User Tag List

First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 363

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck_of_Death View Post
    It's an archetype that has been around long before the Christ "myth."
    And it is what proves that Nolan doesn't understand the character.

    Batman is Sisyphus. Condemned to a barren wasteland, tasked with a futile task for all eternity.
    This is probably why Batman has endured so long as a serial.

    There is no "salvation" for Bruce Wayne. He is a runaway train on a collision course with the side of a mountain.
    Giving him a "happy" ending betrays the nature of the story entirely.
    I think that Frank Castle/The Punisher is Sisyphus not Batman/Bruce Wayne.

    In fact I think that Batman is the story of someone who was traumatised but turned things around, whereas the punisher is not or at least is different (I do have to say that I'm a fan of the earlier, less psychopathic or sad version of Frank Castle than I am of the present version, which I think is a legacy of Ennis), in the modern mythos, particularly No Mans Land, Wayne is as much an activist and visionary as is Batman, in each persona he worked to deliberately engineer the salvation of Gotham, in Batman Begins and Dark Knight I thought they tried to portray Wayne doing that and also that Wayne was carrying on his father and family's legacy in doing so.

    I really dont like those recasting of all heroic vigilantes as doomed, wounded individuals with a death wish, I blame Alan Moore for that and his belief that his Rorshack character was like Batman, that proved that Moore didnt understand the character and just wanted to rework it as a mere psychological case. There is something even worse with respect to Batman/Bruce Wayne in that trendy liberals and trotskyists have attacked it as vialed class war, in which a rich kid goes out beating on poor muggers while their wealth was acquired and continues to be acquired through a system which structurally creates or reinforces the reason for there being muggers in the first place. Its the same as the attack on Orwell as being secretly sexist, racist, classist and working for MI5.

  2. #102

    Default

    Guys see the things that you're all covering up as spoilers, they'd be known to anyone who knows who the character Bane is.

    This aspect of the movie is the plot of Knightfall in the comics, it was released, if I recall right, about the same time as in the Superman universe Doomsday had killed Superman and everyone was waiting to see if there would be a come back.

    There was a period of time in which there were a number of substitutes for Batman, an odd ball religious zealot who stood in and assumed the costume, although it was a bit of an Ironman like costume and there was, what has been a theme of the more recent comics which I dont like, a kind of "team batman" in the form of about a half dozen costumed super heroes and vigilantes associated with Batman, including Nightwing/Dick Grayson, Robin (I think there were a number of Robins and one made a come back as a villain, in the comics eventually imitating batman, wearing the costume and carrying machine guns and grenades, in an animated movie wearing a hood and in other comics being the red hood, a Frank Castle/Punisher style character).

    Although the Bane character in the comics was something way different from the one in the movie from what I've seen, he was a massive mexican wrestler and his voice was distorted because Bane had some some sort of drugs and cybernetics outfitting which pumped steroids into his spine or had the effect of making him something like the incredible hulk.

  3. #103
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Although the Bane character in the comics was something way different from the one in the movie from what I've seen, he was a massive mexican wrestler and his voice was distorted because Bane had some some sort of drugs and cybernetics outfitting which pumped steroids into his spine or had the effect of making him something like the incredible hulk.
    Yes, there are differences between the Bane in the movie and the Bane in the comic.

    There was a period of time in which there were a number of substitutes for Batman, an odd ball religious zealot who stood in and assumed the costume, although it was a bit of an Ironman like costume and there was, what has been a theme of the more recent comics which I dont like, a kind of "team batman" in the form of about a half dozen costumed super heroes and vigilantes associated with Batman, including Nightwing/Dick Grayson, Robin (I think there were a number of Robins and one made a come back as a villain, in the comics eventually imitating batman, wearing the costume and carrying machine guns and grenades, in an animated movie wearing a hood and in other comics being the red hood, a Frank Castle/Punisher style character).
    Does this in any way have relevance to the discussion of the movie? You come off like you're just trying to show how much you've read the comics. There was also a team Superman when Supes got killed by Doomsday, with people wondering who the "real superman" was.

    One of the plot twists in the movie does harken WAAAY back to the R'as al Ghul of the comics from the 70's, but I'm not really at liberty to explain what it is lest I give away the main twist of the movie aside from the ending itself. We're not all comic-illiterate.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #104
    Epiphany
    Guest

    Default

    Don't know if it has been mentioned in the thread, but I was browsing the book store the other day and saw these two titles: Batman and Psychology and Batman and Philosophy. Looks like an interesting read.

