Nolan's work never suffered the deserved criticsm of the worst of the MCU, which--again--is no better than WWE / Power Rangers, and certainly not in keeping with Marvel's better work.
"Not keeping with Marvel's better work"? I'll be addressing that below, but, suffice to say, I don't know how that makes sense.
Batman's origin is unique to the character as much as any other.
I guess it felt like it was presented generically. It didn't feel like the final scene was intrinsically from a Batman movie, but a generic superhero movie. It's subjective, but I didn't feel like I was watching a Batman movie.
How is that possible? His system of beliefs and motives for his war were firmly established--all one of the numerous reasons fans and critics thought this adaptation of his origin was the best ever filmed--it felt like the source.
I will concede I'm not a Batman expert, but let's say then that I felt really disconnected from the central character in that movie. I thought I had an idea of who Batman was, but not
Bruce Wayne. He didn't feel distinct from other superheroes who also decide to fight the good fight. He felt like a character in a movie, whereas in the
Iron Man and
Spider-Man examples, they felt like people. It probably helps that the Iron Man and Spider-Man stories are more or less about people trying to find redemption, while Batman is reacting to a tragedy. The former two have something to prove to themselves, Batman doesn't. While his story isn't a bad one, it isn't as personal.
Case in point (and all IMHO), Bruce Wayne doesn't need to be the one in the Batman suit. Robin can take over, and the story is still the same. Only Peter Parker and Tony Stark can be Spider-Man and Iron Man. Once you try to give the mantle to someone else, the story is done; it's just a new superhero comic that's recycling the brand name so it'll still sell.
Your recollection is not correct by any stretch of the imagination. Batman was not originally written that way. The character's only "cheesy" period was during the most strict period of the Comics Code days in from its inception in the early 1950s to the very early Silver Age, until Julius Schwartz (and others) returned the Bat-titles to their detective roots. Even during the height of the 1966 TV series phenomenon, the Bat-titles did not try to emulate that light form of storytelling.
As I said before, I'm not a Batman expert. All I knew was that the '60s show was a faithful adaptation of one era of the comics and that the character can be lighter than the Nolan movies made him and still be accurate to some parts of the source material. Sorry if I recalled incorrectly.
If that was the case, the other MCU films--like the Avengers 1 & 2, The Dark World, etc., would be held in the same regard as The Winter Soldier. They are not.
First correction.
Avengers 1 is held in similar regard as
Winter Soldier. I'm also recalling a few little flicks called
Iron Man 1,
Captain America: The First Avenger and
Civil War (the latter of which curb-stomped
Batman vs. Superman, if I recall correctly), and
Guardians of the Galaxy. The MCU is not a one-hit wonder. There are weak installments, but that's the nature of film and TV series (and considering that the DCEU has yet to have one success in three movies, Marvel is
way ahead of the curve. (Also, I don't think even the weakest MCU installments were as badly received as
all the DCEU movies have. Is there one that is outright hated?)
Start with keeping your mind open to the MCU having Ross--government representative--forgetting that the WSC launched a nuclear missile at Manhattan, which would have decimated more than any disaster in history.
Where is it written that Ross knew about that? (It isn't.)
Mass murder from an unchecked organization, yet they run free, while the Avengers get the blame for...saving the world, and had to be regulated. There's not an ounce of logic in that.
Okay, first of all, I was pointing out that the MCU movies are internally connected and follow up on each other (which you've been trying to disprove with the nuke argument via proof of repeated assertion), so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Secondly, while I agree that Ross's position is inherently illogical, the point is what the
people believe. As Ross says in the movie: "Captain, people are frightened." All they know is that powerful beings are out there, causing chaos, with no checks or balances. (We also have no proof that the people know that the WSC ordered a bomb strike.)
In fact counter to what you're saying, the Sokavian Accords are a very logical outcome in the MCU, and in fact, the MCU has been building to this point since nearly the beginning! Many of the previous movies have raised the question of whether superheroes are a double-edged sword, and if they're a danger, our protection, or both:
Iron Man 2
Senator Stern: “My priority is to get the Iron Man weapon turned over to the people of the United States of America.”
Tony Stark: “Well, you can forget it. I am Iron Man. The suit and I are one. To turn over the Iron Man suit would be to turn over myself, which is tantamount to indentured servitude or prostitution, depending on what state you're in.”
Stern: “Look, I'm no expert…”
Stark: “In prostitution? Of course not, you're a senator. Come on!”
Stern: “I think we're done with the point that he's making. I don't think there's any reason…”
Stark: “The point is you're welcome, I guess.”
Stern: “For what?”
Stark: “Because I'm your nuclear deterrent. It's working. We're safe. America is secure. You want my property? You can't have it. But I did you a big favor. I’ve successfully privatized world peace. What more do you want? For now! I tried to play ball with these [bleep]-clowns.”
The Avengers
World Security Council: “I don't think you understand what you've started. Letting the Avengers loose on this world. They're dangerous.”
Nick Fury: “They surely are. And the whole world knows it. Every world knows it.”
World Security Council: “Was that the point of all this? A statement?
Fury: “A promise.”
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Season 1, episode1, “Pilot”
Mike Peterson: “You said if we worked hard, if we did right, we'd have a place. You said it was enough to be a man but there's better then man! There's gods. And the rest of us? What are we? They're giants. We're what they step on.”
Phil Coulson: “I know. I've seen giants, up close, and that privilege cost me, nearly everything. But the good ones, the real deal? They're not heroes because of what they have that we don't, it's what they do with it. You're right, Mike, it matters who you are.”
Captain America: The Winter Solider
Scudder: “Agent [Natasha Romanoff], you should know that there are some on this committee who feel, given your service record, both for this country and against it, that you belong in a penitentiary, not mouthing off on Capitol Hill.”
Natasha Romanoff: “You’re not going to put me in a prison. You’re not going to put any of us in a prison. You know why?”
Scudder: “Do enlighten us.”
Romanoff: “Because you need us. Yes, the world is a vulnerable place, and yes, we helped make it that way. But we’re also the ones best qualified to defend it. So if you want to arrest me, arrest me. You’ll know where to find me.”
The Avengers: Age of Ultron
Steve Rogers: “Ultron thinks we're [the Avengers] monsters, that we're what's wrong with the world. This isn't just about beating him, it's about whether he's right.”
Captain America: Civil War
Thaddeus Ross: “The world owes the Avengers an un-payable debt. You have fought for us, protected us, risked your lives. But while a great many people see you as heroes, there are some who would prefer the word ‘vigilantes’.”
Natasha Romanoff: “And what word would you use, Mr. Secretary?”
Ross: “How about ‘dangerous’? What would you call a group of US based, enhanced individuals who routinely ignore sovereign borders and inflict their will wherever they choose and who, frankly, seem unconcerned with what they leave behind? New York, Washington D.C., Sokovia, Lagos…”
Steve Rogers: “Okay. That's enough.”
Ross: “In the past four years, you've operated with unlimited power and no supervision. That's an arrangement the governments of the world can no longer tolerate.”
If that's "illogical" build up, I have no idea what dictionary you're using.
