Topic: DC Mega Topic, it's not the MCU

[Something Awful]

Nolan's Batman was a long way from perfect.

[killer-heels]

Nolan's Batman was a long way from perfect.

It isn't. But there is no chance of Snyder ever making a Batman or Superman film better than what Nolan did.

[Beav]

Nolan's Batman was a long way from perfect.

Eh, Rises has a lot of issues, but Begins was a fantastic film both on its own and as an origin film for the trilogy, and people will be talking about The Dark Knight for decades.

Think its as close to a perfect Batman trilogy as we will ever see.

[Something Awful]

Eh, Rises has a lot of issues, but Begins was a fantastic film both on its own and as an origin film for the trilogy, and people will be talking about The Dark Knight for decades.

Think its as close to a perfect Batman trilogy as we will ever see.

TDK had a goofy ending with the shoehorning in of Two-Face. Rises had barely any connection to the ending of TDK and felt like a completely separate movie. And as you said, had a lot of issues. I think a better Batman movie can and will be made, in time.

[Beav]

TDK had a goofy ending with the shoehorning in of Two-Face. Rises had barely any connection to the ending of TDK and felt like a completely separate movie. And as you said, had a lot of issues. I think a better Batman movie can and will be made, in time.

TDK was Two Face's movie, the whole thing was about him and how he fell from this white knight status to "living long enough to seeing himself become the villain" of course we were going to see his actual corruption. Maybe they could have spread it out and had Two Face's main stuff in Rises, but I prefer they did it in one film and we got a new villain in Bane for Rises.

Rises dealt with the "Dent act", but I think the 7 year gap set between them is what makes it seem quite different than TDK. We missed out on them "hunting" Batman and how being blamed for the murders affected Bruce. Like I said, it has a few issues.

Not to single you out or anything mate, but what comic book/superhero films do you like? Youre always down on Marvel's efforts, and now youre saying youre not much for these Nolan films, did you like Man of Steel? What do you want from a superhero film is what Im asking I guess.

[Something Awful]

TDK was Two Face's movie, the whole thing was about him and how he fell from this white knight status to "living long enough to seeing himself become the villain" of course we were going to see his actual corruption. Maybe they could have spread it out and had Two Face's main stuff in Rises, but I prefer they did it in one film and we got a new villain in Bane for Rises.

Rises dealt with the "Dent act", but I think the 7 year gap set between them is what makes it seem quite different than TDK. We missed out on them "hunting" Batman and how being blamed for the murders affected Bruce. Like I said, it has a few issues.

Not to single you out or anything mate, but what comic book/superhero films do you like? Youre always down on Marvel's efforts, and now youre saying youre not much for these Nolan films, did you like Man of Steel? What do you want from a superhero film is what Im asking I guess.

The Marvel ones are ok but fall off a cliff on a second watch. I'm pretty sure Cap 2 is gonna own though. And The Avengers was incredible (minus the constant Downey Jr adlibbing). I liked Nolan's movies but I felt the disconnect between 2 and 3 was brutally bad and really hurt both on a rewatch. Really enjoyed Man of Steel but it's not objectively as good as the Nolans or Avengers.

I'm pumped for Batman vs Superman only because they're so fucking badass. So badass. Iron Man and Hulk are cartoonish, shallow and boring compared to Supes and the Bat and I think this movie could be terrible and I'd still enjoy it as long as they're not to ludicrous.

I think if I was making it I'd keep them from fighting, at least wait until Batman is better established in that universe.

[Dan Dando]

The Marvel ones are ok but fall off a cliff on a second watch.

I agree with this actually. I've yet to find a Marvel film anything more than simply... perfectly adequate. Even The Avengers, whilst I found it to be good fun seeing it at the cinema, I've never ever fancied purchasing it on DVD and putting it on again for a second viewing. Though I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man might be more... my cup of tea.

[Stevie-A]

Can I just say that the brooding, self absorbed, portrayal of Batman in 'The Lego Movie' is utterly perfect. Better than anything in the Nolan imagining.

