What did ya do...come into this thread just to jump on someone's opinion about this film?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilmase1153
As you said in text it is hard to obtain a persons intent, my reply is not meant to be hostile or up in arms although I can see how ones perception may see it as so.
|
That's all I was asking you to do -- see it from a different perspective and then perhaps in retrospect you would see that it was a rather hostile delivery method. I started the thread to simply discuss these issues and to possibly confirm or disprove certain differences between the two takes on the material.
Quote:
|
You keep saying you dont like what is in this film and Batman Begins because it is not true to the comic books or what has already been seen in previous itterations..
|
You misinterpretted again -- I am trying to ascertain which of the versions remains true to the source materials.
Quote:
You didnt like it because it was not true to the comic book
You didnt like it because it was not like the first film
You didnt like this version of two face because it was different and shorter than the TLJ's version and different from Batman Forever.
Thats only a few but there are more comparisons you give for things that this film has done wrong because it strays from the norm..
|
You're taking snippets of what I said and are distorting their meanings -- these things aren't "wrong" for being portrayed in these manners, I just didn't like them because we were already meant to think that the previous renditions of these events were the "correct" versions. When did I ever say The Dark Knight "strayed from the norm?"
Quote:
|
This movie is for someone who wants a fresh new start to the franchise, not for someone who wants more of the same. I mean its why the first film was appropriately called Batman BEGINS, because this is a fresh take on the Batman universe which means we are most likely not going to see the exact same thing we have already seen dozens of times..
|
I understand what you're saying here, and your first statement of this sentence is indeed what we should be discussing in this thread and need more of it -- "this movie is for someone who wants a fresh new start to the franchise"...however, you stray again in saying that it's not for someone who wants more of the same. You seem to be hung up on this whole thing about us wanting "the exact same thing as we've seen" when this isn't true -- we just want an explanation of which of the two versions is more true to the real story, if there IS one. I understand the first film was called BATMAN BEGINS -- and I understand what Nolan was trying to do there -- but that can also be misinterpreted to mean just a "starter story" that explains Batman's roots, can it not? Burton didn't explain any of the characters' origins, except for some moments devoted to the killing of his parents in front of the Monarch theater -- and again, Nolan and Burton have two different takes on THIS as well. According to Nolan's version, the parents and Bruce were seeing an opera at this theater, where the swinging characters remind Bruce of the bats that attacked him -- Burton has this being a movie theater they go to. And so many of us felt Batman BEGINS was going to explore Bruce's training as an ultra Ninja and why he did that -- and Nolan did explain that in the first film. Burton didn't explain Batman's origins.
Isn't it possible we can want an "origin story" for a comic based character? Did you know there's an entire back story that's missing from Daredevil in which he gets trained by "Stick" and other missing elements? Or how about the latest version of The Incredible Hulk in which the whole Banner gamma radiation experiment prestory is forgotten and lost in a title sequence brief mentioning?
Quote:
|
I agree on many of your points made but you can not fault a movie for being something different.
|
I'm not faulting it; as I said, it was an enjoyable ride and I will be picking up the Blu ray...I just wish it had some consistency with prior events, as the other member agreed with me on, as well as some logical links to the real comic story, if there is one.
Quote:
|
Yes I wish Dent was in it longer as two face but that was just not the case, it almost seemed as if they wanted to wrap up this movie with no hopes for a third installment and leaving Two Face alive would not allow for such an ending..
|
Okay...NOW we're getting somewhere in this discussion! Indeed, that's what it seemed like in that Nolan seemed to be rushing in two villians as Raimi did in Spider Man 3...perhaps to close out the franchise? I can't see this happening as there are SO many other Batman villians to reinvent and reintroduce...what about Riddler? Penguin? Catwoman? And what of Robin...will Nolan introduce him? It would be a shame for the rebooted franchise to stop now, especially with the success of The Dark Knight at the box office, and it would be so interesting to see who they would get to replace De Vito, Carrey, Pfeifer for these characters...
But yes, I thought the Two Face thing was too short and not explored or developed enough -- this man was an essential Batman villian in the comic run and he simply gets offed within 30 minutes of this film?
Quote:
|
IMO no Ledger = no more Batmans and add to that Bale is signed on for a couple Terminator movies and has 3 other movies either in pre production or filming and a 3rd Batman movie would likely be many years from now.. Who knows though, with how much money this movie will make I think the studios will find a way to squeeze out another film but I dont know if it can live up to what The Dark Knight has become.. Which is an instant classic
|
Yes, I have to agree -- in many ways and aside from the issues I had with some of it, this was a comic based sequel that measures up to the now legendary Spider Man 2. Your comments about Ledger also bring up interesting points and things to consider: Joker wasn't dead at the end of this one and we never find out what happens to him, as Batman left him hanging out of the building, so will Joker be reintroduced with someone else playing him next time? Burton killed Joker off with Nicholson's rendition of the character, but Nolan didn't -- does this mean he will come back with other villians like perhaps Penguin or Riddler? Batman's enemies often worked together against him, so perhaps this is the direction it will go in...
Do you really think this was the last Batman in the reboot? Seems odd Nolan would only explore two villians, Scarecrow and Joker (well, and Two Face) in the run of two films; there are so many other plot lines to explore -- what about the official batmobile being made? And all his high tech gadgets in the batcave? What about the reconstruction of Wayne Manor?
Oh, and as for the TERMINATOR films -- yes, I saw the teaser for the fourth Terminator where John Connor is now grown up -- I didn't know Bale was signing on for these! These just won't be the same without Arnold, though.