It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
When I first saw Batman Begins (2005), I thought it was great, but Keaton's Batman still ruled for me. Still, I bought it on DVD when it came out and watched it a bunch of times.
When The Dark Knight came out (2008), I immediately didn't cotton to Ledger's take on the Joker (I remember posting a comment somewhere that he was just an evil version of Brandon Lee's Crow in colour), and found the electronic voice-altering of Bale's Batman distracting at best. And killing the replacement actress for Rachel.... I felt the whole movie was just TOO dark. One viewing and no more.
Didn't bother seeing The Dark Knight Rises (2012) at all.
Fast forward to 2018. Earlier this year on a whim I bought a Blu Ray of TDKR on the bay for peanuts. I waited for a day where I had off, and no one else was home (in case I hated it and ended up in a foul mood afterwards) and put it on. I was floored. I *loved* it. I immediately ordered Blu Rays of the other films, and watched them over. BB was even better than I remembered, and TDK was suddenly amazing. Yeah, the gravel voice still distracted, but now I saw Ledger's Joker as an entirely valid & different artistic-choice vision of the character. Still sad the Dawes character had to die, but in the context of the trilogy it suddenly made sense.
IMO this is the best superhero trilogy ever made, even if Raimi's Spider-Man is still my personal favourite. Interestingly, TDK and Spider-Man 2 are generally considered the best of their respective series, whereas I feel their surrounding films are a tiny bit more enjoyable overall. But I'm pretty certain that's just ME. ;)
Thoughts?
I feel the same. I think Raimi’s trilogy is an overall more enjoyable experience, but I believe Nolan’s films are simply better.
I think what makes the Nolan trilogy so great (but also why it will never be the definitive version of Batman), is its grounded and realistic approach.
With that said, unlike most people I don’t bow at the altar of TDK. I think it is a very good film, but I personally tend to lose interest towards the finale.
Also, Bale didn’t use any kind digital manipulation for his Batman voice.
Oh I see, I thought you meant in-universe manipulation like Batfleck. I think you’re right that there was some post production manipulation at some point though.
Edit:
You’re right, and there apparently was a in-universe reason for the voice but it was cut out. I learned something new today.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bp/story-behind-christian-bale-batman-voice-204245868.html
https://batman-news.com/2018/07/17/the-penguin-cut-birds-of-prey-batman/
I'll give you that much: the way Nolan and the actors have treated certain characters is entirely their own. They defy "convention" in many ways. Anyone who comes from a background of a four meter wide Batman comic collection and the highly popular Animated Series may spot a few elements that were lost when the Nolans and Goyer decided to go for a more naturalistic approach. I have, in fact, encountered people who speak more favourably of the Arkham video games than of Nolan's films. Both sling Batman into the modern age and neither feels overtly fantastical, but the Arkham games at least had one leg still in that supernatural, mystical and almost Lovecraftian realm, whereas Nolan did his best to project the Batman universe on our own world.
However, the popular assertion, I believe, is that Batman is tonally flexible. Camp (see Return Of The Caped Crusaders), gritty (The Dark Knight) and something in between (Arkham) can all be popular in the same half of a decade. The fun I'm having with it all, is that I'm seeing so many different approaches in almost all Batman media, and I can take or leave them at will. I adore the Animated Series but wasn't too into Batman Unlimited. I loved Beware The Batman though. In the comics I can take almost anything, although Batman Incorporated by Grant Morrisson was a bit of a challenge. In the movie universe, I rate the Nolan trilogy highest.
Then again, I must admit that I'm also quite simply a Nolan fanatic. The man can do no wrong. We seem to be sharing the same passion for cold logic, for cerebral, Asimovian storytelling and for engineering a plot rather than "musing" it into the poet's lap. His style is mathematical and sterile, often defying narrative conventions in favour of a deeper intellectual exercise as part of the actual experience. Nolan rarely freewheels from A to B and then to C and so on; rather, Nolan explores other narrative dimensions as it were. Without the specific unchronological structure of Following, Memento and The Prestige, none of these films would be quite as fascinating. For his Batman films, Nolan controlled himself in that respect, but some of that meticulous planning is definitely there. Combined with great cinematography, unique scores and a truly amazing cast, Nolan had all the ingredients present.