[Beav]

The Marvel ones are ok but fall off a cliff on a second watch. I'm pretty sure Cap 2 is gonna own though. And The Avengers was incredible (minus the constant Downey Jr adlibbing). I liked Nolan's movies but I felt the disconnect between 2 and 3 was brutally bad and really hurt both on a rewatch. Really enjoyed Man of Steel but it's not objectively as good as the Nolans or Avengers.

I'm pumped for Batman vs Superman only because they're so fucking badass. So badass. Iron Man and Hulk are cartoonish, shallow and boring compared to Supes and the Bat and I think this movie could be terrible and I'd still enjoy it as long as they're not to ludicrous.

I think if I was making it I'd keep them from fighting, at least wait until Batman is better established in that universe.

Think a lot of that is fair, the way I see it Marvels films are more like a 12 course meal where you get a little bit of this and that, whereas Nolans films were like a big main course. Marvel's are built in a universe, they link in to one another and build to things, which can mean that taken on their own they can sometimes be a bit average on subsequent viewings. Didnt think Avengers (or Iron Man) was like that, but can see it with some of the others.

I think Batman is *the* interesting superhero, his motivation, his problems, his past etc, hes just so interesting. But, Marvel are building on their heroes too. The problem is because they are more "cartoony", they arent as dark as a Batman film would be, but the characters are interesting and it looks like we will be seeing more depth to them with these next films. Cap 2 looks brilliant, we look to be getting more of Steve Rodgers' story and his core ideals that make him Cap. Hulk, I'll give you. Never been that big of a fan.

[red mongoose]

Think a lot of that is fair, the way I see it Marvels films are more like a 12 course meal where you get a little bit of this and that, whereas Nolans films were like a big main course. Marvel's are built in a universe, they link in to one another and build to things, which can mean that taken on their own they can sometimes be a bit average on subsequent viewings. Didnt think Avengers (or Iron Man) was like that, but can see it with some of the others.

I think Batman is *the* interesting superhero, his motivation, his problems, his past etc, hes just so interesting. But, Marvel are building on their heroes too. The problem is because they are more "cartoony", they arent as dark as a Batman film would be, but the characters are interesting and it looks like we will be seeing more depth to them with these next films. Cap 2 looks brilliant, we look to be getting more of Steve Rodgers' story and his core ideals that make him Cap. Hulk, I'll give you. Never been that big of a fan.

I think both of you are making good points and I'm actually very happy to see other people who, like me, love and respect superhero stories (and other genre fare), but are willing to admit some flaws in them. I've seen a lot of places, in reviews of anime and superhero films, where fans just gobble it all down without any criticism. If I'm being honest, I actually hated the third Batman movie - I've been trying not to put it in those terms, for a lot of reasons, but mostly just because I don't want to say anything that is going to take away from someone else's enjoyment of it. But I am happy that I am not the only one who sees flaws in it - I don't like feeling like I am just a negative bastard lol

[MagicB8all]

A rare and fascinating look at the making of the 1989 Batman movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ASQbMs5xtCQ

You can keep your Dark Knights and Tumblers. For my money, the best Batman movie is still Tim Burton's 1989 version starring Michael Keaton, and this 30-minute documentary, shot during filming, reminds us all how ground-breaking the movie was.

How contemporary is it? Well, Tim Burton is portrayed as a wild Hollywood iconoclast, which is hilarious now. Also, it's hosted by Robert Wuhl (he played the reporter Know), who was a pretty popular comedian back then. But seeing Keaton and Kim Basinger and Burton talk about this superhero movie as this crazy, enormous, brand-new entity — well, it's a marvelous look back at a great film and a very happy reminder of how far we've come.

On a personal note, seeing 1989 Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale takes me immediately back to the day I first discovered girls.

Source: http://io9.com/on-a-personal-note-seeing-1989-kim-basinger-as-vicki-v-1520183284

The movie is iconic and bursting with ideas that have made their way into many a Batman Movie.
The Scene in the 1989 Batman where Joke is standing in the street daring Batman to gun him down  no doubt inspired the scene in the Dark Knight where Ledger dares Batman to run him over with the motorcycle

[Paul JH]

TDK had a goofy ending with the shoehorning in of Two-Face.

Two Face was in it all the way through the movie. The whole point of the story of TDK was Dent/Two Face's story. If you think he was shoe-horned in, you might have missed the entire moral centre to the whole film.

