Batman...

[RandyS]

"Camp" is a term that is used so often and in different ways it can mean anything now.

It's also been used incorrectly (and in my opinion, unfairly) to dismiss any show or movie made before 2003.

That said, I agree with Warped, Batman Begins is a enjoyable film, despite the inclusions of Ra's Al Ghul (a character I've never liked), and Rachel Dawes, a pointless addition that I still think should have been Vicki Vale.

 

[Joerib]

So I just watched Batman and Robin and it reminded me of the TV show, so would it mean its a sequel to the TV show?? lol

 

[RandyS]

So I just watched Batman and Robin and it reminded me of the TV show, so would it mean its a sequel to the TV show?? lol

I've always seen it as a homage. Just not a very good one.

 

[Christopher]

That said, I agree with Warped, Batman Begins is a enjoyable film, despite the inclusions of Ra's Al Ghul (a character I've never liked), and Rachel Dawes, a pointless addition that I still think should have been Vicki Vale.

I don't see how Vicki would've worked in that context. The character needed to be a childhood friend of Bruce's, someone who'd known him from the beginning, someone he trusted so much that holding onto her respect meant more to him than avenging his parents' murder. The character also needed to be a district attorney, the one idealist within a corrupt justice system. She was far from pointless, since Bruce would never have become Batman if she hadn't steered him away from vengeance toward justice. She was the embodiment of (or at least the spokesperson for) everything Batman fights for, the ideals that make him a hero rather than a psycho vigilante.

If any pre-existing character could've filled Rachel's role, it would've been Harvey Dent, not Vicki Vale. But obviously they felt the film needed a love interest.

 

[Trekker4747]

So I just watched Batman and Robin and it reminded me of the TV show, so would it mean its a sequel to the TV show?? lol

I've always seen it as a homage. Just not a very good one.

Homage, an offensive ass-raping big difference. B&R is the latter.

 

[A beaker full of death]

"Batman is an insane sociopath" is one of the things that I don't get and "follow" when it comes to Batman and is one of the main reasons Frank Miller's "All Star Batman and Robin age Twelve" sucks so much.

yeah, the whole thing really originated with Miller, who has said many times that Batman is insane (see the extras on the Daredevil DVD, for instance). I'm not a fan of this interpretation.

I've always gone with Superman being the "real guy" with Clark Kent being "the disguise"

Ditto.

So with Batman is the "real man" the playboy billionaire or the sociopathic crime-fighter?

Well, we have to stick with the source material. Bruce Wayne, like Don Diego de la Vega, is a rich wastrel, a front for the activities of Batman. So Batman is the real man.

 

[Manticore]

If any pre-existing character could've filled Rachel's role, it would've been Harvey Dent, not Vicki Vale. But obviously they felt the film needed a love interest.

I have to admit, I'm intrigued by the direction this could be taken.

 

[Warped9]

The Dark Knight (2008) *****

A madman reigns terror and chaos upon Gotham City.

A movie like Avengers might make the big bucks as well as other superheroes being popular, but no one is doing the superhero like Christopher Nolan's take on Batman.

Watching this is a whole other experience in this genre. Granted it, too, sometimes goes over-the-top, but you somehow excuse it because everything seems so much more grounded than in other films.

This film really does talk about the idea of what it could conceivably be like if someone really did suit up to fight the criminals. They certainly wouldn't just pack it in. They would definitely fight and someone truly bent could rise up to take on the hero.

I really like this film, but it isn't perfect. On a minor note the infamous Batman growl seems more pronounced here than in Batman Begins. Bruce seized onto the idea of Harvey Dent as saviour a little too easily and likely prompted by his pining for Rachel. Too bad he couldn't see that she was already out of reach. It was clear she really didn't know him. I also don't really agree with the ending thought that Batman had to be made into a hunted criminal just to cover up what Harvey had done. If a scapegoat were really need there were certainly other more "worthy" candidates available in a snake pit like Gotham City.

I mentioned some over-the-top moments: Well, just when did the Joker have the time and foresight and opportunity to so thoroughly lace the hospital with explosives? Seeing the tractor trailer flip end-over-end struck me as highly unlikely. Catching Rachel in midair, not deploying the cape as glider and yet they still survived the fall unscathed!!! And there were a few other moments. Well, it is a superhero film.

Watching this again, though, it is a good followup to Batman Begins. But it does make me wonder: as much as I look forward to The Dark Knight Rises I do wonder about how Nolan will be able to top The Dark Knight.

