Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Batman returns once more: Christopher Nolan does it again!!!
Shallow:
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 17, 2010, 03:34:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 17, 2010, 02:52:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 17, 2010, 01:41:39 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 16, 2010, 07:44:01 PM ---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.
--- End quote ---
31. I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989. So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies. I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was. In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.
--- End quote ---
I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.
When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.
--- End quote ---
Yeah. I think prior to the film's release, the attitude at the time from a lot of people was disbelief that the studio would go with a choice like Michael Keaton for Batman. They actually have an extra on the dvd where they talk about Warner Brothers stock dropping after initially making the announcement that Michael Keaton would play Batman. lol I think people tended to be more accepting of it, after they actually saw it, but there was a lot of doubt initially.
As far as the Nolan Batman Universe, some of the changes he and David Goyer made to the mythology, I actually like. At least in the sense that it seems to work well for the movies. And I agree with you about Christopher Nolan's films. Everything seems grounded in reality, at least enough, to make you think that someone could almost pull off actually being Batman. He does a pretty good job of making things that seemed outlandish before, have a logical explanation.
--- End quote ---
I'm not one of those comic nuts that needs everything to be proper. A lot of what works in print can't work on screen. I could care less that they strayed from the mythos. In my opinion there is no mythos because it changes every time DC does a reboot.
My problems lie in the films. I thought Rachel Dawes was a waste of a character in both films and a love story was not needed in an origin story of Batman, and I thought the whole blow up Gotham like we've done to all civilizations storyline was over the top and silly. I would have preferred Batman even more grounded, and even eliminated Ducard/Ghul almost completely.
In the Dark knight, every thing related to the Joker was near perfect, but Two face was forced down my throats and it didn't go in smooth. I had no reason to believe this guy would flip and I didn't buy it when he did. "You didn't believe me when I said your force was corrupt, I will now kill your son". Two Face should have been presented as a borderline split personality that becomes one with the accident. He had two sides that existed separately and now they co-exist simultaneously. Two Face is indifferent. He does not care what side wins out, so he leaves it to chance. and the film should have ended with the beginning of Two face to set up the third film, not all but end the Two Face story line in the same film.
JohnnyL:
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 17, 2010, 03:50:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 17, 2010, 03:34:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 17, 2010, 02:52:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 17, 2010, 01:41:39 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 16, 2010, 07:44:01 PM ---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.
--- End quote ---
31. I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989. So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies. I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was. In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.
--- End quote ---
I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.
When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.
--- End quote ---
Yeah. I think prior to the film's release, the attitude at the time from a lot of people was disbelief that the studio would go with a choice like Michael Keaton for Batman. They actually have an extra on the dvd where they talk about Warner Brothers stock dropping after initially making the announcement that Michael Keaton would play Batman. lol I think people tended to be more accepting of it, after they actually saw it, but there was a lot of doubt initially.
As far as the Nolan Batman Universe, some of the changes he and David Goyer made to the mythology, I actually like. At least in the sense that it seems to work well for the movies. And I agree with you about Christopher Nolan's films. Everything seems grounded in reality, at least enough, to make you think that someone could almost pull off actually being Batman. He does a pretty good job of making things that seemed outlandish before, have a logical explanation.
--- End quote ---
I'm not one of those comic nuts that needs everything to be proper. A lot of what works in print can't work on screen. I could care less that they strayed from the mythos. In my opinion there is no mythos because it changes every time DC does a reboot.
My problems lie in the films. I thought Rachel Dawes was a waste of a character in both films and a love story was not needed in an origin story of Batman, and I thought the whole blow up Gotham like we've done to all civilizations storyline was over the top and silly. I would have preferred Batman even more grounded, and even eliminated Ducard/Ghul almost completely.
In the Dark knight, every thing related to the Joker was near perfect, but Two face was forced down my throats and it didn't go in smooth. I had no reason to believe this guy would flip and I didn't buy it when he did. "You didn't believe me when I said your force was corrupt, I will now kill your son". Two Face should have been presented as a borderline split personality that becomes one with the accident. He had two sides that existed separately and now they co-exist simultaneously. Two Face is indifferent. He does not care what side wins out, so he leaves it to chance. and the film should have ended with the beginning of Two face to set up the third film, not all but end the Two Face story line in the same film.
--- End quote ---
Initially I wasn't too crazy with the Rachael Dawes character either. In "Batman Begins" her character didn't seem to serve a vital purpose at all. Although, I thought the direction they took her in the "Dark Knight" somewhat redeemed the character as it provided a personal motive for Batman to want to stop the Joker, in addition to the reasons he would already have had for wanting to stop him. Although, I found the casting change a bit distracting. I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is probably a better actress than Katie Holmes, but it gets on my nerves anytime they have to break continuity (especially only two movies in to a series) in these kind of movies. It kind of takes you out of the story. And I think had they stuck with the original actress, Rachael's death probably would have had more weight, from a narrative perspective.
Shallow:
I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 17, 2010, 05:03:43 PM ---I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.
--- End quote ---
agreed
Shallow:
--- Quote from: M Dogg on February 17, 2010, 09:05:13 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 17, 2010, 05:03:43 PM ---I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.
--- End quote ---
agreed
--- End quote ---
Of course if they did it that way as a trilogy they could have ended it with this scene.
The final fight between Batman and Two-Face is placed near a pit and Two-Face ends up falling over the edge but Bats grabs him and they have a dialogue;
Two Face: Bruce. We go back a long way me and you. Did you ever think it would come to this?
Batman(in Batman voice): Bruce?
Two Face: Get off it Bruce I've known the whole time. Bruce Wayne; caped crusader.
Batman(drops Batman voice): Harvey I'm sorry but ever since my father died I've felt this rage inside me and...
Two Face: Ever since your father died?
Batman: Yes, when Joe Chill killed him in the street like that it was too much for me.
Two Face: Is that what the coroner told you? That your father died in that attack?
Batman: What are you saying?
Two Face: Bruce your father didn't die...
Batman: Then wha...
Two Face: Bruce. Bruce. I am your father.
Batman then lets go of Two Face in shock and screams
Batman: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
then Batman realizes he has let his father drop as Two Face stares up at Batman with a smile and Batman screams again
Batman: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The scene ends with an over the top shot of Batman staring at the sky screaming as Two Face is falling smile and all
FADE TO BLACK
END CREDITS
I would stand in that theater with a frenzy of applause if they had the balls to do that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version