[Nessy76]

A rare and fascinating look at the making of the 1989 Batman movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ASQbMs5xtCQ

You can keep your Dark Knights and Tumblers. For my money, the best Batman movie is still Tim Burton's 1989 version starring Michael Keaton, and this 30-minute documentary, shot during filming, reminds us all how ground-breaking the movie was.

How contemporary is it? Well, Tim Burton is portrayed as a wild Hollywood iconoclast, which is hilarious now. Also, it's hosted by Robert Wuhl (he played the reporter Know), who was a pretty popular comedian back then. But seeing Keaton and Kim Basinger and Burton talk about this superhero movie as this crazy, enormous, brand-new entity — well, it's a marvelous look back at a great film and a very happy reminder of how far we've come.

Source: http://io9.com/on-a-personal-note-seeing-1989-kim-basinger-as-vicki-v-1520183284

The movie is iconic and bursting with ideas that have made their way into many a Batman Movie.
The Scene in the 1989 Batman where Joke is standing in the street daring Batman to gun him down  no doubt inspired the scene in the Dark Knight where Ledger dares Batman to run him over with the motorcycle

I watched Burton's Batman again a couple of weeks ago. I remember at the time being a little underwhelmed by it, the thing was overhyped to a frankly incredible degree.

It's a bit of a mess, to be honest. Jack Nicholson's take on the Joker is essentially just a marginally more camp version of Cesar Romero's from the 60s TV show. Michael Keaton is never, ever, ever, a world class martial artist and street fighter, especially when he can't even move his head in costume. The plot is all over the place (the entire "Joker's deadly cosmetics" storyline just evaporates after a few cheap visual gags) the relationship between Vale and Wayne is paper-thin (Batman decides to tell a journalist his secret identity because she's quite fit? Really? There is no good reason for that to happen at all.)

The effects and fight scenes look horribly dated. The set design takes most of its cues from the Adam West show.

I get that Burton saw the whole thing as a dark fairy tale, but it isn't really that dark at all and the ending - where Batman murders a lot of people and then kills the Joker - really doesn't fit with any version of the character.

OK, I still like the movie. There's a lot of fun about it. It raised the bar on comics based adaptations (only for Dick Tracy to slam it right back down again not long afterwards) And that version of the Bat-logo ushers in a whole wave of nostalgia for the year it was plastered on everything in sight, - but it has aged very badly and if it was released now it would probably fare about as well as the Green Lantern movie did.

[Haemoglobin]

Two Face was in it all the way through the movie. The whole point of the story of TDK was Dent/Two Face's story. If you think he was shoe-horned in, you might have missed the entire moral centre to the whole film.

Although I wouldn't say Two Face was 'shoehorned' in, I do think the film's pacing could be improved in certain areas, particularly Dent's fall. It does a bit feel rushed to me, which is understandable to a degree, as the film's long enough as it is for a Summer Superhero Spectacular flick, but does detract from the overall quality of the work over time. It's easily the best Superhero film ever made, for me, so I'm judging it by far more stringent criteria than any other I've seen.

It strains under the sheer weight of its ideas crammed into that comicbook-popcorn format, so I do appreciate that aspect... just thinking about how you could make it utterly perfect, is all. It would really benefit from a Director's Cut, but Nolan doesn't shoot like that.

Pretty much agree - I like Burton's 'Batverse', but no way do any of them match up to the likes of TDK. Yeah, you might personally enjoy them more, I can get that because there's much more camp and 'fun' infused in Burton's stuff, it can be dead charming and intoxicating when he nails it. But TDK is a bona fide flawed masterpiece, so ambitious in its characterisation and dialogue, and certain performances.

[Nessy76]

Pretty much agree - I like Burton's 'Batverse', but no way do any of them match up to the likes of TDK. Yeah, you might personally enjoy them more, I can get that because there's much more camp and 'fun' infused in Burton's stuff, it can be dead charming and intoxicating when he nails it. But TDK is a bona fide flawed masterpiece, so ambitious in its characterisation and dialogue, and certain performances.

