less interested in his human side of things, that was more of an act. He's never been like Tony stark, who has absolutely no problem enjoying a wild night out.

Yea, I think "I don't know if there will ever be a time when you don't need Batman." sums it up pretty well.

3. Batman is a genius, who developed his own technology. This is also purposeful--IF HE USED HIS COMPANY'S PRODUCTS, HE WOULD EASILY BE FOUND OUT. This was explored, but left unresolved in the film Dark Knight. Why? Don't feel bad. Goyer and Nolan can't figure it out either. That's why they didn't fucking resolve it.

That is true that using his company for exotic and rare materials would be a sore thumb, now as far as I researched, he often bought these materials in large amounts from different companies to cover up what he was doing, much more than he actually needed.

There were some people who hated Peter Parker for organic shooters, but then again it made some sense although it robbed him of most of his "genius". At the end of the day Batman has to get his materials from somewhere. I'm not saying they did a perfect job, and I can see what you're saying, but I guess they were trying to be "real" about it.

These are things Nolan fucking ignored. It is possible to make a movie that is open to new audiences, but stays faithful to the value of the original ideas. Ask Burton, Schumacher, ask Michael Bay for his example, TRANSFORMERS.

True, but also Transformers had many more characters with less depth to cover, and being the base movie they didn't have to dig far. Any other movie I can think of with "The" superhero always twisted things some. This is because:

1. It will be more accessible to the main audience, which is the majority of the profit. It isn't marketable to do it for the 1% of the population who are hardcore fans.

2. Some things just don't translate well to film.

Nolan never loved Batman. He doesn't care. He saw it was something to stick his dick in and he did. Batman is not something to be lifted by retards who have to cover their mouths when they eat so they don't dribble on themselves. It is to approached like any other firmly established piece of art.

I can't say how much he cares about Batman so I again won't comment.

And I am the only one who gives a shit.

Generally the most hardcore of fans will be dissatisfied with something, but at the end of the day someone is always going to have an issue, if it stayed to it's roots people would have complained it was "too superficial" and lacked any real substance. Or that it was "over the top". Don't forget those Bat Skates.

Ultimately I liked his take on the film because it showed a person who was basically fighting an war that can never be fully won, but he also fought one within himself. That made him deep, and that made people relate to him as he was human, comic characters always do better when they have flaws and are somewhat human.

[pinstrike]

Ok, the super-sanity thing is an idea that was explored in Arkham Asylum, and had nothing to do with the Joker's "punk rock anarchist seeking redemption through destruction" crap in the movie. It implied that whatever made him the way he was stripped any filters between himself and reality, and he responds to everything individually and entirely, which is why he doesn't have one solid personality--it explains the clownish prankster, sociopath genius contrast. It would have been good, and translated into film well, and I would have embraced it. They made the Joker Tyler Durden.

There is a lot to be said about superficial films. Batman Forever and Robin were superficial yes, but they achieved perfection visually and atmospherically. A perfect piece of an idea is much better than a dozen mediocre ones.

Yes, Batman ordered the COMPONENTS of his technology from all over, and developed it for new uses himself. He used the money from his company, of course, but not the company's actual products.

The concept of Batman is someone who has become everything they can. They have tuned every part of their body and mind to a principle and are literally the best human they can be. If he isn't in peak physical condition, if he isn't a genius, then he has failed at this, and is not Batman. SO when I say to people "That isn't Batman" in regards to Mr. Bale (whom I still respect, as his portrayal of Bruce was Nolan's fault, and he was the next logical choice for Batman), I am not lying.

And once again--there is the conflict of the ever-losing war inside Batman, but not a conflict of self. He knows who he is--Batman. And he knows who he has to pretend to be at times to make his mission wholly possible--"Bruce Wayne".

I will agree that the depth of a character is important to any media, but the depth cannot compromise the integrity of the art itself.

Also, Comics are comics, and comic book movies shouldn't try so hard to try not to be what they are. A comic is not always a widely respected medium with pretentious sophisticates, but so often the films try to pander to them instead of the people who would enjoy it for what it is.