 

[Trekker4747]

"Batman is an insane sociopath" is one of the things that I don't get and "follow" when it comes to Batman and is one of the main reasons Frank Miller's "All Star Batman and Robin age Twelve" sucks so much.

yeah, the whole thing really originated with Miller, who has said many times that Batman is insane (see the extras on the Daredevil DVD, for instance). I'm not a fan of this interpretation.

I've always gone with Superman being the "real guy" with Clark Kent being "the disguise"

Ditto.

So with Batman is the "real man" the playboy billionaire or the sociopathic crime-fighter?

Well, we have to stick with the source material. Bruce Wayne, like Don Diego de la Vega, is a rich wastrel, a front for the activities of Batman. So Batman is the real man.

I, mostly, agree but think the "real man" lies somewhere in between with Batman being Bruce's Mr. Hyde to "public figure Bruce Wayne's" Dr. Jekyll. Neither persona is the "real man." As Bruce he turns up the douchebag, clueless, billionaire to 11. As Batman he turns up the "ruthless crimefighter" to 26.

Who he "really is" is probably closer to how he behaves in private, with Alfred or anyone else who knows his true identity. When he's brooding in the Batcave or something we're seeing the "real guy."

 

[Christopher]

Bruce seized onto the idea of Harvey Dent as saviour a little too easily and likely prompted by his pining for Rachel. Too bad he couldn't see that she was already out of reach. It was clear she really didn't know him. I also don't really agree with the ending thought that Batman had to be made into a hunted criminal just to cover up what Harvey had done. If a scapegoat were really need there were certainly other more "worthy" candidates available in a snake pit like Gotham City.

It's about more than that, though. The arc of the two films so far is the redemption of Gotham. In the first film, the city was so corrupt and lost that it needed Batman and his extreme methods to save it from itself. Batman gave Gotham a symbol of hope to start pulling them out of despair and back toward the light, but that was just the first step, an extreme measure for an extreme situation. The next step was healing Gotham to the point that the system could work again and the people would have enough hope and belief in their city that they could make it a safe, just place on their own, without needing the crutch of Batman anymore. Building up Harvey was about that, about giving Gotham a legitimate champion who worked within the system and out in the open. Batman could only take the city's recovery so far, and he needed to hand it off to Harvey to take it the rest of the way. Batman's sacrifice at the end was about completing that transition: replacing Batman with Harvey as the city's symbol of hope and justice, weaning Gotham of its dependence on Batman and enabling it to stand on its own as a healthy society once more.

I, mostly, agree but think the "real man" lies somewhere in between with Batman being Bruce's Mr. Hyde to "public figure Bruce Wayne's" Dr. Jekyll. Neither persona is the "real man." As Bruce he turns up the douchebag, clueless, billionaire to 11. As Batman he turns up the "ruthless crimefighter" to 26.

Who he "really is" is probably closer to how he behaves in private, with Alfred or anyone else who knows his true identity. When he's brooding in the Batcave or something we're seeing the "real guy."

Well, the real guy is the brilliant and ultra-capable man devoted to his crimefighting mission above all else. So in that sense, Batman is the real persona. But the way he presents himself as Batman, the theatricality and iconography of it, is calculated psychological warfare to strike fear into the hearts of criminals and instill hope in their beleaguered victims.

 

[Warped9]

Bruce seized onto the idea of Harvey Dent as saviour a little too easily and likely prompted by his pining for Rachel. Too bad he couldn't see that she was already out of reach. It was clear she really didn't know him. I also don't really agree with the ending thought that Batman had to be made into a hunted criminal just to cover up what Harvey had done. If a scapegoat were really need there were certainly other more "worthy" candidates available in a snake pit like Gotham City.

It's about more than that, though. The arc of the two films so far is the redemption of Gotham. In the first film, the city was so corrupt and lost that it needed Batman and his extreme methods to save it from itself. Batman gave Gotham a symbol of hope to start pulling them out of despair and back toward the light, but that was just the first step, an extreme measure for an extreme situation. The next step was healing Gotham to the point that the system could work again and the people would have enough hope and belief in their city that they could make it a safe, just place on their own, without needing the crutch of Batman anymore. Building up Harvey was about that, about giving Gotham a legitimate champion who worked within the system and out in the open. Batman could only take the city's recovery so far, and he needed to hand it off to Harvey to take it the rest of the way. Batman's sacrifice at the end was about completing that transition: replacing Batman with Harvey as the city's symbol of hope and justice, weaning Gotham of its dependence on Batman and enabling it to stand on its own as a healthy society once more.

Except the symbol of Harvey is a lie. Harvey did indeed live long enough to be a villain. He crossed over to where Bruce wouldn't go. Harvey got to the point where he was willing and did murder.

