missed opportunity

Christopher Nolan's 2008 mega success about Batman's attempts to defeat a criminal mastermind known only as the Joker.
Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
prince0gotham wrote:
talli wrote:

ok....but my whole point is that they chose a boring execution of the scenes after rachel's death..atleast from batman's standpoint


and playing him as a flawless human being, is boring, and a boring cinematic experience is something that Nolan always argued against...so he must look back on it and regret this execution, and the missed opportunity to add more flavor
Well the fact is that you just realised it's a boring decision. It probably hasn't bothered you the first 10 times you saw the movie. Not to mention that he is yet to come close to the end of the jesus arc and yet to become flawless (he doesn't show a sign of flawlessness untill the end of TDK and certainly not before Rachel's death. Up till then he still has some doubts).

Remember how Joker doesn't turn back when the hospital explodes? The paradox between The Joker and Batman are that they're opposites and yet they're very much alike in their extremity. Not to mention there are things that are required from Batman to develop as a characteristic quality so that he could defeat the Joker and all the other 'Jokers' in Gotham and in the world. If there's a thing that Batman could and did learn from the Joker is not to look back. At least not as much as he did in BB. You think he could've beaten him if he was all whiny and teary about it? Please admit for once that this is part of this movie's logic. You can't have a relentless and otherwordly vilain who wants to 'see the world burn' and with whom you can't bargain and suppose that a whiny hesitating Batman will do the job.

And the other thing I don't really think Nolan is overconscious on what the public opinion will be on whether this is a boring decision for execution or not. Great directors never did. The franchise wasn't intending to please the masses with BB. The fact that it did is because it did have a mix of qualities that made the masses like it, but it wasn't the true intention. It's the same with TDK. When Nolan makes a decision he does it because he feels it needs to be done, not because someone might have something in mind against the alternatives. He's quite aware that his movies are cold and he doesn't seem to regret or want to change it, so I think you're wrong about that too.

smh. you still dont get it. you're over here trying to intellectualize something, and im talking about something thats meant to be felt while watching the scene, not anaylized


stop having an irrelevant argument

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
talli wrote: smh. you still dont get it. you're over here trying to intellectualize something, and im talking about something thats meant to be felt while watching the scene, not anaylized


stop having an irrelevant argument
Try feeling A space odyssey.

The thing you're talking about is not there. The scene you want to see is not existant in the movie, therefore it can't be meant to be felt one way or the other. And it's not existant because the only thing it's meant to be is 'not to be' there at all. Why? Because it makes sense.

Of course we could've had a sequence of each of the characters looking into nothing. We could've had Bruce sitting on that chare looking at his mask, we could've had Alfred putting of his glasses and looking at a candle or something, we could've had a scene with Dent lying on the hospital room bed with the camera panning over to the medical system monitors or whatever. We could've had all of this with Garry Jules - Mad world running in the background.

Would it make us feel something? Yes. Would it make sense? No.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
prince0gotham wrote:
talli wrote: smh. you still dont get it. you're over here trying to intellectualize something, and im talking about something thats meant to be felt while watching the scene, not anaylized


stop having an irrelevant argument
Try feeling A space odyssey.

The thing you're talking about is not there. The scene you want to see is not existant in the movie, therefore it can't be meant to be felt one way or the other. And it's not existant because the only thing it's meant to be is 'not to be' there at all. Why? Because it makes sense.

Of course we could've had a sequence of each of the characters looking into nothing. We could've had Bruce sitting on that chare looking at his mask, we could've had Alfred putting of his glasses and looking at a candle or something, we could've had a scene with Dent lying on the hospital room bed with the camera panning over to the medical system monitors or whatever. We could've had all of this with Garry Jules - Mad world running in the background.