Yeah, it's quite an unfair comparison in a way. The Dark Knight is an elevation of the super-hero movie to a different level. It's not just something fun to shut the kids up on a Saturday afternoon, it's a real challenging piece of storytelling which plays around with a host of deep concepts and uses the super-hero/super-villain shtick to explore some fascinating ideas about the nature of heroism and individuality.

Thing is, it also outdoes Burtman on the flashy side too; the fights, chases, gadgets and stuff are all superior to anything Burton could do in 89.

[Geormajesty]

I watched Burton's Batman again a couple of weeks ago. I remember at the time being a little underwhelmed by it, the thing was overhyped to a frankly incredible degree.

It's a bit of a mess, to be honest. Jack Nicholson's take on the Joker is essentially just a marginally more camp version of Cesar Romero's from the 60s TV show. Michael Keaton is never, ever, ever, a world class martial artist and street fighter, especially when he can't even move his head in costume. The plot is all over the place (the entire "Joker's deadly cosmetics" storyline just evaporates after a few cheap visual gags) the relationship between Vale and Wayne is paper-thin (Batman decides to tell a journalist his secret identity because she's quite fit? Really? There is no good reason for that to happen at all.)

The effects and fight scenes look horribly dated. The set design takes most of its cues from the Adam West show.

I get that Burton saw the whole thing as a dark fairy tale, but it isn't really that dark at all and the ending - where Batman murders a lot of people and then kills the Joker - really doesn't fit with any version of the character.

OK, I still like the movie. There's a lot of fun about it. It raised the bar on comics based adaptations (only for Dick Tracy to slam it right back down again not long afterwards) And that version of the Bat-logo ushers in a whole wave of nostalgia for the year it was plastered on everything in sight, - but it has aged very badly and if it was released now it would probably fare about as well as the Green Lantern movie did.

Well put.

I was born after the first Burton film so came to it late and I've never understood the hype around it. I enjoyed it as a child on a visceral level, but by the time I was old enough to really get it there were films like Spiderman, X-Men, Blade, Batman Begins and even Daredevil and Ang Lee's Hulk (which have their critics but I maintain are good films) and compared to those Batman never seemed anything special.

The Dark Knight managed to achieve something which I don't think any other superhero film has managed - to be an objectively great film. I love the current run of Marvel films, but I think all of them require the qualifier of being great genre films, in the same way something like The Exorcist is a great film, not just a great horror film.

[Something Awful]

Two Face was in it all the way through the movie. The whole point of the story of TDK was Dent/Two Face's story. If you think he was shoe-horned in, you might have missed the entire moral centre to the whole film.

Killing four people and then dying is pretty much the worst villain run-in since the first attempt at Bane. If the movie ends with him out and about and free it feels a lot less stupid. Mind you if the way they connected the end of the second movie with the third is any indication, it would have just been ignored anyway.

[Draex]

Although I wouldn't say Two Face was 'shoehorned' in, I do think the film's pacing could be improved in certain areas, particularly Dent's fall. It does a bit feel rushed to me, which is understandable to a degree, as the film's long enough as it is for a Summer Superhero Spectacular flick, but does detract from the overall quality of the work over time. It's easily the best Superhero film ever made, for me, so I'm judging it by far more stringent criteria than any other I've seen.

It strains under the sheer weight of its ideas crammed into that comicbook-popcorn format, so I do appreciate that aspect... just thinking about how you could make it utterly perfect, is all. It would really benefit from a Director's Cut, but Nolan doesn't shoot like that.
Pretty much agree - I like Burton's 'Batverse', but no way do any of them match up to the likes of TDK. Yeah, you might personally enjoy them more, I can get that because there's much more camp and 'fun' infused in Burton's stuff, it can be dead charming and intoxicating when he nails it. But TDK is a bona fide flawed masterpiece, so ambitious in its characterisation and dialogue, and certain performances.

Isn't the reason there isn't a true closure on the Harvey Dent story arc due to both him and the Joker were meant to be in the beginning of the Dark Knight Rises, but due to the tragic death of Heath Ledger they had to rewrite the story and without the Joker the Two-Face arc just didn't have anywhere to go really.

[Paul JH]

Mind you if the way they connected the end of the second movie with the third is any indication, it would have just been ignored anyway.

