I’m not sure what you’re saying? They’ve both nice looking movies.

Thankfully it is limited and such comments are done in such a way that they don't linger in, or define, the film.

MGamesCook -



And this is a bad comparison. I like Roger Moore as he was the Bond I grew up with and I've defended him in the past but his films are done in such a way that the couldn't not have huge doses of self-referential humour.

The whole set up is farcical. The upper-middle class G&T quaffer running the mob element of British Military Intelligence. If his films were comparable to any Batman film it would be the 1966 version.

Ken -



I just wanted to expand on this a little too.

I'll concede the Gordon line. Yes that was pure, deliberate corn. As was the "I'm BATMAN" moment just before he headbuts Falcone in the same film. Granted!

But as for the Batmobile, I think the plot does a very decent job of giving its unlikely existence a grounding in scientific reality. Only the military could really have such a weapon and this is worked into the script with Wayne Enterprises doing sub-contract work for the forces. Which of course private companies have done for decades. Even the explaination as to why the project never worked leaving the perfectly working car redundant had some thought put into it.

And I also disagree about him showing off his wealth. Creating the image of an idiot, spendthrift, billionaire, manchild seems reasonable to throw people off the scent.

At the end of Batman Begins Batman is praised for saving the town on page 1 of the local rag, whilst Bruce Wayne is lambasted on page 8 for drunkenly burning down is family home.

It works well for me.

You got me.

It's plausible after a certain suspension of disbelief, but there are some depictions of Batman (e.g. Year One) that dispense with such things outright. It works marvelously, without introducing that elephant in the room. It's much grittier, but maybe not quite as blockbuster flashy.

If Rises goes with the comic storyline in which Bane deduces Batman's identity, it will be as simple as Bane going down the list of fit young male billionaires with military/industrial connections who live in or near Gotham and can't account for seven years of their late teens/mid-20s.

Why not? Why shouldn't they? Honestly, I've reached an age where I don't want to feel obligated to take it seriously when a guy dresses up as a bat. I want to be able to laugh at it a little. Look, childhood was great, and my memories of comics and cartoons will always be fond, but I'm ready to move on, and treating batman as a representation of crime and corruption in the real world doesn't exactly seem a logical way to do that.

If you think that comics = childhood, you aren't reading the right comics.

I've never read a single comic book in my life, unless you count Maus, because I'm not a nerd. And I used to watch Batman cartoons but I grew out of that about 9 or 10 years ago. I wish I could nostalgically chuckle about the things of my childhood, but I can't when people like Nolan take it more seriously than The Godfather. To all those who think his Batman movies are adult and sophisticated, or the Avengers flicks for that matter, consider growing up.

Agreed, if you want to read an "adult" comic, then i'd recommend checking out the Punisher MAX series(both the Garris Ennis and Jason Aaron run) "Slavers" in particular is one of the most shocking and horrific stories I've ever read, and I mean that as a compliment, it unnerved me on a level that no horror film could ever hope to duplicate.

Man, you really piss me off.

MGamesCook -



Because it's not what the fans want in 2012.



I'm 30, married, a parent, have a mortgage and all the rest of those adulty things and I am willing to suspend my disbelief for 2 and a half hours to believe that, if done well enough, a man dressed as a bat can save the day in a made up city (that looks a bit like Chicago).



Watch the 1966 version then.

[/quote]

Who really does? I don't know anyone who actually believes Batman can solve the crime in their city.

Sigh.

MGames is quiet for a while, comes back when he (and Nolan, of course) are brought up, makes a few posts that are actually focused on the discussion, but can't resist throwing jabs. Can you chill, please? Prove that your desire is to discuss and not just to troll. It's totally fine to believe that the Batman movies of Nolan and the Avengers are lacking in depth, pure popcorn, whatever. It's fine to have that stance. But to say that those who perceive those films in a certain way are immature individuals based on that taste is simply a moronic, small-minded stance to take.

I don't think so. I think it really is a bit immature to take Batman as seriously as Nolan does, or for that matter, to take any of the avengers as seriously as Marvel has. Is that really what fans want? I have my doubts about that, too. So we all took this stuff seriously as kids...okay, fine, but when as an adult you want to enjoy the material in a communal atmosphere, trying to take these characters seriously is a bit of a stretch and as I say, I doubt that's what anyone wants deep down anyway.

Consider the unfocused dichotomy of Iron Man: are fans of the comic really satisfied with the stand-up of a snarky smartass? It may be true to the character of Tony Stark, but what meaningful thing does it have to say about Iron Man? There are ways to make fun of your expectations while still being able to laugh at them. It doesn't have to be the 1966 Batman, but why do people pretend that Nolan's take on the character is somehow more intelligent? He brings us closer to thinking of Batman as a real person, true, but I would argue that that is both a less sophisticated and less meaningful approach to the whole thing.

A good movie should ask us to suspend our disbelief in other, more logical ways. I mean, I don't get it, has Nolan invented a new kind of suspension of disbelief for himself? Suspend your disbelief that Batman is actually seriously dark stuff for 2.5 hours? Here's another idea: if a director adds a dash or two of parody to his concoction, and just a tiny bit of self-awareness, suspension of disbelief never even becomes an issue.