Would it make us feel something? Yes. Would it make sense? No.
once again you go back to a non existent argument

i already told you im not talking about including new scenes, im talking about how christian plays those scenes. go away please if you refuse to be a part of the argument

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
talli wrote:
once again you go back to a non existent argument

i already told you im not talking about including new scenes, im talking about how christian plays those scenes. go away please if you refuse to be a part of the argument
What I'm talking about is the only possible way for you to get what you want. Having in mind what happened in the movie the only way for Bale to play the Bat little differently (or even have a reason for it) in that fight with the Joker for example or at all (after Rachel's death) IS TO ADD A NEW SCENE or a new shot or anything. And to add a new scene/shot requires some additional lines in the script for that matter.

The scenes we got in the movie cannot have an altered Batman-performance unless there's a change in the editing (respectively a change in the screenplay). Even if we're talking just about a change in his voice... I know scripts usually don't go into detail about how exactly a role is played by the actor, but the change of voice happens in the movie, within the story, just as much as any other action the character does. It's not really just 'the way he plays it'. It's an event and moreover - it's signifficant. Or would be if it happened. I'm telling you that because you said you're not talking about changes in the script while obviously you are having in mind you objected towards the character's flawlessness. Isn't that a remark towards the script?

User avatar
Posts: 19929
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
prince0gotham wrote:
talli wrote:
once again you go back to a non existent argument

i already told you im not talking about including new scenes, im talking about how christian plays those scenes. go away please if you refuse to be a part of the argument
What I'm talking about is the only possible way for you to get what you want. Having in mind what happened in the movie the only way for Bale to play the Bat little differently (or even have a reason for it) in that fight with the Joker for example or at all (after Rachel's death) IS TO ADD A NEW SCENE or a new shot or anything. And to add a new scene/shot requires some additional lines in the script for that matter.

The scenes we got in the movie cannot have an altered Batman-performance unless there's a change in the editing (respectively a change in the screenplay). Even if we're talking just about a change in his voice... I know scripts usually don't go into detail about how exactly a role is played by the actor, but the change of voice happens in the movie, within the story, just as much as any other action the character does. It's not really just 'the way he plays it'. It's an event and moreover - it's signifficant. Or would be if it happened. I'm telling you that because you said you're not talking about changes in the script while obviously you are having in mind you objected towards the character's flawlessness. Isn't that a remark towards the script?
I'm mostly with you on this.

What you're talking about would've needed to come from Nolan, not Bale, so I don't think Bale's performance is anything less than what Nolan wanted from him. Nolan worked exceptionally hard on the screenplay and the character arcs inside it, and such things aren't left up to the actors to decide.

Talli, at the scene at the end, what you're talking about is played out. It's just real. In real life, people don't typically have those dramatized emotional outbursts and look looks out into their regrets. What we saw was Nolan's grounded brand of emotionality, making it all the more real. At the end of the film when Gordon's talking about all he's lost, we, the viewer, know Batman/Bruce lost more than he ever did, including Rachel, so we feel for him. He's Batman.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
prince0gotham wrote: What I'm talking about is the only possible way for you to get what you want. Having in mind what happened in the movie the only way for Bale to play the Bat little differently (or even have a reason for it) in that fight with the Joker for example or at all (after Rachel's death) IS TO ADD A NEW SCENE or a new shot or anything. And to add a new scene/shot requires some additional lines in the script for that matter.
no, its not the only way
you're limited.
Vader182 wrote:[ It's just real. In real life, people don't typically have those dramatized emotional outbursts and look looks out into their regrets.

but thats not at all what i had in mind, nowhere in the thread did i say anything remotely similar to what you're describing. so please stop

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
Yes, you're right and all the people that disagree with you are wrong (even when you're the only one in this thread who has this opinion). As in every other thread.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
prince0gotham wrote:Yes, you're right and all the people that disagree with you are wrong (even when you're the only one in this thread who has this opinion). As in every other thread.

sounds like something someone says when they have nothing to add to the argument. why are you even around

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
talli wrote:
prince0gotham wrote:Yes, you're right and all the people that disagree with you are wrong (even when you're the only one in this thread who has this opinion). As in every other thread.

sounds like something someone says when they have nothing to add to the argument. why are you even around
Sounds like something talli says in every thread where logic (+ everyone capable of making such) is against him.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009

Post Reply