Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Flashman wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nolan puts on a good show, but the logic behind the writing is unbelievably stupid. His movies have me wondering whether Batman is an idiot.

Plot holes are an unfortunate side effect from having a plot, something that neither Burton or Schumacher troubled themselves with.

Your overselling your point a bit there, Flashman.

Flashman wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nolan puts on a good show, but the logic behind the writing is unbelievably stupid. His movies have me wondering whether Batman is an idiot.

Plot holes are an unfortunate side effect from having a plot, something that neither Burton or Schumacher troubled themselves with.

As Nolan illustrates, bad plot is worse than no plot.

Ahtman wrote:

Hawkins wrote:i find it intresting that the 2 genras are always compared. When actually they are 2 seperate themes from DC comics. sure they have the same charaters, places, and villians but the 2 are serepated by intent. the older batman films (those excludingthe last 2, begins and dark knight) are golden age DC, classic comic book heros and villians. kinda like the carebaers of comics (yes some villians die but thats the movies and not the genra at work.)

now you have the newer movies, they fallow the path of a darker more non traditional comic theme popularized in the 90's its a evil place, full of darkness and dispare, where B-man actually does loose fights ( at one point loosing to dracula and becoming a vamp.)

the 2, yes are the same on the surface, but underneath is on one side the sunny, happy place, and on the other , well its nasty, and evil....

of the 2 i like Burton. but i found the dark knights joker to be awesome as well.

Uhm, the golden age Batman carried a gun, shot criminals, and the Joker wasn't as funny. I think you are confusing the 50's era Batman with the 40's era.

your right, i did, and sorry for that, but you cant denigh that there are for lack of a better term 'two distinct' dimensions for the batman characters that dont touch in any way save for the villians names and supporting characters. it like 2 parelle universes, one semi shinny, the other dark and gloomy.

I can't believe there's even a discussion on this one. Burton's first film was fun. His second film was (darkly) funny in spots, but a mess. Nolan's films are vastly superior...direction, writing and cast.

OK, where's Nolan's Catwoman or Batgirl? Suckage.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, where's Nolan's Catwoman or Batgirl? Suckage.

I'd be willing to bet that "Nolan's Catwoman" will be appearing soon,a gritty female cat burglar would lend itself to Nolans world very easy.
As far as Batgirl...don't hold your breath.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, where's Nolan's Catwoman or Batgirl? Suckage.

You're right...including Batgirl in any way, shape or form in his series would be the suck.

They should seriously seriously stop right now and don't make any more. But they will because its big Hollywood and they couldn't think of a new idea to save their highly expensive foreign ubercars.

I seem to recall reading some place that Nolan wouldn't be including ANY of the Batman "side kicks" into his franchise..no Batgirl..no Robin.
This would personaly suit me just fine as I prefer the "loner" Batman (well,except for Alfred)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:They should seriously seriously stop right now and don't make any more. But they will because its big Hollywood and they couldn't think of a new idea to save their highly expensive foreign ubercars.

I really agree with your sentiment here Frazz,new ideas in LA-LA land are as scarce as hen teeth.
That being said,I would like to see at least one more Nolan Batman,one that would include The Riddler (but not the goofy Frank Gorshin/Jim Carrey version),but a Riddler that taunts Batman & the police with clues to his crimes in a Jack the Ripper/Zodiac fasion,perhaps add Catwoman as sidestory/eyecandy.

Frazzled wrote:They should seriously seriously stop right now and don't make any more. But they will because its big Hollywood and they couldn't think of a new idea to save their highly expensive foreign ubercars.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that Nolan does another one.

If not, the studio will go one of two ways. Either they'll do a "threequel" with another director who they think "gets comic book movies"...like that genius Brett Ratner, for instance. Or they'll do yet another "reboot," which seems to be the in vogue thing to do now. Witness the in-development Daredevil reboot. And the Spidey reboot. And the Hulk "requel." And Star Trek. And even Nolan's series, really.

Those are two pretty terrible options, IMO. And everything TDK did to make "comic book movies" something better than just brain candy can be undone in an eyeblink, just you watch.

Used to be when a concept didn't work, you waited for at least a decade or two before you did a remake. Now they dust it off five years later. The fact that people will line up to go see a "reboot" of a movie/series that lost its way just a few years earlier tends to suggest that the studios are right. People are lemmings.

Yes, a Zodiac style twist to the Riddler would be kind of interesting. Criminal psycologists suggest that these kind of people subconsciously want to be found (hence all the letter writing and clues) so they can get their moment of glory and recognition.

The third film would also have to deal with some kind of active manhunt for Batman and would probably see Wayne becoming disillusioned now that everyone hates him.

As for plot holes, I watched Dark Knight yesterday evening and the one true gaping one is where Batman and (a presumed dead) Gordon somehow contrive to make Harvey Dent confess to being the Batman without him being a party to the conspiracy so that he will become bait for a Joker attack (who actually wants to get caught and therefore must have also figured out this was going to happen). It does require a big leap of logic, but for me it's a minor stumble in an otherwise great film.

gorgon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, where's Nolan's Catwoman or Batgirl? Suckage.

You're right...including Batgirl in any way, shape or form in his series would be the suck.

That's because Nolan is a male chauvinist who won't write in a good female character.