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    @Duck_of_Death:
    (In regard to the spoilers.
    It was too much of a rehash. Blowing up Gotham is horrifying, but it has been done before. It is tired.
    Intellectual debate was established in this movie, but quickly dropped to show more 'splosions.

    It isn't the costumed weirdos or mobsters who are the TRUE villains of Gotham.
    They're a byproduct of an unjust, decaying society.

    Corrupt politicians, however, line their pockets and gain political power from crime.
    TDKR should have approached this head on.
    This would have been The Joker's "better class of criminal."

    Batman was designed to shake people out of apathy.
    While Batman fights on his end, the ordinary citizens must do their part.

    At the end of the day, this is their battle and no one else.

    This didn't happen. It was foreshadowed in Begins.
    The citizens drifted away into obscurity.

    Very sloppy writing.

  6. #106
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think that Frank Castle/The Punisher is Sisyphus not Batman/Bruce Wayne. In fact I think that Batman is the story of someone who was traumatised but turned things around, whereas the punisher is not or at least is different (I do have to say that I'm a fan of the earlier, less psychopathic or sad version of Frank Castle than I am of the present version, which I think is a legacy of Ennis),
    What did you expect from Ennis? He wrote Preacher, right? I could only handle a few issues of that before quitting, at the time I read it.

    in the modern mythos, particularly No Mans Land, Wayne is as much an activist and visionary as is Batman, in each persona he worked to deliberately engineer the salvation of Gotham, in Batman Begins and Dark Knight I thought they tried to portray Wayne doing that and also that Wayne was carrying on his father and family's legacy in doing so.
    As Bruce Wayne, he did try to do that in the movies, and even this third movie has allusions to that as well.. by what he did, and then by what he did not share with the city for ultimately altruistic reasons. But I see a schism between Batman and Bruce Wayne, and we've seen the methods of Batman explored in these first movies and even positioned as "the dark version" of law and order. That's what "The Dark Knight" is about -- the champion who is vilified and inexplicable because of his appearance and methods.

    I just reread Miller's Dark Knight Returns this morning and I felt it was much more true to the concept of the "Dark Knight" than this movie marketing lingo using the same phrase. Batman really has reached a level of combating criminals on their level, and sees himself reflected in their faces (end of Issue #1 with Harvey Dent). he still does fight for the city, but he is entirely misunderstood and uses the criminals methods to deal with them, in contrast to Superman for example, who takes a more "boy scout" approach (from Bruce's perspective), although I think we are given some legitimate perspective on Supes to be fair to him and his choices as well. Maybe if the movie wasn't going to carry that allusion through to its realistic conclusion, it should have used a different title.

    I really dont like those recasting of all heroic vigilantes as doomed, wounded individuals with a death wish, I blame Alan Moore for that and his belief that his Rorshack character was like Batman, that proved that Moore didnt understand the character and just wanted to rework it as a mere psychological case.
    Who cares about what Moore thought? We are discussing Batman, not Rorshach, and the casting of Batman as a dark hero far predates Moore. I have no idea why you are dragging Moore into this. Rorshach stands on his own, btw, regardless of who Batman is, even if he's a ripoff of a backrung character in some other company's universe, which in itself a ripoff of DC's Batman. Rorshach was a unique character who died consistently with how he lived, which I thought was the perfect ending for him.

    There is something even worse with respect to Batman/Bruce Wayne in that trendy liberals and trotskyists have attacked it as vialed class war, in which a rich kid goes out beating on poor muggers while their wealth was acquired and continues to be acquired through a system which structurally creates or reinforces the reason for there being muggers in the first place. Its the same as the attack on Orwell as being secretly sexist, racist, classist and working for MI5.
    While I don't particularly look at Batman as a class war myself, it's not like it's not one facet of the character. Batman IS a billionaire, and Batman DOES spend lots of money via his resources to beat the crap out of villains, and some of those street villains have drifted into criminal behavior because of their poor background. I would hate to reduce Batman to JUST that facet, because he is far more rich and complex than that, but I would not consider it an illicit point to bring up -- it's one aspect of who he is.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #107
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck_of_Death View Post
    It was too much of a rehash. Blowing up Gotham is horrifying, but it has been done before. It is tired.
    Intellectual debate was established in this movie, but quickly dropped to show more 'splosions.

    It isn't the costumed weirdos or mobsters who are the TRUE villains of Gotham.
    They're a byproduct of an unjust, decaying society.

    Corrupt politicians, however, line their pockets and gain political power from crime.
    TDKR should have approached this head on.
    This would have been The Joker's "better class of criminal."