I'm from the Keaton school of Batman fans. He was my first "real" Batman, after seeing reruns of West's television series in my childhood of course. Then came Conroy. But I often feel like we underrate Bale. Here's a devoted actor, who pushes himself to the extreme and works very well as both Batman and Bruce Wayne. He can display anger, desperation, sadness, ... like a pro. He's the only one of all the Batman actors so far who has been able to truly convince me that his Bruce Wayne is an act. Nothing that even Keaton ever did comes close to his juicy, "It's all a bit technical", when he gives Earle the finger. Bale is a volcano of energy, radiating power even in his quiet scenes. His facial expressions, what he does with his eyes, how he tenses his voice when he talks... Through these Batman films, I have come to put Bale in a higher class of actors than I used to. Ignoring Conroy's unique voice for a minute, I almost dare say Bale is my favourite Batman / Bruce Wayne actor, and that comes from someone who spent a decade and a half worshipping Keaton's Batman.
But let's not forget the rest. Oldman's unusually reserved performance fills me with almost bewildered enthusiasm, like the man was pried from the pages of Year One. Then there's the likes of Murphy, Neeson, Hardy, Hathaway, ... Is it me, or are almost all of these people giving a performance much more restrained and tranquil than usual, only to come out better than they ever have? Too much Murphy can court ridiculousness; too much Hathaway can induce headaches. But under Nolan's direction, they excel. Suddenly, it becomes clear WHY you cast these people and not that other British cult actor or that other Disney starlett.
Then there's the Ledger debate. Look, without having to choose sides, can't we simply accept that more than one actor has played the Joker with absolute and terrifying greatness? Not unlike how Connery surely isn't the "only" acceptable or even great James Bond--Nicholson, Ledger, Hamill and even Romero have all given us impressive Jokers. I might even throw in the subdued performance of Michael Emerson in my favourite animated Batman film: The Dark Knight Returns. Some of these Jokers are loud, others are dangerously silent. Some have a maniacal laugh, others talk like a child. But every single one of them works perfectly in their own way. Ledger specifically is magnificent. He walks away from the Romero/Nicholson school, avoids the psychotic laughter of Hamill and gives what many seem to agree is the first truly frightening Joker performance. This is a Joker who could exist in our confusing society today.
I furthermore give Nolan major props for keeping the Joker hidden until the second movie. Batman Begins had Batman fight two shadow characters, leaving all the space the character of Batman needed to develop. It almost feels as if the Burton film never had a lot of confidence in the character of Batman; hence, two highly charismatic characters constantly had to fight for the spotlights. But Batman Begins sets everything up, announces the Joker at the end, and allows one of the most charismatic as well as enigmatic villains in all of comic book and film history the entire playground of one fairly long movie almost completely for himself. People tend to complain that Two-Face was underserved by The Dark Knight, but they seem to mistake him for villain number 2. He isn't. He is instead Joker's ultimate prize, his successful experiment in turning Gotham's White Knight into a thing of Evil. It was never about Two-Face, it was about corrupting even the best of Gotham. Batman's sacrificial response to that is what sets the events of the third film in motion, with some leftovers from the first almost of equal importance. In a way, the entire trilogy tells the story of Batman, against the background of events leading up to and following the actions of an almost abstract antagonistic force: the Joker. In a way, he represents all those people who seek chaos whereas the rest of us constantly strive towards something better. He is ISIS, Trump and others combined.
All things considered, Nolan's trilogy has Batman active for at most a few weeks or maybe a few months at best. Nolan was never going to produce a linear sequence of films full of standalone adventures. This is a grand opus, nearly eight hours in total, exploring one man's journey, as far as possible and as realistic as possible, meeting someone in the middle who is as electrically charged as he is, except with an opposite sign. Matter and antimatter collide and annihilate in a furious blaze of nihilistic turmoil. This trilogy has a clear beginning, a strong middle and, in my opinion, a very satisfying conclusion. The 90s Batman films never managed such a complete story and I doubt if the current Justice League films ever will. I equate Nolan's trilogy to the Godfather, only with a superb third part.
