I forgot about the reactor thing. Sure it didn’t work out but the whole idea was cheap, clean electricity for everyone. Baby formula is nice and has its place but giving everyone essentially free electricity for life would be a real quality-of-life improvement as well. But you need investors to get that off the ground and those people are more easily swayed over caviar than cheese-whiz on crackers.
Catwoman wasn’t looking at the long game here. And that’s not to defend everyone with wealth in Gotham but more directly Wayne & Co.
Batman was created during the Depression. Bruce Wayne being a rich millionaire who fought crime was something kids would like to pretend to be. The help-the-poor angle didn’t really kick in until the late 1960’s, though there were the occasional charity events beforehand, because that’s what society millionaires attended (and a good place to introduce a sociopathical villain with a code name). So any make-it-grim-and-realistic is a 180-degree turn from the original, escapist intent.
No, Catwoman wasn’t 100% right either, and I disliked her so much that it’s not like I’m automatically in her court. (Stealing his mother’s pearls? Really? And then he just gives them to her? Nice!)
It just seemed like everyone was so flawed you couldn’t like anyone. The two people I ended up liking best was the kid in the last movie that is supposed to become Robin or whatever, and Gary Oldman.
And yes, the speechifying did go on forever, with lots of points, good and bad, and in the end, nothing got done and nothing got accomplished.
Just like real life!
I think the truth is, the movie didn’t entertain. Not me anyway. It seemed like it was trying too hard to be some kind of allegory while at the same time containing the central ridiculousness of a man dressed up as a Bat.
Of course he is. The mob boss in the first movie points this out to him, which is what started his journey of self discovery (quoting from memory, forgive me if I get it wrong):
“You’ve never tasted desperate. You’re Bruce Wayne, the prince of Gotham. You’d have to travel 1,000 miles to find someone who doesn’t know your name.”
He knew that he could give his money to charity, which he does in parallel with being Batman, but he also knew that his parents had given away lots of money and they still ended up dead. When he was flying back to Gotham with Alfred, he talks about how he could do what his parents did, but people would just think of him as another rich schmuck who could give away $20 million without blinking an eye. He wanted to do something more.
I agree with you that TDKR dragged a bit, I think they could’ve cut 20 minutes from it (most of the scenes in the underground jail) and made a much tighter movie. I didn’t think that Anne Hathaway was terrible, but I admit I may have been blinded by the Catwoman outfit.
I always thought that the original Batman idea was more of a moral crusader who happened to be a billionaire who used his money to fund his masked-vigilantism as a sort of benevolent rich guy who got his hands dirty.
I always got the post-Miller Batman stuff to be set in a much more of a shades of gray type universe, and the whole 1% / masses stuff just falls straight into that, just like the Batman-as-obsessed violent psycho does. He’s a somewhat sadistic violent nut, but he’s a violent nut on OUR side- same thing.
I don’t even think Anne Hathaway was all that sexy. Sure, she tried really hard, but she’s no Michelle Pfieffer. That’s all it was - trying, and sticking her ass out when she rode the motorcycle. Pfft.
I did, everything from the character to the actress felt out of place. She was just dull and had no good lines, Talia’s actress would have made a better Catwoman. I just couldn’t see why Bruce Wayne would be so interested in her.
Then keep in mind that this is just one interpretation of the character - one out of dozens or hundreds or thousands. None of them is the real Batman. They’re all just different ways of looking at a basic character and the world he inhabits.
There were zillions of rich guys who secretly fought crime in the pulp magazines before Batman appeared. Just as there were zillions of better-than-you strongman heroes before Superman. In the most simplistic terms, Batman was Zorro and Superman was Doc Savage. Heck, in many ways the original Superman was more realistic than Doc Savage. They were derivative characters that distilled the essences into something pure and iconic.
That worked as long as Batman was a sane avenger fighting the insanity that was crime. It stopped working for me when they started making Batman as crazy as his foes. It was good decision for DC, because I seem to be in the minority, but they’ve been fighting this problem in the comics for 30 years as they keep going over the line, alienating the fans, and then having to reboot.
The first series of Batman movies played with this; Joker is, um, batshit crazy, but he’s sane enough to recognize that Batman has to be more like him than different to enter Joker’s Gotham.
The second series never could make up its mind. Was Batman crazy or obsessed? Was Joker crazier than Batman? What is Bane? He’s not even a character; he’s just a bomb to be defused.
The Dark Knight Rises was an awful movie in almost every way. (Can somebody explain why they spent the entire first part of the movie demonstrating that Batman needed an exoskeleton and then threw that whole plot line out of the window?) It’s fanboy porn just like Kick-Ass, whose message was “there aren’t really such things as superheroes, but if you believe hard enough in comic books then a real superhero will appear to save your life. Tinker Bell lives!” Then you dial that up to 11 and add an atom bomb with Every. Second. Counting! Except for the seconds wasted in mushy good-byes. Bad characters, bad plot, bad action scenes, bad thinking. Superman saves the world from atom bombs. Batman should save individuals. Anaamika is right about the silly message it tried to lug around every scene. Noblesse oblige was once taken seriously but was killed under its own weight when the privileged started saying that the poor needed to be worthy of their savior. That’s the second Batman in a nutshell. He started well but then drained into the sewer of its own abscesses.
The script had more of a French Revolution vibe than an Occupy vibe. Recall that the citizens stormed the prison and freed inmates a la the Bastille, and then this was followed by a reign of terror with Cillian Murphy filling the role of Robespierre.
But either way, Nolan is commenting on class envy, so it might as well have been about Occupy.
I think it’s pretty clear that Nolan takes a dim view of rabble rousers and revolutions. Between the second film’s take on the War on Terror and this film’s take on the dissatisfaction of the poor, I get the impression Nolan comes at things from a pretty conservative angle.
Is there really a contrast between what Batman is in this series and what he used to be, or is the contrast just between how he seems to you in this series, and how he seemed to you before you’d seen it?
In other words, is it that this series has portrayed a different kind of Batman, or is it that this series is pointing out a flaw that has existed (perhaps uncommented) all along in the very concept of Batman?
This is a big piece of why I like Batman so much, by the way: you can make great drama and great comedy with him and they both feel organic to the character.
A lot of the stuff that people are complaining about was pulled directly from the comics, so it’s probably just an interpretation that some people haven’t read. I recommend reading Year One, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, and Knightfall, in that order. There’s a few more, but those four cover the main arc that Nolan used. He switched things around though a lot of the time. Instead of Joker burning the large pile of money, it was Batman. Since Nolan killed Harvey, it was Scarecrow acting as the judge in the fake court room. Random stuff like that. It was, however, the most faithful to the source version of Batman on film so far though.
Yes but then the people are shown to be worse than 1% and we should all be glad to be “oppressed” but the glorious 1% because we’re all terrible cowardly scum who put people out on ice flows. Even Catwoman hates the “new order” “This was a family’s home once.”
I’m sorry but every single live action Batman movie sucked. Ok the 60’s camp version was OK becuase it is what it intends to be. The Burton ones suck. The other ones suck. And the these Nolan ones suck. (first two OK-ish but the third on is crap) The movies could be better except for Bale doing that weird “Batman Voice”. STUPID AS HELL.
If want good Batman stuff look at the animated stuff from the 90’s and 00’s.
Yes. That is to say, I’m sure it’s a bit of both. This one cast a fictional Batman into a very real world and made it all seem kind of sad and pathetic.
I don’t want to read the comics, btw. I have nothing against comics, I swear! This year or last - I can’t remember which - I went on a comic-reading binge. I must have read like forty different comic books, of all stripes, genres, interests. And I found that I just don’t like comic books. I found myself irritatedly moving past the art to read the story. Too many pictures, not enough words, and I’d rather imagine the imagery than have it be presented to me.
I also don’t really like American animation. Most of it is geared towards children and doesn’t have continuity and is not realistic enough! That’s not to say I don’t like any, I loved Samurai Jack for example. But seeing as how I loved the two Burton films, and own them on DVD, I doubt the animation will be any better.
You REALLY should at least check out an episode or two of the 90s animated Batman show, it is still my favorite version of Batman. The characterizations are just right, the tone and art style is perfect. Not too dark, not too breezy.
That’s never really true. It’s more grounded and less cartoonish in certain ways and you certainly never get the sense Batman is having anything that resembles fun, but there are tons of unrealistic elements: a very successful vigilante who never gets arrested or seriously hurt until the middle of the third movie, the international gang of evil ninjas who runs the world or whatever…
That’s not to say I don’t like any, I loved Samurai Jack for example. But seeing as how I loved the two Burton films, and own them on DVD, I doubt the animation will be any better.