Film is an art. As much so as painting, or sketching or music. And one does not change the colours to a painting to fit the time, and call in better. If so, Andy Warhol's pop art image of Monroe would be black and pink and the eyes would be bleeding or some shit to pander to the emo kids who call themselves artists and art afficianados. But we don't do it. Because we respect the medium. We respect the principle behind it as art as well as entertainment.
Film is, perhaps, too business focused. There is no principle behind so much of it. That is what gave birth to thing called The rebooted "Batman", The Dark Knight.

It is not a matter of fanboyism, it is a matter simply of not fixing what isn't broken.

Also, here's a thought: When a film or other artpiece begins catering to a certain audience other than the one that initially embraces it, it is harder to enjoy or even respect the artpiece.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

My computer just had to freeze up in the middle of typing this due to that stupid application. I really hate that.

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Ok, the super-sanity thing is an idea that was explored in Arkham Asylum, and had nothing to do with the Joker's "punk rock anarchist seeking redemption through destruction" crap in the movie. It implied that whatever made him the way he was stripped any filters between himself and reality, and he responds to everything individually and entirely, which is why he doesn't have one solid personality--it explains the clownish prankster, sociopath genius contrast. It would have been good, and translated into film well, and I would have embraced it. They made the Joker Tyler Durden.

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

There is a lot to be said about superficial films. Batman Forever and Robin were superficial yes, but they achieved perfection visually and atmospherically. A perfect piece of an idea is much better than a dozen mediocre ones.

However that "perfection" is subjective to each individual viewing it. Many would say that those movies were in fact mediocre and didn't capture the "classic" classic Batman essence which is much darker.

It is like the TMNT, the comics were originally very dark, which the mainstream media does not know. Adult language and everything. However the characters gained the height of their popularity in the 80's with the cartoons most came to know and love. This however strayed far from it's roots. The movies came out and started dark and got much lighter, until the 2003' reboot. Now it was most popular in it's light hearted days, but people often mistake that for it's roots. As a person you just have to love the characters for what they are at the time (I enjoyed the media), or you just don't.

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Yes, Batman ordered the COMPONENTS of his technology from all over, and developed it for new uses himself. He used the money from his company, of course, but not the company's actual products.

I agree here.

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

The concept of Batman is someone who has become everything they can. They have tuned every part of their body and mind to a principle and are literally the best human they can be. If he isn't in peak physical condition, if he isn't a genius, then he has failed at this, and is not Batman. SO when I say to people "That isn't Batman" in regards to Mr. Bale (whom I still respect, as his portrayal of Bruce was Nolan's fault, and he was the next logical choice for Batman), I am not lying.

It is true that Batman is supposed to be the best a human can be, there's no denying that. However did they actually imply him as "not a genius". If anything he knew what he was doing and did it "perfectly" like he always does (Joker too, their jobber auras only negated when they were within range of each other). He definitely seemed like he was in great shape.


I agree with your comment on his concept, but I assume they went this way in the movie for "realism" and practicability (he wouldn't have the time to constantly update everything, and act out as Bruce). The "voice" many people criticized was an example of this.

Furthermore in the other previously mentioned Bat-movies (particularly the GC ones), was there much implication or "use" of his genius or athletic ability, or was it just "expected to be known" because he is Batman?

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

And once again--there is the conflict of the ever-losing war inside Batman, but not a conflict of self. He knows who he is--Batman. And he knows who he has to pretend to be at times to make his mission wholly possible--"Bruce Wayne".

Yup, Bruce is an act. However in the movie he had to have that conflict because of the way movies are and how they pace. The relationship he had wouldn't have been blown out of proportion either, but people relate to love, so there will almost never be a movie without a love story.

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

I will agree that the depth of a character is important to any media, but the depth cannot compromise the integrity of the art itself.

Again that part is very subjective on the person.

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Also, Comics are comics, and comic book movies shouldn't try so hard to try not to be what they are. A comic is not always a widely respected medium with pretentious sophisticates, but so often the films try to pander to them instead of the people who would enjoy it for what it is.

That's because only a small percentage of the market who watches these are hardcore fans, so they would be out of business trying to do so. It would be like me making a game that could only be played on the highest of computer specs, limiting it's playability to 1% of the population, something that PS3 kind of did to itself by making it's system so advanced at first.