The most amazing thing? This trilogy is like nothing ever done in the Batman universe, including the very unusual work by Miller, Moore and others. Yet, by the same token, it very much honours the Batman universe, paying close attention to detail, with Goyer clearly a connoisseur of the material. Haters will hate and I've read some of the most ridiculous criticisms of these films. Emotionless, "unbatmanlike", "where's the batmobile" and "wait! no POW!". Yes, I've read them all, and they're all equally retarded comments, often coming from people who have read one or two trade paperbacks and believe they know Batman. Or from people who use the Burton/Schumacher films as a template. Way to go. That's like criticising Casino Royale because it's no Never Say Never Again: no Connery, no Blofeld and no ransom with nukes and thus no Bond. I have so far been spending most of my life studying Batman and gradually building an impressive collection of comics and I still won't profess to be an expert. All I can say is that I try to embrace every take on Batman on its own terms and provided it works within its internal logic and honours Finger/Kane's legacy enough, I'm game. Nolan, in my opinion, constructed an outstanding Batman Odyssey. I believe there's not a single cinematic comic book/superhero property out there that I can give a higher praise to.
From the heart of a fan.
My Son previously stated that he doesn't really care for Batman. He said the Keaton films were okay but a bit bizarre, kind of like Beetlejuice versions of Batman... he saw some animation, and again, just okay. He laughed a few times at the 60's movie, and said JL's Batman was like the film: watchable. But when I pestered him into BB, he was pretty silent until it was over and told me he'd be up for the second. At the end of the second we had a long talk anarchy, nihilism and sacrifice. He said he doesn't expect to really like the third (I think he's expecting a bloated all-action finale) but he's into giving it a try. He's a pretty thoughtful kid- I predict he'll love it.
Like Scotty said, I'll let ya know. ;)
Super excited
That's one of the few graphic novels on my to read list, I may hang on for the animated film though I'll try and gage how faithfull it is to the source material to determine my decision.
He said this was the only 'Batman' he truly enjoyed.
Thunderfinger is referring to the Turkish town called Batman. As he notes, the town was named after the Batman river. According to one article, "in Turkey and Persia, a batman is an ancient unit of measure—in fact, the word is still defined in plenty of English dictionaries not as 'a caped crusader with a cool utility belt' but 'a Turkish unit equal to 16.96 pounds.' But most commentators believe that the Batman River actually took its name as a shortening of 'Bati Raman,' a nearby mountain."
That's very interesting. Has he seen any of the animated stuff?
Yes, but as he's never read the comics he couldn't groove to how totally right it got the character. He watched some, said it was 'okay.'
For my part, I really think this is the best trilogy ever. Even though Raimi's Spidey and Back To The Future are part of who I am...
I don't count the dceu films Batman films in the same category as they are just team up films. But Affleck was the bomb in them, yo!
Looks like all the DVD special features will be imported. The only new special feature will be a 60-minute making-of documentary titled “The Heart of Batman.” Nevertheless, seeing all the episodes in HD quality will be a treat, since they've been scanned from the original film elements.
This is coming from a guy who still has the Animated Series on dvd, and it’s definitely grainy....
*drools* I'll certainly be buying the Bluray set, that will look awesome on my Batman shelves :))
I bought TMOTP on Bluray it looked great on my 4K TV, I liked the fact you could toggle between two different aspect ratio's, even though I stick to the 4:3 as the Widescreen toggle is just chopping the image, though I appreciate them putting the option in.
Edited: one site says UK release and price TBA, I don't think it will be long after the USA release. Alternatively BTAS in HD will be on the new DC streaming service.
It's listed on Amazon France--the French release has different packaging and a lower price. No word yet on if the French subtitles are burned in.
Sigh really ok igonoring the fact I want a solo Batman Affleck film still year one again god what is dc stuck in the same loop from what was it nightmare on elm street 4