missed opportunity

Christopher Nolan's 2008 mega success about Batman's attempts to defeat a criminal mastermind known only as the Joker.
User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
talli wrote:
JUSTIN time wrote:I agree with everyone else and I think talli is forgetting that the emotionless Batman is part of the character.

Essentially part of an actor’s job is to convey the characters thoughts to the audience. And what Nolan and Bale did in this movie was use Bruce as the character that has to deal with the trauma and problems, while Batman is the one who has to stay as calm and collected as possible and deal with events that unfold. There is a duality to the character that allows him to do what is necessary. Also you can’t forget to protect his identity Bruce has Playboy side where he acts as though he could care less about what is happening in Gotham.

thats what Bruce aims to do....but sticking by that rule makes him predictable and boring. It'd be interesting if a little bit of Bruce's emotion crept into Batman and he had to FIGHT to keep them subdued...that makes intriguing character development


the rules of batman mean nothing, if you never try to overstep them
Batman has no limits. The whole movie is sticking to this moto.

And predictable and boring my hiney. We already told you what you already know and that was that he already lost control of himself once and it didn't do him any good. He would be stupid to do it again, The previous batman movies screwed up the batman image enough. (Batman and Robin fighting over Poison Ivy while in costumes? Come on. Or Val Kilmer's equivalent portrayal of both Bruce and Batman which were as I said pretty much the same character and behavior). Nolan has tried so hard to be so true to it and you're complaining about something that isn't really a problem or needed at all.

Get over it, the Bat's fight with external and internal enemies is shown as hard enough already. People already complain about how much Bruce whines about his problems compared to Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne, who was more of the silent type to which some people are still used (not me though).

Posts: 827
Joined: July 2009
Location: Cardiff, UK
I agree with Talli too an extent but there is no need for the insults.

I also felt when watching he film Bruce gets over Rachael pretty quickly, esspecially considering when his parents were killed he's an emotional wreck, goes around the world and ends up dressing as a bat. So him sitting there and then quickly getting up to save Reese etc felt a bit odd.
It's not the biggest gripe I have with the film and I agree why Nolan didn't explore that as we have already been through all that in Batman Begins and there was a lot that needed to be done in the film other elements that was still going on.
He's also driven by his anger from losing his parents and uses the Batman to channel that into something positive, not for vengeance.
The film did dip greatly after the rachael death/Harvey being burnt to me and a lot of others though.

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
rbevanx wrote:I agree with Talli too an extent but there is no need for the insults.

I also felt when watching he film Bruce gets over Rachael pretty quickly, esspecially considering when his parents were killed he's an emotional wreck, goes around the world and ends up dressing as a bat. So him sitting there and then quickly getting up to save Reese etc felt a bit odd.
It's not the biggest gripe I have with the film and I agree why Nolan didn't explore that as we have already been through all that in Batman Begins. He's also driven by his anger from losing his parents and uses the Batman to channel that into something positive, not for vengeance.
The film did dip greatly after the rachael death/Harvey being burnt to me and a lot of others though.
That was a part of the logic and nature of what was intended imo. Learning to get over himself was Bruce's purpose from day 1. Not showing as much grief after Rachel's death as we're used to in movies is a sign of progress for him and his cause. And as I've already pointed out he just had to do what was needed to be done in a very short amount of time having in mind everything's blowin up everywhere. I can see how showing him on that chair without the mask off seems 'not enough for some'. But on the other hand it's one of two scenes in TDK where he showes some sincere emotion about his relationship with Rachel and exactly that contrast makes it powerful enough. If we compare it to the first movie, where he really was having a lot more problems with dealing with everything, in TDK he's a lot more able to deal with the responcibility of being a Batman. Imo this whole franchise was meant to get from emotional - through cold - to very very cold and dark.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
all i know is Bruce is not Jesus, and Nolan sets out to make films that are realistic to humanity. Bruce being so detached from his emotions does not achieve that


it was a missed opportunity, i'm sure Nolan is aware. The End.

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
talli wrote:all i know is Bruce is not Jesus, and Nolan sets out to make films that are realistic to humanity. Bruce being so detached from his emotions does not achieve that


it was a missed opportunity, i'm sure Nolan is aware. The End.
I'm pretty sure Nolan's aware of the fact that people think his movies are emotionless, but I don't think he thinks this particular thing is a mistake.

And is funny because I was just about to edit my post and say the thing about Jesus. I'm sure (as I see where the whole thing is going) that this is exactly heading this way and that the whole thing really starts resembling the tale of Jesus. I mean how is he not Jesus? He turns the other cheek, sacrifices everything about himself, grows up more and more throughout the screen time, does miracles, is ambiguous (simultaneously being hated and loved by the public), has followers/flock, a fellow of his turns against him and he forgives him, is the son of a very important figure on the very top, is ready to turn himself in and be impaled by the public opinion... and I can go on and on.

At the end he may die for Gotham's sins or let the 'mask' die. And he's already right there on the cross, hanging along with criminals (because he let himself be blamed for murder).

Soooo...

Posts: 2224
Joined: July 2010
I'm with you on this one prince. I think the film has some narrative focus and pacing issues, but I get why this particular sequence was handled the way it was.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
prince0gotham wrote:
talli wrote:all i know is Bruce is not Jesus, and Nolan sets out to make films that are realistic to humanity. Bruce being so detached from his emotions does not achieve that


it was a missed opportunity, i'm sure Nolan is aware. The End.
I'm pretty sure Nolan's aware of the fact that people think his movies are emotionless, but I don't think he thinks this particular thing is a mistake.

And is funny because I was just about to edit my post and say the thing about Jesus. I'm sure (as I see where the whole thing is going) that this is exactly heading this way and that the whole thing really starts resembling the tale of Jesus. I mean how is he not Jesus? He turns the other cheek, sacrifices everything about himself, grows up more and more throughout the screen time, does miracles, is ambiguous (simultaneously being hated and loved by the public), has followers/flock, a fellow of his turns against him and he forgives him, is the son of a very important figure on the very top, is ready to turn himself in and be impaled by the public opinion... and I can go on and on.

At the end he may die for Gotham's sins or let the 'mask' die. And he's already right there on the cross, hanging along with criminals (because he let himself be blamed for murder).

Soooo...

because jesus is boring

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
talli wrote:

because jesus is boring
Then too bad that you find it boring, because I said what I said and it appears to be at least somehow true. I mean the similarities and all that stuff.

I mean believe me, I'm the last person that would feel enthusiastic about seeing a symbolical adaptation of Jesus' tale. But seeing what Nolan did with it I don't mind at all.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
prince0gotham wrote:
talli wrote:

because jesus is boring
Then too bad that you find it boring, because I said what I said and it appears to be at least somehow true. I mean the similarities and all that stuff.

I mean believe me, I'm the last person that would feel enthusiastic about seeing a symbolical adaptation of Jesus' tale. But seeing what Nolan did with it I don't mind at all.

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

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
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.

Post Reply