I really didn't see it. I did see the potential of chemistry, but with everything hapening in the movie, it was not given nearly enough time. TDKR ha way too much characters that I think it woul have been much better if it removed some. Catwoman served no crucial purpose imo an it woul have been better if she was not there. [/quote]
And therein lies the fickle nature and subjectivity of emoting. We both saw what we saw, and no doubt personal experience and relationships factored into how we saw it.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Perhaps I am too much of a fan of Mask of the Phantasm and its interpretation of what Batman is. Nolan's interpretation is too "heroic" for my tastes. I prefer to see Batman as a psychologically and emotionally disturbed man and only Begins really delved in that to an extent (convos with Ra's when he is training). [/quote]
I can understand that. It is different. I know some (oh, internet...) have even considered Nolan's Batman a "betrayal" of sorts. He is more lonely, confused, and lost than anything else. He is not nearly as haunted by his parent's death after, oh...the second half of Batman Begins? Somewhere around that mark. By the time of the sequel, his parents are hardly a factor. It is a very different Batman. Your mileage may vary, I suppose (there's a Battank joke in there somewhere).
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Yes. He also says in Begins: "You didn't give up on me Alfred?" "Never"
That's Alfred. He would never abandon Bruce, even if he disagrees with what he is doing.
I understand why he did it, but it's not Alfred. [/quote]
And he doesn't give up. Not on Bruce. Bruce, however, has given up on Bruce. He has taken to defining himself entirely by his alter-ego. In order to save Bruce, Alfred feels he must abandon the Batman. If you truly love someone, you need to be able to say no. Alfred says no, and it is clearly one of the (if not THE) hardest things he has had to do.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I think that time would have been better spent with Batman and Bane. As it stands, Blake gets almost more time than Batman. [/quote]
If the ending were going to be different, I could agree with that. At the same time, I feel like the trilogy always had to end with Bruce's Batman dying (whether or not that meant Bruce's death). It would have been extraordinarily disappointing if, by some magical plot device, Bruce was able to heal his body and continue being the Batman indefinitely.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Some of the things with Blake were just ridiculous, like him being able to know that Bruce is Batman. It's ruining our suspension of disbelief. [/quote]
Okay, no.
The entire US Army, for one thing, should know that someone connected to Wayne Enterprises is Batman (the Bat-tank was developed for and rejected by the Army) . The people of Gotham should have an idea of who the possible candidates are. You start with rich people and work your way down.
Also? The people working with Bruce (it is more than Alfred). They say at the end of the first movie that they are expanding the East/West wing (the Batcave, I forget the cardinal direction). Unless they straight up murdered some construction workers people know. You could pay some off. Some may even stay quiet, sure. But others are going to take the hush money and go straight to a publication for even more money.
The existence of the character of Batman who can maintain a secret identity in the largest city on the planet requires the suspension of disbelief. Nolan handled it better than most (There's no "ALFRED DID IT!" for one thing).
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Other things were too prolonged. And the end result is that Blake is
still not developped, he is just eager and that's it. There's not that
much to his character. You can't have a proper origin story and a conclusion of another character in the same movie.[/quote]
No, he isn't developed. And that's fine with me, primarily because I disagree on one point.
This is just his origin story (if that). We see some of his trials and tribulations, and it is heavily (HEAVILY) implied that he will become the new Batman. However, donning the cowl comes with its own trials. Batman was not a complete character in Batman Begins. Blake won't be complete until his he grows during his tenure as the caped crusader.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But that's just making him be like a sadist and it doesn't fit with Talia's motivations. It's just....pointless. Ozymandias would be facepalming hard at this.[/quote]
Sadism is not necessarily dramatic. And Bane seems to keep a far more level-headed approach than Talia.
Remember, Talia wanted to keep Batman alive so that he could "feel" (that's a tad sadistic, IMO) the destruction of Gotham. Bane waited until Talia left, and decided that he would just kill Batman. It implies that he is comfortable with drama when he knows he can succeed in his goals even when it is implemented - Batman, however, was still a threat that needed to be dealt with. He would gladly ignore his boss' orders to remove that threat.
Keep in mind that Ozymandias speechified Nite Owl and Rorschach. They were unable to physically stop him - and, even if they could, he had already implemented his plan of action. He had won, so he went head first to the dramatic talking points. Heck, I think Ozymandias would have been proud of Bane.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Add to that that Bane's followers are all thugs and that the opinion of the common people is not explored. Bane's revolution had immense potential to be multi-faceted and complex, but it jut ended up being utterly pointless.[/quote]
I felt it was implied that the core of Bane's followers were members of the Neo-League of Shadows. They would (literally) die for him. Their loyaly is absolute and unwavering. However, Bane is practical. He utilizes the slightly tyrannical Dent act to use Gotham's criminals against it.
I do agree that the revolution could have been more intriguing on an intellectual level. I find that the characters of Bane and Talia are in direct conflict with one another. One wants to make a statement (we don't know what it is, really), and the other wants revenge on those who wronged her.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I would prefer if Talia remained because she has the potential to add a lot to Bane as a character and also Ras Al Ghul. [/quote]
Is it anything that they couldn't have given to Bane to make him more complex? Is it not Bane's entire purpose to be a villain who is capable of standing toe-to-toe with Batman on both a physical and intellectual level? Making Talia the mastermind undermines Bane's intellectual abilities, making him a really strong mook.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
That and she is capable of being an interesting character herself, mentally unstable an torn between her love for Bane and her devotion to Ras (same as comics, except Bane instead of Batman). But to do this properly, I would have liked if catwoman and Blake were not there. That would have also given time to strengthen Batman as a character (I didn't find him compelling in TDK and TDKR).[/quote]
I would argue that Blake and Selina need to remain in order to bring Bruce back.
Batman does not need to be strengthened - not in this trilogy. The entire point of Nolan's Batman is that it is a symbol to inspire others to act - while Bruce does, for a time, judge himself by the costume he wears, the core theme is that Bruce is more than costume - he his a man, with all the fragility that comes with it. Bruce loses sight of this and shuts himself away from when Batman is no longer needed.
One thing that Rachel got right in TDK was that Bruce felt that he needed Batman. Bruce would put Batman before Bruce every time. In DKR, we see Bruce struggling with the knowledge that he, a man slowly being torn apart, cannot always be the Batman.
Blake reminds Bruce of the importance of the symbol of Batman. Batman CAN exist without Bruce. Batman needs to exist without Bruce. DKR was very much about Bruce coming to terms with his eventual inability to continue as the Batman. A mid-life crisis, of sorts.
In DKR, Selina is very much like Bruce at the start of BB. She has made poor decisions throughout her life, but, unlike Bruce, does not have the finances to start anew (seriously, we all cannot charter a plane to fly out of the country...). Bruce can relate to her decisions (he used to be a criminal, too), and understands her inner-turmoil. Also, catsuit. *meow*
These two, unlike Rachel, Dent, or Gordon, offer some type of push that eventually gets Bruce to realize that he can finally stop. They may not have been two characters that were necessary for the defeat of the big bad, but they were still plot-centric.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
That said, I am the kind that likes his antagonists to be greatly developed even at the expense of characters I do not find crucial or compelling.[/quote]
But I feel like you want Nolan to be telling a different story. For the story he did tell, both Blake and Kyle were of the utmost importance. In a different tale, yes, they might very well be useless wall-flowers who are ancillary to the main story.
Retour en haut