Flashman wrote:Yes, a Zodiac style twist to the Riddler would be kind of interesting. Criminal psycologists suggest that these kind of people subconsciously want to be found (hence all the letter writing and clues) so they can get their moment of glory and recognition.

I think it would fit a Riddler character as well, though in less of a "creepy" way such as zodiac, and in more of an ego-maniac trend, of which suits the Riddler's character even more. He wants to stop people cold with his logic, and has lost his mind essentially trying to stop Batman's intellect. He wants to be recognized, but also has an overwhelming desire to defeat Batman intellectually.

As for plot holes, I watched Dark Knight yesterday evening and the one true gaping one is where Batman and (a presumed dead) Gordon somehow contrive to make Harvey Dent confess to being the Batman without him being a party to the conspiracy so that he will become bait for a Joker attack (who actually wants to get caught and therefore must have also figured out this was going to happen). It does require a big leap of logic, but for me it's a minor stumble in an otherwise great film.

I think it was less of a plot hole and more of something that wasn't elegantly described. Wayne WAS going to turn himself in and Gordon was going to set the trap without Batman, but had to switch plans after Dent interceded (which made it harder to "trap" the Joker since now obviously the Bat wasn't the one in captivity). I believe its a fault of skipping a conversation, even a simple one, explaining it or showing Wayne in distress over the threat that Dent was now in. Because at that point Wayne was ready to hang it up to let Dent take over as a public justice figure.

I have always figured the largest plot hole, that covers all aspects, is Batman's identity. That concept takes a ridiculously large suspension of disbelief to follow that thread .

The Dark Knight ending was stupid. Is Nolan's Batman so stupid he couldn't blame one more death on a known killer who's now dead?

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Dark Knight ending was stupid. Is Nolan's Batman so stupid he couldn't blame one more death on a known killer who's now dead?

True that. I too thought the ending was pretty lame and forced.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Dark Knight ending was stupid. Is Nolan's Batman so stupid he couldn't blame one more death on a known killer who's now dead?

Who would that be? The known killer in that movie, the Joker was not dead. And although the audience know that Harvey Dent is now Two-Face and is responsible for at least 5 deaths, the people of Gotham at large did not know about his fall. Gordon & Batman wanted to keep Harvey Dent's memoery pure and unsullied as a reminder of what hope and idealism can be even in a city like Gotham.

I agree that it felt forced, but it was an ending that kind of made sense.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Dark Knight ending was stupid. Is Nolan's Batman so stupid he couldn't blame one more death on a known killer who's now dead?

Who would that be? The known killer in that movie, the Joker was not dead. And although the audience know that Harvey Dent is now Two-Face and is responsible for at least 5 deaths, the people of Gotham at large did not know about his fall. Gordon & Batman wanted to keep Harvey Dent's memoery pure and unsullied as a reminder of what hope and idealism can be even in a city like Gotham.

I agree that it felt forced, but it was an ending that kind of made sense.

Exactly this^ .

Yes,the ending did feel forced (Re: setting up the sequel).

I really like the realistic spin that Nolan took on the series. To be honest, I always thought the idea of a superhero without superpowers was stupid (except Iron Man; he has lasers), but Nolan actually took Batman and made him a gritty, darker, more "action/mystery"-type character, rather than the cheesy portrayal he had in most of the other films he was featured in.


I even found the 1989 Batman to be a bit too cheesy and "B-movie" for my taste, even though Jack Nicholson's performance was very good (but not as good as Heath Ledger's).

gorgon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, where's Nolan's Catwoman or Batgirl? Suckage.

You're right...including Batgirl in any way, shape or form in his series would be the suck.

unless they fried her in the first 15 minutes of the film.

The fact that Robin or Batgirl would not make sense in Nolan's world is a testament to the limitations rather than the achievements of that world.

your kidding right? its fiction, given even half an attept. he could fit both in easily. weather it would be good or not is of course another question.

I've been reading a lot Batman comics since Dark Knight came out and I have to say, I enjoy Batmans several sidekicks/partners much more now. It would still be pretty hard to put Robin in the Nolanverse, but I'm fonder of the idea now then I used to be.

JohnHwangDD wrote:That's because Nolan is a male chauvinist who won't write in a good female character.

The problem is that Batgirl doesn't qualify.

Catwoman might, but that character and its dynamic with Batman didn't fit the story he wanted to tell in TDK. It may yet fit a third film, we'll have to see.

JohnHwangDD wrote:That's because Nolan is a male chauvinist who won't write in a good female character.

I wish I could counter that in some way, but I really can't think of an example. Though it doesn't make him a chauvinist just because he can't write female characters. I know I couldn't.

Further to the above comments re: a third film, quite a few movie websites are reporting today that the script writers have just started work on the next one...

...and also weirdly, that Nolan might be 'mentoring' the next Superman film?!

Batgirl is a good character. She may not appeal to a few individuals but . . . who cares? Same with Robin.

Which Batgirl? I like Babs better than Oracle, and while I thought Cassie was cool in No Man's Land, I didn't care for the rest of her arc. As for Stephanie, we'll see.

There are loads of female characters in the Batman universe, and all of them to date have been weak in Nolan's hands.

Batgirl, Robin could be redone and handled well, if the writers so chose to do so.

The current batman films are the shizzle. No "Wham" "Pow" for me! (Although that was probably the old TV series...)

The animated batman from the 90s was extremely impressive... but not the movies, imho.