And isn't that one of the things to be brought up in TDKR, that Harvey was a lie?

 

[doubleohfive]

Yeah, you and I know that. But at the end of The Dark Knight, the only people who really knew Harvey was "a lie" were the Joker, Batman, Gordon, and Gordon's son (if he was even cognizant enough to know what the fuck was going on.)

What after-the-fact opinions Gotham has about Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight Rises has yet to be revealed, but I'd say that despite the fact that Harvey became a villain, the whole point of Batman's sacrifice at the end of The Dark Knight is that the image of Harvey as a symbol of hope for Gotham was preserved after all.

 

[sonak]

I still don't get why they had to pin the blame on Batman, though. Keep Dent as the heroic symbol, pin the deaths on the Joker. If they're going to lie, why make it a stupid lie?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I think a Nolan verse Penguin and Riddler would be very similar to the versions we saw in Arkham City. I've called the Arkham games a near perfect merging of the Timm'Verse and Nolan'Verse before. Penguin was awesome in that game, and he's been pretty much a manipulating gangster character for a while now. Using the Iceberg Lounge as a front for his operations.

I also though there was a little bit of Burton in there

The version of The Penguin in the game Arkham City is the winner.

Yeah, but I kind of cringe every time I see that version since I found out what they replaced the monocle with I mean saying that it had to hurt is probably a major understatement.

 

[Trekker4747]

I still don't get why they had to pin the blame on Batman, though. Keep Dent as the heroic symbol, pin the deaths on the Joker. If they're going to lie, why make it a stupid lie?

Enough people would know that the Joker was terrorizing the ferries and captured by Batman while Gordon's son got kidnapped and Dent killed. It'd be hard to "gag" that many people for such a lie to work.

But why pin Dent's death on any real person? Why not say Dent was killed/kidnapped along with Gordon's family by a factious person who remains at large?

 

[Christopher]

Except the symbol of Harvey is a lie.

Yes, but it's what the city needed. The truth would've destroyed their renewed faith in justice. Ultimately it isn't Batman or Harvey that matters. One person can't save a city. The people of the city had to choose to save themselves, to decide for themselves to lead a better life and stand up for their own ideals. Batman and Harvey were the symbols, the myths, that inspired them to do that. And the whole point of both these movies is that the myth is more important than the man. Because men are fallible and mortal, but myths can remain pure and eternal and continue to inspire people to better themselves.

Which makes me inclined to give credence to some speculation I've heard about The Dark Knight Rises, the idea that it might involve

Spoiler: TDKR speculation

Bruce passing on the mantle of Batman to Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, the myth transcending the man.

But why pin Dent's death on any real person? Why not say Dent was killed/kidnapped along with Gordon's family by a factious person who remains at large?

Because, as I said, the people of Gotham needed to be weaned off of Batman. Batman gave them hope and inspired them to start building a functional city again, but his methods, necessary as they were in the depths of the chaos and corruption, are themselves too lawless and rough to be appropriate in a healthy, stable society with a functional legal and judicial system. So the people had to renounce their old, rough-hewn symbol of hope (Batman) in favor of a more civilized one (Harvey). They needed to reject Batman's methods, to outgrow their need for him, in order to truly take responsibility for creating and preserving the society he wanted them to achieve.

It's kind of like the Operative in Serenity. He did what he did in order to create a better world, but he understood that the dark methods he employed meant that he could never have a place in that world. It's not exactly like that, but there's a similarity.

 

[Trekker4747]

It's odd to say, though, that the city needed to "out grow" Batman considering he'd only been working for less than a year which is hardly enough time to completely turn the crime-ridden hellhole that is Gotham into a city that could self-sustain its crime fighting procedures, especially considering corruption still existed in the police department.

I don't disagree with your analysis and it is what I think they were going for but at the same time it doesn't make much sense in "reality," Gotham still, very much, had countless problems beyond what the local police department(s) and justice departments could do.

 

[Christopher]

I don't disagree with your analysis and it is what I think they were going for but at the same time it doesn't make much sense in "reality," Gotham still, very much, had countless problems beyond what the local police department(s) and justice departments could do.

But the point isn't that all their problems were solved -- the point is that the people themselves had become inspired to stand up and address those problems themselves. As was symbolized when the people of the city (well, mainly Tiny Lister) refused to sink to the level the Joker tried to drag them down to, and essentially saved themselves.

I hesitate to invoke the "teach a man to fish" cliche, but it kind of works here. Nolan's Batman is more about being a symbol to inspire others than about doing all the do-gooding himself.