Maybe the death of one of the second movie's big stars, and the MAIN villain, affected the connection between two and three? Just a thought ...

Killing four people and then dying is pretty much the worst villain run-in since the first attempt at Bane. If the movie ends with him out and about and free it feels a lot less stupid.

The whole movie was about being a hero and then 'living long enough to see yourself become the villain'. Dent turned from hero to villain, and they made the point. They didn't need to keep him alive as Two Face, he served the story they were telling.

[Something Awful]

Maybe the death of one of the second movie's big stars, and the MAIN villain, affected the connection between two and three? Just a thought ...

No, the ending of TDK is pretty explicit. Batman takes the rap for the murders, police are after him. Bat signal is smashed. Sets up perfectly for... 8 years later and Batman has never been seen since? What? Where did that come from? Huge letdown.

The whole movie was about being a hero and then 'living long enough to see yourself become the villain'. Dent turned from hero to villain, and they made the point. They didn't need to keep him alive as Two Face, he served the story they were telling.

Ok but he had like ten minutes of screen time, killed some corrupt cops and then tried to kill Gordon's family. A far, far better ending would have been for Two Face to be "revealed" at the end of TDK, setting up the third where he is the main villain.

[Redman0151]

TDKR was horrible looking back at it, such a drop in quality from TDK, the plot felt ridiculous, character motivations incredibly strange and dialogue very weak

[Something Awful]

TDKR was horrible looking back at it, such a drop in quality from TDK, the plot felt ridiculous, character motivations incredibly strange and dialogue very weak

What I can't understand is that I agree with you and couldn't even attempt to argue...yet I watch it a lot. More than TDK. I think it's Bane.

[Brian Blessed]

Is it because of the Bane rap?

[Nessy76]

What I can't understand is that I agree with you and couldn't even attempt to argue...yet I watch it a lot. More than TDK. I think it's Bane.

Why on earth do you not just watch something you'd enjoy?

[Something Awful]

Why on earth do you not just watch something you'd enjoy?

I enjoy it. Despite it not being very good on any real objective level.

[Ultimate Bromance]

I enjoy it. Despite it not being very good on any real objective level.

I know what you mean, I think it's because it's an easier watch, more of a typical popcorn comic book movie than TDK. TDK was an immense film, but it's very intense and rarely lets up until the credits roll.

[Something Awful]

I know what you mean, I think it's because it's an easier watch, more of a typical popcorn comic book movie than TDK. TDK was an immense film, but it's very intense and rarely lets up until the credits roll.

The action in TDK is better. The plot is better. The villain is probably better but the Joker voice creeps people out whereas "THEATRICALITY AND DECEPTION...POWERFUL AGENTS TO THE UNINITIATED...BUT WE ARE INITIATED AREN'T WE BRUCE" is both hilarious and awesome.

[Nessy76]

I enjoy it. Despite it not being very good on any real objective level.

That makes no sense at all. Movies are entertainment. If you enjoy it, it is doing exactly what it sets out to do. The way you go on, I'm surprised you'd ever let either one be shown in front of your eyes without collapsing in a fit of toddlerfied whinge.

[Something Awful]

That makes no sense at all. Movies are entertainment. If you enjoy it, it is doing exactly what it sets out to do. The way you go on, I'm surprised you'd ever let either one be shown in front of your eyes without collapsing in a fit of toddlerfied whinge.

I see. You're saying its impossible to enjoy a movie while still pointing out the flaws in it. So the statement "TDK is better than TDKR but I enjoy watching TDKR more" doesn't make any sense to you?

[Beav]

I get what youre saying.

You can have a favourite movie, or one you enjoy watching over and over, but objectionably its not the best film youve seen. I.e you love watching Star Wars episode 3, but its clearly not even in the same league as Empire Strikes Back.

[Something Awful]

I get what youre saying.

You can have a favourite movie, or one you enjoy watching over and over, but objectionably its not the best film youve seen. I.e you love watching Star Wars episode 3, but its clearly not even in the same league as Empire Strikes Back.

Exactly yeah. My favourite movie of all time is likely Con Air. That doesn't mean I think its better than Goodfellas.

