quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Actually yeah, I should do that.
Let me briefly say this: The Batman movies play in a certain universe, they are superhero movies and as such accept the "super" in their heroes and villains. It means that the answer to "how can the Joker plant bombs in a hospital" / "how can Bane plant bombs all over the city" / "how can Batman get back into Gotham and install the bat logo fireworks" is always "because he's The Joker / Bane / Batman". It also means that their character is often so iconic that in any new manifestation (like a movie) they are more a name than an actual person.
So when I say I have a problem with Batman being Batman I mean that I reject this whole premise. It doesn't work for me. I don't want to accept this iconic characters in their comic book world as the basis of an action movie. What I do criticize as inconsequential and irrelevant to the movie's actual problems is when this premise is generally accepted and then individual parts of it are picked out and dissected.
Even more briefly now, I think the movies actual problems are not the plot holes but being overloaded and overambitious.
Edit: Go and wash your laundry, Hal. This is a thread for non-castrated men. |
Two points here:
1. As I said in my main post, the idea of Nolan's films is that they aim to be gritty and realistic, rather than cartoonish and excessive. This isn't like Tim Burton's films, which were highly stylised fantasies. Nolan's films are revisionist in terms of cinematic depiction of superheroes - they aim to present believable manifestations of these characters, and they radically reinvent them. I have no idea how you can suggest that Bane is just an incarnation of an iconic figure - he looks very different to the comics, he acts different and he has a different background story. If you think TDKR is "iconic characters in their comic book world", you have completely missed the point.
2. I appreciate after the Prometheus aftermath I may have this reputation for being "the plot hole guy" but did you just skim read my post? My second point was more about how Nolan's attempts at profundity and symbolism are clumsy as fuck, and my third point was about how he has violated his own universe and thus built the film's allegory on foundations of sand. Even my beef with the plotholes is as much about style - the film wants to have its cake and eat it with a tonally awkward attempt to mix grittiness with (essentially) high fantasy.
And finally, I'm not sure who the fuck you are to declare my post "irrelevant", when Lews requested that I expand on my thoughts about my problems with the film. I did exactly that, and a lot of people enjoyed reading it. Write out your own opinion: I'm sure everyone is just dying to read it.
___________________
Mixes:
> Back To Deep [Deep Trippy House]
> Terra Nova [Modern Progressive Trance]
> Rough & Ready [Modern Trance]
>A Different Energy [Good Modern Trance]
> The Edale Mix [Panoramic Beats]
|