    Batman was designed to shake people out of apathy.
    While Batman fights on his end, the ordinary citizens must do their part.

    At the end of the day, this is their battle and no one else.

    This didn't happen. It was foreshadowed in Begins.
    The citizens drifted away into obscurity.

    Very sloppy writing.
    I don't feel like going into the analogies right now, but I just skimmed through Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" this morning, which I can't HELP but compare this movie to (the name is too similar, and some of the context and the actual plot outcomes are very similar), and it's just a much better exploration of all these details than Nolan's third movie was. It really far better captures the concept of Batman being a "Dark Knight" and AKA Villain in the police's eyes, his struggles with being older, and how he is fighting for Gotham's survival outside the system, acting as an icon to those who are also of ambiguous morality.

    It also tackles the similarities between Batman and the very villains he attempts to put away -- in some ways, these villains rise to prominence because Batman exists, he also triggers their appearance. Does that make Batman complicit in their destruction or not? In Miller's version, Batman takes responsibility for this finally, but it positions him even more outside the system. It even shows how Batman is able to take the more violent subgroups of the culture -- those who themselves were cast as villains, the gangs, etc. -- and commandeer them to protect the city, at the story's end, and how the community started to pull together as well to take care of their homes.

    Nolan cast his movie in one light, but it was really a different kind of movie. I think a lot of the interesting questions in TDK were incorporated directly into the plot (there was a lot of Joker dialogue that occurred during the plot, rather than asides), whereas here Bane wasn't really saying much that was provocative.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think that Frank Castle/The Punisher is Sisyphus not Batman/Bruce Wayne.

    In fact I think that Batman is the story of someone who was traumatised but turned things around, whereas the punisher is not or at least is different (I do have to say that I'm a fan of the earlier, less psychopathic or sad version of Frank Castle than I am of the present version, which I think is a legacy of Ennis), in the modern mythos, particularly No Mans Land, Wayne is as much an activist and visionary as is Batman, in each persona he worked to deliberately engineer the salvation of Gotham, in Batman Begins and Dark Knight I thought they tried to portray Wayne doing that and also that Wayne was carrying on his father and family's legacy in doing so.

    I really dont like those recasting of all heroic vigilantes as doomed, wounded individuals with a death wish, I blame Alan Moore for that and his belief that his Rorshack character was like Batman, that proved that Moore didnt understand the character and just wanted to rework it as a mere psychological case. There is something even worse with respect to Batman/Bruce Wayne in that trendy liberals and trotskyists have attacked it as vialed class war, in which a rich kid goes out beating on poor muggers while their wealth was acquired and continues to be acquired through a system which structurally creates or reinforces the reason for there being muggers in the first place. Its the same as the attack on Orwell as being secretly sexist, racist, classist and working for MI5.
    And in the No Man's Land storyline, Wayne (not Batman) was pitted against criminal politicians (Lex Luthor, if I'm not mistaken).
    As politically neutral, I'm saying that Batman is part of the problem. He may be a short-term solution, but a long-term liability.

    And that is what I wanted out of this Batman story: An Orwellian parallel.
    The corrupt politicians are carrying out false flag operations using hired thugs, which acquires them more political power.

    Batman gets tossed in the middle.
    It would have made a very gray play on morality and ethics, similar to The Dark Knight.

    And we need a mainstream story like that now more than ever.

    As for the Punisher: There isn't a lot of complexity there. He is as archetypal as they come.
    Batman has a "duty" because he has resources and abilities that no one else has.

    The Punisher does what he does because it is fun to watch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I don't feel like going into the analogies right now, but I just skimmed through Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" this morning, which I can't HELP but compare this movie to (the name is too similar, and some of the context and the actual plot outcomes are very similar), and it's just a much better exploration of all these details than Nolan's third movie was. It really far better captures the concept of Batman being a "Dark Knight" and AKA Villain in the police's eyes, his struggles with being older, and how he is fighting for Gotham's survival outside the system, acting as an icon to those who are also of ambiguous morality.

    It also tackles the similarities between Batman and the very villains he attempts to put away -- in some ways, these villains rise to prominence because Batman exists, he also triggers their appearance. Does that make Batman complicit in their destruction or not? In Miller's version, Batman takes responsibility for this finally, but it positions him even more outside the system. It even shows how Batman is able to take the more violent subgroups of the culture -- those who themselves were cast as villains, the gangs, etc. -- and commandeer them to protect the city, at the story's end, and how the community started to pull together as well to take care of their homes.