Either way, you have to market to the majority or it will fail as a major film, (although it might become a cult classic later.)

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Film is an art. As much so as painting, or sketching or music. And one does not change the colours to a painting to fit the time, and call in better. If so, Andy Warhol's pop art image of Monroe would be black and pink and the eyes would be bleeding or some shit to pander to the emo kids who call themselves artists and art afficianados. But we don't do it. Because we respect the medium. We respect the principle behind it as art as well as entertainment.
Film is, perhaps, too business focused. There is no principle behind so much of it. That is what gave birth to thing called The rebooted "Batman", The Dark Knight.

Well people think that Nicholson's version of the joker in that Batman movie was classic. People think the Superman cartoons of the 40's were classic. Some things just remain timeless. What made this movie what it was wasn't the fact that it was "today's time", but more of the fact that the line between what is "good" and what isn't can be so easily crossed and the line isn't easy to identify. That is what made the movie what it was.

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

It is not a matter of fanboyism, it is a matter simply of not fixing what isn't broken.

I was actually referring to more of the director in question, in the sense that "liking " a character more doesn't mean that person can make a better film.

Dec 17, 2008 19:58:50 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Also, here's a thought: When a film or other artpiece begins catering to a certain audience other than the one that initially embraces it, it is harder to enjoy or even respect the artpiece.

This was simply this version of this person's art. While I don't think his main goal was "catering" to one audience as much as making a film for everyone to enjoy, even Batfans. Which from the responses I can say were mostly positive from what I've seen.

[pinstrike]

Then they are not Batfans. It would be the same if you called yourself a Christian, but you went to a Mosque and agreed with what they said, too. So--you're not a Christian, you're Muslim. But, no, you agree with Jesus too. So, you're a hypocrite. Yes. Purported Batman fans that enjoyed the Batman Begins or Dark Knight films are hypocrites.

I know you were talking about the director. He didn't fix what wasn't broken.

The theme of what limits are to good and evil is a solid one, but it wasn't properly explored. You had a punk-rock glam rocker anarchist who was obsessed with duality and human nature. That was the Joker, in case you're confused--like I am.
And you had a man who kind of fought crime, and didn't like it, and didn't want to do it, and didn't feel like he had to anymore, and who's one rule was don't kill. But...that's where it ended. The concept of society's love affair with order was haphazardly tossed into a single scene and people I guess just assumed that that was part of said theme of good versus evil. It wasn't. It was just kind of...there. There was no resolution to how one overcomes an evil that has no limits, there was no answer reached, which made the theme empty. Batman resorts to kicking solid ass in a construction project, and flips out his little gauntlet ejector. That's how he wins. A fistfight. So...might makes right? Is that what he's saying? Who knows?

You don't HAVE to cater to hardcore fans. But you CAN make a film that is appealing to most, and still is faithful. Refer to the Burton films. Darker, more artsy/horror feel, still good. Still good.

We agree that Bruce is the act. They just should have made that a point instead of inverting it.

Look, I just read a new graphic novel. It is a Batman graphic novel, and it is realistic. It makes the story fit with a possible real-world Gotham--with the look of the characters, the story, etc. BUT IT DOESN'T SUCK. In fact, it's very very good. Which means it can be done. Nolan just can't do it. The novel's called "JOKER". By Brian Azarrello and Lee Burmejo. It's worth every penny. As good, I'd say, as the Killing Joke.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 21, 2008 13:36:31 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Then they are not Batfans. It would be the same if you called yourself a Christian, but you went to a Mosque and agreed with what they said, too. So--you're not a Christian, you're Muslim. But, no, you agree with Jesus too. So, you're a hypocrite. Yes. Purported Batman fans that enjoyed the Batman Begins or Dark Knight films are hypocrites.

The comparison isn't quite the same for the following reasons:

AChristian is in fact allowed to learn and explore about other religions. Also Christianity has a plethora of denominations, it is the same principle, but they are done in many different approaches.

Batman would in this case be the "religion", and the denominations would be the artists' attempt to make their own work. Now this would be the equivalent of saying, "those who don't practice my denomination" are wrong, even though they are the same thing at heart.

Dec 21, 2008 13:36:31 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

I know you were talking about the director. He didn't fix what wasn't broken.

Well he added some things that were in fact completely missing from most of the films, particularly some of the cheesier ones. In all honesty comic characters were suffering a lot in the 90's and lost a lot of mainstream fans trying to mainstream. It wasn't until very recently that they figured out how to appease the mainstream fans, hardcore fans, and the general audience who only knows the character is some guy in a cape. They learned how to implement tragedy and character into a movie, instead of the same old "perfect, happy ending" with cheesiness that drove so many off.

Dec 21, 2008 13:36:31 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

The theme of what limits are to good and evil is a solid one, but it wasn't properly explored. You had a punk-rock glam rocker anarchist who was obsessed with duality and human nature. That was the Joker, in case you're confused--like I am.
And you had a man who kind of fought crime, and didn't like it, and didn't want to do it, and didn't feel like he had to anymore, and who's one rule was don't kill. But...that's where it ended. The concept of society's love affair with order was haphazardly tossed into a single scene and people I guess just assumed that that was part of said theme of good versus evil. It wasn't. It was just kind of...there. There was no resolution to how one overcomes an evil that has no limits, there was no answer reached, which made the theme empty. Batman resorts to kicking solid ass in a construction project, and flips out his little gauntlet ejector. That's how he wins. A fistfight. So...might makes right? Is that what he's saying? Who knows?

That's because evil is never completely overcome and even the "whitest" of knights can fall into darkness, in the end the people have to look inside themselves (sounds a bit cheesy written I know) and choose what they want to be. Do they give in to the pressure around them or rise up. Often in this movie the "good" were actually "bad" which added to the corruption, and the villain thought he was doing the world good. So who was right? The good often wear black, and the bad white. It is often hard to know who to trust.

Dec 21, 2008 13:36:31 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

You don't HAVE to cater to hardcore fans. But you CAN make a film that is appealing to most, and still is faithful. Refer to the Burton films. Darker, more artsy/horror feel, still good. Still good.

It's probably better if you didn't cater to just the hardcore fans, because most wouldn't understand what was going on and wouldn't see the movie. You would lose a lot of money that way. Many hardcore fans appeared to be satisfied.

Dec 21, 2008 13:36:31 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

We agree that Bruce is the act. They just should have made that a point instead of inverting it.

How do you feel they did that, what in the movie exactly?

Dec 21, 2008 13:36:31 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Look, I just read a new graphic novel. It is a Batman graphic novel, and it is realistic. It makes the story fit with a possible real-world Gotham--with the look of the characters, the story, etc. BUT IT DOESN'T SUCK. In fact, it's very very good. Which means it can be done. Nolan just can't do it. The novel's called "JOKER". By Brian Azarrello and Lee Burmejo. It's worth every penny. As good, I'd say, as the Killing Joke.

Books definitely tend to stick closer to the origins as they have more depth and time to develop the characters and don't need to find a resolution so quickly.

[pinstrike]

All good, what you just said. All accurate.

But in answer to your question, Bruce Wayne was portrayed as a man, Bruce Wayne, who played a character, Batman, and who did not even feel it was entirely necessary. There was a sense of apathy, of tiredness that gave way to him looking, actively pursuing a way out of it. How much of a hero can one be if he hasn't the conviction to do what he knows is right until he is certain he has succeeded?

That's what it was in the movie. His scrambling for Harvey Dent to release him from the cowl for a normal life and the love of a girl. Hardly noble or heroic. In searching to make Batman human, they took away what he was.

It's something about Batman, about the ever-failing conflict, but the vow he made, to continue fighting to restore good in a world where good's shelf life was about as long as it takes to get back to the Cave, his undying commitment and conviction to not give up, that makes him a hero. When you take that away, you no longer have the hero.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well he had the undying conviction at the end, but the love story and Harvey was just one of the "movie things" which were to show character conflict within himself. A movie is comparatively short to other forms of media and therefore must build tension fast.

Much like the interrogation scene, Batman wouldn't normally have to resort to physical force, he'd use his intelligence. But it was a movie and therefore that scene made it more intense.

[complexbrother]

The movie was almost perfect.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jul 9, 2009 14:45:03 GMT -5 complexbrother said:

The movie was almost perfect.

What took the cake for you, in a good way?