[Nessy76]

I see. You're saying its impossible to enjoy a movie while still pointing out the flaws in it. So the statement "TDK is better than TDKR but I enjoy watching TDKR more" doesn't make any sense to you?

No, that makes sense, there's no problem with that, or liking Con Air*. But to read some of your other posts, you give the impression that these movies are without a single redeeming feature. That's what I find strange, that you devote so much time to watching things you have nothing but total contempt for.

OK. there's plenty wrong with Con Air, but leave that to one side for now...

[Something Awful]

No, that makes sense, there's no problem with that, or liking Con Air*. But to read some of your other posts, you give the impression that these movies are without a single redeeming feature. That's what I find strange, that you devote so much time to watching things you have nothing but total contempt for.

OK. there's plenty wrong with Con Air, but leave that to one side for now...

Not true. I think the Marvel movies are horrid on a second watch. I only have that opinion because I enjoyed them the first time. And I think the Nolan Batmans are very good, but not without their flaws. I think the idea that Nolan Batman makes it impossible for anyone to follow up on it is a bit fanboyish. For me, the definitive Batman was The Animated Series, and nothing else has come close as much as I enjoyed Begins, Ledger and Bane.

[Nessy76]

Not true. I think the Marvel movies are horrid on a second watch. I only have that opinion because I enjoyed them the first time. And I think the Nolan Batmans are very good, but not without their flaws. I think the idea that Nolan Batman makes it impossible for anyone to follow up on it is a bit fanboyish. For me, the definitive Batman was The Animated Series, and nothing else has come close as much as I enjoyed Begins, Ledger and Bane.

Fair dos.

[Something Awful]

Fair dos.

By any chance have you ever seen any of Hamill's Joker? In the Arkham games or the Animated Series/Movies? That for me has always been the most perfect Joker ever.

[Nessy76]

By any chance have you ever seen any of Hamill's Joker? In the Arkham games or the Animated Series/Movies? That for me has always been the most perfect Joker ever.

Yes, he's very good. Ledger just edges it for me, but Hamill brings a level of mania to it that is a lot of fun. Probably the closest thing to the Joker as written in most of the comics since the mid 80's.

[Draex]

Yes, he's very good. Ledger just edges it for me, but Hamill brings a level of mania to it that is a lot of fun. Probably the closest thing to the Joker as written in most of the comics since the mid 80's.

Heath Ledger as the joker is one of my favorite performances of all times, it has everything - it's a fantastic portrayal he manages to even show a slight vulnerable/childlike side to this complete psychopathic monster. That performance alone puts it very high on my all time best films.

[Drinks Sangria]

Heath Ledger as the joker is one of my favorite performances of all times, it has everything - it's a fantastic portrayal he manages to even show a slight vulnerable/childlike side to this complete psychopathic monster. That performance alone puts it very high on my all time best films.

Would echo this to be honest. Although that doesn't diminish how highly I regard Hamill's Joker. I tend to see them as totally separate, incomparable performances, maybe due to Hamill's turns being animated?

[rafa4eva]

Nolan's or heaths joker brought to life who the joker really was in my opinion, the mirror to batman  and Bruce, the embodiment of chaos, an anarchist, as Alfred said to Bruce, you cannot negotiate with some people, some people just want to watch the world burn and that is what is so terrifying about heath's joker ... He didn't want recompense, he didn't want freedom, or to right any wrongs, he didn't want a space of his own, or his own planet, he didn't want to rule, he didn't want a hug, or to be listened to, there was no angle you could engage with him or control him, he wanted nothing yet wanted to destroy everything. Well on the other hand, If he wanted anything, then it was to push buttons and watch what happened next.

For me anyway, this was probably the 1st time I've been mesmerised and truly terrified of a villain, one of the most outstanding portrayals of a fictional character I have ever seen.

[Something Awful]

Would echo this to be honest. Although that doesn't diminish how highly I regard Hamill's Joker. I tend to see them as totally separate, incomparable performances, maybe due to Hamill's turns being animated?

That's fair. I prefer Hamill because that's who I grew up with and because I can't remember anyone else able to express so much with something as simple as laughter. The Batman video games were the highlight though, all the mania, but a far darker tone.