    Nolan cast his movie in one light, but it was really a different kind of movie. I think a lot of the interesting questions in TDK were incorporated directly into the plot (there was a lot of Joker dialogue that occurred during the plot, rather than asides), whereas here Bane wasn't really saying much that was provocative.
    For the past week or so, I've read the Batman graphic novels I've acquired over the years, and The Dark Knight Returns was undeniably a direct influence on this story. However, Returns is a satire in the vein of RoboCop, so tonally the influences don't mesh well with Rises, in my opinion.

    Nonetheless, Batman is at his best in media res, which TDKR threw out the window from the start. The Dark Knight Returns is one of those stories you either adapt completely or not at all. Miller had a lot to say about EVERYTHING and he did it as masterfully as possible.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    What did you expect from Ennis? He wrote Preacher, right? I could only handle a few issues of that before quitting, at the time I read it.
    I didnt mind him doing that with Preacher because that was his own thing, I think he was involved in the UK reprints of old Punisher comics in the ninties, the letters pages of the ones which I kept from then were/are gold for the debates about the character and contrasts which came out. Many comparisons favourable and disfavourable with Batman, especially since the Burton Batman story was not long out of the cinema, the first one, which was THE revival of Batman for many people, the first introduction to the character which I had.

    I wouldnt trash Ennis' stuff entirely, I liked his series "Born" which sort of showed that Castle was always "a bit like that" and engaged in punisher like behaviour in 'Nam, both his own troops and VC, and also the extent to which his family upon return was the only thing which allowed him to put the "punisher", represented as the skull motif, in the box. It leaves it to the reader, knowing the story, to conclude what will happen if the family ever perish.

    Although the earlier Punisher was meant to be a veteran, war hero etc. because those were explicitly respectable credentials and experience, he was honour bound and honourific, he was also seriously scrupulous about not harming the innocent in the earlier comics and used some sort of strange ammunition in the earliest appearences in Spiderman, in which he was a marksman extraordinaire like Bullseye in the later Punisher comics, which did no harm to villains even "mercy bullets".

    In the first movie, which is dreadful, he was a cop and they used that in the more recent movie but one too, this was for the reason of making the character respectable too. That's important. Ennis threw that out. Instead I think Ennis is thinking too much of the "we're just retaliating" paramilitary "avengers" in Northern Ireland, which are far, far short of any of their stated punisher like traits and know it, I think Ennis recast the character like that, he even had something to do with the Punisher European missions which featured a mission in Northern Ireland and some of the same characters. That was all wrong. I dont mind it but it sort of has become the only Punisher motif there is, besides an equally unlikeable one in which he is something like Ironman or Spiderman in the costumed superhero sense.

    As Bruce Wayne, he did try to do that in the movies, and even this third movie has allusions to that as well.. by what he did, and then by what he did not share with the city for ultimately altruistic reasons. But I see a schism between Batman and Bruce Wayne, and we've seen the methods of Batman explored in these first movies and even positioned as "the dark version" of law and order. That's what "The Dark Knight" is about -- the champion who is vilified and inexplicable because of his appearance and methods.

    I just reread Miller's Dark Knight Returns this morning and I felt it was much more true to the concept of the "Dark Knight" than this movie marketing lingo using the same phrase. Batman really has reached a level of combating criminals on their level, and sees himself reflected in their faces (end of Issue #1 with Harvey Dent). he still does fight for the city, but he is entirely misunderstood and uses the criminals methods to deal with them, in contrast to Superman for example, who takes a more "boy scout" approach (from Bruce's perspective), although I think we are given some legitimate perspective on Supes to be fair to him and his choices as well. Maybe if the movie wasn't going to carry that allusion through to its realistic conclusion, it should have used a different title.
    To be honest, I'm a fan of that book BTW and think it was one of the last good examples of Batman writing, I think that the second movie should have been split.

    They should have done the Joker storyline and a seperate Harvey Dent story line, there was no way that the character of the Batman was coming of darker than the Joker in that film, Ledger's great performance or no, and the subplot, which was just as important as the movie story arc altogether, about Dent, politics, legislation which was needed to deal with the problems which perhaps were a result of Batman working Gotham as a patch, ie it becoming a magnet for Joker types, and the fate of all of that if Dent's rep was ruined by two face was overshadowed.

    Also, as you say, Batman wasnt really shown as a character in that movie which was terrifying to the criminal fraternity or had really begun to "fight fire with fire", Miller's Batman I think of as being similar to Big Daddy in Kick Ass only without the guns.

