Movie-Specific : The Dark Knight Rises

[tef]

And yet the young and old like ice cream for the same reasons.

[ShogunRua]

And yet the young and old like ice cream for the same reasons.

Just as long as it's not mint.

[CMonster]

I think everybody is arguing to much about the quality of all the Batman films. With the exception of the 2 that can barely even be considered films, I would say all the Burton and Nolan films are worth watching. I would also recommend burning any copies of Batman and Robin you may come across because we can't allow that crap to survive for future generations.

[ShogunRua]

I think everybody is arguing to much about the quality of all the Batman films. With the exception of the 2 that can barely even be considered films, I would say all the Burton and Nolan films are worth watching. I would also recommend burning any copies of Batman and Robin you may come across because we can't allow that crap to survive for future generations.

Heh, I actually liked "Batman Forever" more than "Batman Begins"! They're both lousy and ridiculous, (albeit for slightly different reasons) but one is little less pretentious, and actually has a sliver of comedy here and there. Also, the fight scenes don't use the shaky cam, so they're at least watchable.

[movieboy]

I wish Nolan would spend his time doing movies like Inception, Prestige, Following and Memento rather than making Batman movies.

[ayall]

Shogu, this might be the topic that we disagree on the most... i have the exact opposite feelings as you do towards Batman and the films.

Both Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman, regardless of what you think of either, are mass-produced, popcorn blockbusters. They're simple-minded films meant to appeal primarily to kids.

Yes, they're both "mass-produced, popcorn blockbusters," but what Nolan does is the following...
He doesn't take the easy-out Micheal Bay Transformers route; of putting together an awful plot, awful script, and having no care for the acting/story beyond the CGI Action... Nolan goes all-in, and makes every aspect of the block-buster spectacular... that's why i credit his attention to detail.
I'm certain Nolan could have put half the care into his Batman Films and still succeeded in making "mass-produced, popcorn blockbusters" Batman Films, but he goes a step further and this is more then evident in his work.

The reason so many people like the Burton films, and certainly prefer them to the crap that was "Batman Begins", is because they were funnier. They didn't take themselves seriously. They played the plot with a wink and a nod.

Exactly, Burton filmed his Batman like Micheal Bay filmed his Transformers... he probably didn't even have scripts going in. "They played the plot with a wink and a nod," and this is more then noticeable... i've seen better performances in high school drama dress rehearsals.
Having amazing actors like Jack Nicholson around and not fully utilizing their talent is the shame that Burton brought to his Batman movies. Nolan squeezed all the talent from his crew, and this too is noticeable (and again a credit to Nolan's superior directing abilities).

Comparing any Batman film, by Burton or Nolan, to a piece of great art like "Catcher in the Rye" is plain ridiculous. You're like someone seriously and un-ironically comparing Bugs Bunny cartoons to works by Bergman or Truffaut. The only conclusions I can draw are that you don't like reading very much, nor do you watch many classic films.

My prior analogy (romance novels vs. catcher in the rye), isn't meant to compare Burtons Batman to a Romance Novel or to say Nolans Batman is a Catcher in the Rye, but the difference between Nolans films and Burtons Films.

But you are right, I don't like reading (now) very much(beyond emails, forums and on-line content) nor have i watched many "classic films."
I'll be honest; I took several film course in college, and while I enjoyed many of the "classic" films, it's hard to judge them with hindsight.
It's like you preferring a 1980's dial-up 2400bts modem as opposed to the now cable/dsl internet simply because it was "one of the first" or "classic." While it's nice to examine the history and see how things were done in "the past," it's nearly impossible to prefer "classic" to "modern." This works for technology, which means it also works for movies (though films also have a "Story" and "Art" which are exemptions to my analogy/point and is the "wild card" factor that allows some classics to live on (many of Kubricks contain this factor)).

They're pure entertainment pictures. They have little in the way of ideas and intelligence, and are all riddled with dozens of basic plot holes.

This is true, they both are for entertainment and both have plot holes (as the Batman story has). However i disagree about the "ideas and intelligence" in Nolans films.

I think Nolan did a great job in dissecting the batman/joker characters and psychological methodologies which he specifically brought to the screen in TDK... there are some GREAT lines, such as my favorite;
"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!"


As I have stated, as a Batman Fan, I did really enjoy Burtons Batman and even Batman Returns (80 Tier 7).
I just think that Nolans Batman is superior in every aspect of movies and film making.

Any why I wasn't surprised that many people on this Forum (and in this Thread) liked Burton over Nolan Batman, that's because of the "Nostalgic" Factor.

Watching the two movies (first time) back-to-back, and picking a preference will undoubtedly yield Nolan as superior (and maybe because it's newer(per my CGI/Technology disclaimer)).


Looking at something as simple as the IMDB rating, it's obvious the the mass's agree with my logic.
The Dark Knight - 8.9
Batman Begins - 8.3
Batman - 7.6
Batman Return - 6.9

[TheDenizen]

Miller's version isn't big on me, but add Moore's Killing Joke and Morrison's Arkham Asylum and I can't perceive Batman as the Batman&Robin silly pulp anymore.

Aha, I guess it depends on what you were raised on. I watched Adam West Batman reruns as a kid every weekday afternoon.. I remember kids in my class reading the Dark Knight books when they came out and thinking that they sucked for making Batman WAY too serious all the time. I love silly pulp.

I understand that opinions vary, but to compare Tim Burton's Batman to ether of Nolan's Batman's is rather insulting to Nolan. In my mind, it's like comparing a sappy romance novel to a book like catcher in the rye.
I realize some people (many) love trashy romance novels, and I realize some people don't like the catcher in the rye. Regardless, I think it's obvious to both parties which is a superior work of art.

But Catcher in the Rye is pretty average at best. If it wasn't on practically every high school reading list in the country for the last 50 years, it would've fallen into obscurity by now. It's obnoxious fluff. And a popcorn-munching action blockbuster designed to appeal to teens is a work of art now? Well, I guess Burton's Batman was infinitely less pretentious.

I wish Nolan would spend his time doing movies like Inception, Prestige, Following and Memento rather than making Batman movies.

YES. All of Nolan's non-Batman work is better than both his Batman films.

[tef]

While it's nice to examine the history and see how things were done in "the past," it's nearly impossible to prefer "classic" to "modern."

Thank you for providing me with mirth.

Edit: Whoa, Denizen and I agree on something. Catcher is a piece of shit.

[CMonster]

This thread would be way better if all the references to silly and absurd were replaced with badass. It would also make more sense.

I am the Bat. The night is mine

[Anomaly1]

Looking at something as simple as the IMDB rating, it's obvious the the mass's agree with my logic.

If by the masses you mean movie nerds, then yes they do.