You can certainly make a case that finding depth and meaningfulness to the cinematic incarnations of superheros is an immature stance, although enjoying the films certainly isn't. But it seems you're trying to assign a level of overall maturity based on this, which is silly. Does an individual's taste in film reflect very much on their overall intelligence? Of course not.



Everything you say here has validity, but it's also purely and totally a matter of taste. On parts of this, my taste aligns with yours in that I haven't appreciated the works that attempt to insert superheros into a serious and "realistic" manner.

However, I completely disagree that it would be somehow improved by taking the character less seriously, and I don't think any character in any form is made more sophisticated and meaningful by taking them less seriously.

MGamesCook -



Clearly it is. Look at the box office as a testomony. James Cameron correctly identified that hogwash love stories would work well if lumped in with a historical tragedy and the result was Titanic.

Nolan has completely correctly identified that the people wanted a serious Batman film. By all means you can criticise the artistic merits of Batman, just like I do Titanic, but if you argue that this isn't what the people want in the face of a box office $Billion then you are on to a loser my friend.



Again you have no basis in fact for this. I went to see the Dark Knight in a first class cinema in South Australia where the tickets were $80. It was full of grown men and their girlfriends. Hardly a child in sight. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the real-time reaction to 1997's camp travesty Batman and Robin. I am, I was 15 when I went to the cinema to see it. I can't remember seeing more pissed off faces at a film.

For better or worse I can't think of a film that the people want more than the Dark Knight Rises. You're mistaking your opinion for fact.

You talk about a film as if it were chocolate in a candy store. Nothing people want more? My prediction remains alternative: people will eventually get tired of all this, and it will come crashing down like a deck of cards that's been stacked too high. The center cannot hold with this shit. I can't say how long it'll take, but sooner or later we'll get a lot fewer Avatars and a lot more John Carters. You can quote me on that anytime. I do apologize if my statements seem overblown, but for the last 2.5 hours I just had my head pumped full of hot air.

MGamesCook -



In a way they are. A consumer product. And yes, I stand by my statement. I can't think of a film that a larger number and broader cross-section of people want to see at the moment than Dark Knight Rises.




They won't soon get sick of the Dark Knight because this is the last one anyway. It struck whilst the iron was hot whichever way you look at it. I don't see a time when there will be no market for serious-ish films based on Dark Knight-esq themes. Your implied assertion that this entire genre will be replaced by satire is odd to say the least.



I've never seen John Carter but it looks like a suspension of disbelief is required.

I concede that I'm not qualified to argue these points. I'm in a position now where I have feelings that I can't quite put into words that will convince anybody. I can only try to reach out to other people who I know feel the same way. I know there are people even on this forum who do feel the same way but are afraid to speak up. I think The Avengers will help my case a little bit, since I can't be the only one uncomfortable after sitting through it.

I was dead wrong on one key point: I should never have singled out Nolan. He's one of the worst offenders for what I'm talking about, but he isn't the only one, and the problem does not just come from him. The problem I'm referring to isn't as simple as mature vs. immature or intelligent vs. non-intelligent, or anything like that, but it's the same thing which has infected not only The Dark Knight and Inception, but also Avatar, all the Avengers films, all the Harry Potters, all the Lord of the Rings, and countless others.

Guys...these movies are full of hot air. They're not style over substance, they're nothingness over both style and substance. So much money is thrown at the screen that the very concept of a budget has become irrelevant. I don't understand why more of you won't admit this. You say, oh, it's just dumb fun, movies have always been like that. No, they really haven't, and there is a difference even if you wont' admit it. The Avengers isn't popcorn, it's an expensive fix. It's like getting high for 2.5 hours and staring into nothingness. It's like watching a Pokemon movie for Christ's sake, and anyone who's seen one of those will know exactly what I'm talking about. But it has characters, you might say, it has a plot, it has emotions! Well, of course it does, so it must be good right?

Picture yourself in my position. I know there are others who know what I'm trying to say, but I'm clearly not saying it 100% correctly, and the more confident posters will use that handicap to say that my perspective has no basis in fact or truth. The way I'm saying it, maybe you're right, maybe it doesn't. But there is truth to what I'm trying to get at. I won't be alone forever.

MGamesCook -



It depends what you are trying to convince people of. If you are trying to convince them that the general Hollywood blockbuster is often somewhat lacking then you are not going to have to work too hard. The general opinion on here seems to be that this is the case.



Actually he is probably the best at what he does in this regard. But if you want to argue that this is mostly because the competition is so shit then go ahead. I may partially agree with you. I have stated numerous times on here that the last Dark Knight film wasn't great.



Again, no-one appears to be disagreeing with the decline in quality argument in principle. Although I don't think the Lord of the Rings series is hot air, despite not being a huge fan myself.




For what it's worth I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of confidence. It is more to do with taking a mostly strawman argument and using it to quite rudely attack other posters.

Your comment on comic book readers for example was just anti-social. I happen to think you're probably above that.