    Who cares about what Moore thought? We are discussing Batman, not Rorshach, and the casting of Batman as a dark hero far predates Moore. I have no idea why you are dragging Moore into this. Rorshach stands on his own, btw, regardless of who Batman is, even if he's a ripoff of a backrung character in some other company's universe, which in itself a ripoff of DC's Batman. Rorshach was a unique character who died consistently with how he lived, which I thought was the perfect ending for him.
    If Moore's opinion didnt matter then it would simply be a matter of "who cares?", he's a big guy in comics and he's done lots of interviews and expounded his theories about particular characters and in many circles those are THE opinions of those characters which now hold water and are considered canonical. He's said a lot about how that character was meant to be Batman, then those theories have been passed off as "matter of fact" by many of the people I've read discussing Batman now, which I think is a shame because it wasnt about simply a "darker" batman, it was a pathologising of Batman as a basket case.

    So far as making Batman darker, he was originally pretty dark, Bob Kane had his character originally using a laso rope rather than the batarang or spear guns and if I'm not wrong he did hang some of the bad guys with it, even only by accident, I definitely remember him closing some windows on a laboratory and letting a mad scientist burn to death too. So that's been there. Although those were darker times maybe that this was just part of the commonplace action or dectective fiction.

    While I don't particularly look at Batman as a class war myself, it's not like it's not one facet of the character. Batman IS a billionaire, and Batman DOES spend lots of money via his resources to beat the crap out of villains, and some of those street villains have drifted into criminal behavior because of their poor background. I would hate to reduce Batman to JUST that facet, because he is far more rich and complex than that, but I would not consider it an illicit point to bring up -- it's one aspect of who he is.
    Well, Bob Kane and a lot of the historians of batman which I read at the time I first got interested in the character, shortly after Tim Burton's movie, all talked about the Wayne had to be a millionaire because the alternative was to make him some sort of maverick spy or PI or government agent, which they did not want to do because it would be too difficult to make it plausible that he could conceal his identity from his paymasters. There were other characters like The Shadow, the film of which I did not think was a bad as a lot of people made out, which prefigured Batman and were only really unlike in the respect that they had city wide organisations and agents, like Dick Tracy, although Tracy was a cop working for the state, and those characters used guns, which Batman didnt apart from a few earlier or odd instances. So I kind of see it as a plot device, its not either a conscious or unconscious reflection of class struggles and I dont believe that really belongs in a discussion of the character, its reductive yes, but I also think its fundamentally mistaken and part of trendy liberals trying to trash old fashioned heroes or heroics.

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck_of_Death View Post
    And in the No Man's Land storyline, Wayne (not Batman) was pitted against criminal politicians (Lex Luthor, if I'm not mistaken).
    As politically neutral, I'm saying that Batman is part of the problem. He may be a short-term solution, but a long-term liability.

    And that is what I wanted out of this Batman story: An Orwellian parallel.
    The corrupt politicians are carrying out false flag operations using hired thugs, which acquires them more political power.

    Batman gets tossed in the middle.
    It would have made a very gray play on morality and ethics, similar to The Dark Knight.

    And we need a mainstream story like that now more than ever.

    As for the Punisher: There isn't a lot of complexity there. He is as archetypal as they come.
    Batman has a "duty" because he has resources and abilities that no one else has.

    The Punisher does what he does because it is fun to watch.



    For the past week or so, I've read the Batman graphic novels I've acquired over the years, and The Dark Knight Returns was undeniably a direct influence on this story. However, Returns is a satire in the vein of RoboCop, so tonally the influences don't mesh well with Rises, in my opinion.

    Nonetheless, Batman is at his best in media res, which TDKR threw out the window from the start. The Dark Knight Returns is one of those stories you either adapt completely or not at all. Miller had a lot to say about EVERYTHING and he did it as masterfully as possible.
    I thought I understood what you were saying but I really dont, how is he a short term plus and a long term minus?

Similar Threads

  1. The Dark Knight Rises and criminal types
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2015, 07:22 PM
  2. Bane in the Dark Knight Rises
    By Julius_Van_Der_Beak in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-19-2015, 11:48 AM
  3. The Truth About Dark Knight Rises
    By Mal12345 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 03:01 PM
  4. Batman 3; The Dark Knight Rises Official Movie Trailer
    By Mace in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 07-22-2012, 01:54 PM
  5. "The Dark Knight Rises" cast and crew
    By sleuthiness in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-21-2012, 10:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO