A Question to Viewers of the Escapist regarding Man of Steel and TDK.

[ZZoMBiE13]

Haven't seen Man of Steel.

But for Batman, I just don't think Nolan "gets" Batman. And I know he doesn't "get" Gotham. I know it's supposed to be a more realistic take on the Batman story, and I'm not the type of fan who cannot abide a bit of adaptation for the sake of the piece. That stuff is fine. But I just don't think what Nolan was trying to do with the Dark Knight trilogy was very compelling. In fact, a good bit of it was quite bland. And Batman can take a lot. He can be grim, he can be colorful, he can be brooding... but boring is not a good affect for the Cape and Cowl.

Say all you want about genre deconstruction and realistic grim or edgy gritty realism working for Batman, at the end of the day if Batman isn't at least trying to take logical steps to overcome his obstacles, when Batman can't plan for Big Guy Beat Me Up, then it isn't Batman. Or at least it isn't any Batman I want to be a fan of.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

As others have said it's the tone of the films dark and gritty works for batman it doesn't work for superman though. I think Zach Snyder did a perfectly decent job of making a film but the story was terrible though lighten the fuck up it's superman ffs. After seeing mos I'm starting to get to grips with David Goyer been a terrible writer (That and Da Vinci's demons, But that's another story).

 

[Mister Chippy]

Personally, I feel like there just isn't enough depth to Superman and Batman as characters for good movies to be written about them. And before anyone brings up The Dark Knight, that movie was about the Joker and you know it.

Batman's whole thing can be summed up like so. "I AM THE NIGHT. THE DARK KNIGHT. MY PARENTS ARE DEEEAAAD!!!!" He's dark, mysterious, and his parents are dead. They try playing up the whole "dark anti-hero who will do anything to hunt down evil" but that's not even true. Batman won't even kill, so in that way he's even more of an impossibly noble figure than the big 'ol boy in blue himself. And the fact that he's just a normal human isn't even all that interesting either, because he's a super trained ninja in uber high tech combat armor fighting lunatics with clubs and makeshift knives.

I don't even figure I need to spell out why superman is a bland character. He's invincible, so the only way he could ever actually be in any danger is kryponite and as a plot device that's really kinda pathetic. His personality is almost non-existant, being no more complicated than "good guy" with the occasional "oh the pain of being nearly omnipotent" moment. He also only does whats right, and hes so powerful that he always does it perfectly, which means that there is really no way of ever building any tension since we all know that superman will just come in and smash the bad guy.

I kinda admire that they tried fixing at least some of superman's problems in the new movie, but they're trying to fix up what is fundamentally a flawed product. Superman with issues just doesn't seem to work, since the whole premise of superman in the first place is how bloody super he is. Taking what has become an international symbol of infallibility and trying to make him 'dark and gritty' because batman is 'dark and gritty' was just dumb. People do not like finding out their heroes are fallible, that they can make mistakes, and while I think the current bland superman is kinda dumb, I think the new superman is even worse. Like a wise old man once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." and superman has the greatest power of any hero. If he doesn't use it wisely, he's not really Superman anymore, is he?

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I enjoyed MoS rather a lot more than most people seem to have. I loved it on a purely artsy perspective - I like my Giger influenced stuff, so I very much appreciated the new kryptonian aesthetic. All the intricate little details had me mesmerised.
Effects wise, there were a few moments during the battle with Zod that I thought were slightly off, but apart from that, they were generally excellent.

Story wise, I liked the fact that Superman did plenty of properly heroic stuff, and how the film jumps into him doing heroic stuff straight away without too much faffing about. The oil rig segment was perfect, as was the bit with the bus. The part where he impales that guy's truck because he was being a dick didn't strike me as very heroic, but I still thought it worked because it struck me as exactly the kind of thing most of us would do if we had that kind of strength, and were morally/temperamentally strong enough to not just punch the guy.

I think a lot of the reason I liked the movie so much is because I don't buy into the usual Superman mythos at all. Overly optimistic settings where the heroes can literally just reverse time and save everyone really don't gel with me. I find they generally come across as hopelessly naive and unbelievable. I preferred MoS fairly dark tone. It seemed realistic without being overly cynical or seeming to shoehorn anything in for controversy's sake.

 

[Gatx]

I know Moviebob can't resist taking a potshot at these every other week, but surely you don't all feel they are that bad? Yes they are dark, yes they are gritty, but it works. Batman especially takes to dark and gritty like a fish takes to water.

Moviebob doesn't dislike Nolan's Batman movies, just Rises. Because it's awful. Okay not really, but it doesn't quite meet the highs of the previous movies. He takes way more shots at the Amazing Spider-man than anything else.

Personally, I feel like there just isn't enough depth to Superman and Batman as characters for good movies to be written about them. And before anyone brings up The Dark Knight, that movie was about the Joker and you know it.

What? No, the movie was about what it took to be a hero, and the boundaries between what is "right" and what is "good." The Joker's purpose was to push him to this extremes.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I enjoyed both Man of Steel and the DK trilogy. They were fun, and I have no qualms with portrayals of comic book characters. I thought the Superman script wasn't very good, what with crossing timelines for no real reason, the weak Lois Lane and daddy Kent with his stupid tornado scene. And yes, TDKR wasn't as good as the earlier movies, probably because the makers of that film over-hyped it for themselves and ended up using EVERY idea they had for the movie, no matter how incoherent they were.

Still fun though.

 

[Mister Chippy]

Personally, I feel like there just isn't enough depth to Superman and Batman as characters for good movies to be written about them. And before anyone brings up The Dark Knight, that movie was about the Joker and you know it.

What? No, the movie was about what it took to be a hero, and the boundaries between what is "right" and what is "good." The Joker's purpose was to push him to this extremes.

What extremes? Batman still doesn't kill anybody, and there isn't even any point where he seems like he's about to kill anyone. He beats up on joker some, and he drops a guy off a balcony. Honestly, he did way more stuff that might not be considered 'right' in the first movie. Ledger's performance was what made that movie great and I really don't think I have to argue that.

 

[Gatx]

Personally, I feel like there just isn't enough depth to Superman and Batman as characters for good movies to be written about them. And before anyone brings up The Dark Knight, that movie was about the Joker and you know it.

What? No, the movie was about what it took to be a hero, and the boundaries between what is "right" and what is "good." The Joker's purpose was to push him to this extremes.

What extremes? Batman still doesn't kill anybody, and there isn't even any point where he seems like he's about to kill anyone. He beats up on joker some, and he drops a guy off a balcony. Honestly, he did way more stuff that might not be considered 'right' in the first movie. Ledger's performance was what made that movie great and I really don't think I have to argue that.

Spying on everybody is the big one, then there's choosing between Harvey Dent and Rachel, whether or not to kill the Joker, and whether or not he should continue to be Batman if it would mean it would attract more people like the Joker.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I haven't seen Man of Steel, but I really enjoyed The Dark Knight Trilogy. Did it have flaws? Yeah, but it was still some of the best movies to come out in the last couple years.

 

[Mister Chippy]

What extremes? Batman still doesn't kill anybody, and there isn't even any point where he seems like he's about to kill anyone. He beats up on joker some, and he drops a guy off a balcony. Honestly, he did way more stuff that might not be considered 'right' in the first movie. Ledger's performance was what made that movie great and I really don't think I have to argue that.

Spying on everybody is the big one, then there's choosing between Harvey Dent and Rachel, whether or not to kill the Joker, and whether or not he should continue to be Batman if it would mean it would attract more people like the Joker.

IIRC, the spying was never really an issue because of reasons and he really only used it like a GPS to hunt down the joker, and even then he only used it once (twice if you count hong). He didn't choose between Harvey and Rachel. He went after Harvey, Gordon went after Rachel. Harvey was just a little closer, because joker planned it that way because he wanted to corrupt Harvey. I didn't see any time where he almost killed the joker (even in the end it was obvious he had no intention of letting joker die).

And as to whether or not he'd continue to be batman? ALL the tension of that subplot was leeched out of it by how it was only the second film in the trilogy. Also, is anyone ever moved by the "I no longer want to be a superhero" sub-plot? They always stay as a hero, because that's who they are, and no company would kill the goose that layed the golden egg. Even considering the sub-plot within the confines of the film, the sub-plot wasn't really that interesting, if only because Ledger's performance was so much better. Whether or not it was intended to be that way, the Joker was the selling point of that movie.

 

[Gatx]

IIRC, the spying was never really an issue because of reasons and he really only used it like a GPS to hunt down the joker, and even then he only used it once (twice if you count hong). He didn't choose between Harvey and Rachel. He went after Harvey, Gordon went after Rachel. Harvey was just a little closer, because joker planned it that way because he wanted to corrupt Harvey. I didn't see any time where he almost killed the joker (even in the end it was obvious he had no intention of letting joker die).

And as to whether or not he'd continue to be batman? ALL the tension of that subplot was leeched out of it by how it was only the second film in the trilogy. Also, is anyone ever moved by the "I no longer want to be a superhero" sub-plot? They always stay as a hero, because that's who they are, and no company would kill the goose that layed the golden egg. Even considering the sub-plot within the confines of the film, the sub-plot wasn't really that interesting, if only because Ledger's performance was so much better. Whether or not it was intended to be that way, the Joker was the selling point of that movie.

The spying was a big deal, enough for Morgan Freeman to quit his job (I forget if he actually did). It crosses a line even though it's for the sake of protection, destroying the machine after one use is a way for the movie to have it's cake and eat it.

And he actually "gave in" and chose to save Rachel (the personal choice, as opposed to Dent, who is the "right" choice) but the Joker had actually given him swapped addresses to mess with him.

As for killing the joker, there was also that whole scene where he was about to ram the Joker with a motorcycle but decided not to, resulting in a scream of frustration, a crash, and Joker's arrest (and all the subsequent consequences that followed).

 

[Mister Chippy]

The spying was a big deal, enough for Morgan Freeman to quit his job (I forget if he actually did). It crosses a line even though it's for the sake of protection, destroying the machine after one use is a way for the movie to have it's cake and eat it.

And he actually "gave in" and chose to save Rachel (the personal choice, as opposed to Dent, who is the "right" choice) but the Joker had actually given him swapped addresses to mess with him.

As for killing the joker, there was also that whole scene where he was about to ram the Joker with a motorcycle but decided not to, resulting in a scream of frustration, a crash, and Joker's arrest (and all the subsequent consequences that followed).

The thing is the movie does have it's cake and eat it, and by taking the easy way out like that (and taking the easy way out so quickly after establishing the moral conflict) it destroyed any of the power that conflict could have had.

The whole dent and rachel thing was totally all joker, and once again the movie took the easy way out by batman and gordon trying to rescue both of them. Batman didn't make a choice, the joker did. He was the one who decided who lived and who died.

And with the motorcycle, I didn't ever believe batman would hit the joker. That was the joker daring batman to do it, but throughout the whole movie batman refuses. Yes, batman does consider it, but the movie didn't make me believe he would ever actually do it, so the whole "would he kill the joker" bit had no power, because there was never really a question. Throughout the whole movie, there was no doubt in my mind that batman wouldn't kill the joker.

 

[Bobic]

Well, we don't all hate them, I'm going to say that Batman Begins is awesome, and The Dark Knight is in my top ten films ever (and not just because of the Joker, my favourite scene doesn't even involve him. It's the scene at the the end with Gordon, Harvey Dent, and Batman. I may be a manly man, but it brings me to the edge of tears almost every time I see it. So damned powerful). The Dark Knight Rises is alright, I loved Bane, but there were lots of little stupidities that added up (Joseph Gordon Lovett knowing the identity of Batman just by looking at him was pretty contrived, and I'm not even sure why it was necessary), so I consider it the lesser of the trilogy, but still alright.

And Man of Steel was pretty good, nowhere near as good as the Dark Knight Trilogy, but the story was interesting enough to carry me through it, I suppose, Zod was alright, Lois Lane wasn't an insipidly annoying dolt, like she usually appears to be, Russel Crowe was his usual badass self (though I'm probably biased towards him, I really enjoy his work, hell, he was one of the only things I liked about Les Miserables, no matter what everyone else says about his performance). But the fight scenes, damn, they were what elevated it from alright, to pretty cool. I loved those fight scenes, no other super hero film has captured such powerful, quick paced, flying smashy action. If anyone ever decides to make a western version of Dragonball Z (one that isn't totally and utterly shit) I hope that Zack Snyder directs it, and brings whoever worked on the choreography, camera work and editing with him.

(it should also be noted that I have read very few comics, and absolutely zero Batman and Superman comics, so it could be the escapist's large comic reading population that result in the disproportionately strong sense of dislike for these films. The Imdb scores for them are all rather high, so the general public seem to love them.)

 

[Diddy_Mao]

While I love Christopher Nolan series of Batman movies I do think they're indicative of a larger problem within the DC branch of Warner Brothers entertainment. Specifically that unless they're marketing directly to kids, they're almost ashamed of their origins.

They can't make a show or movie about Green Arrow, Wonder Woman, Superman or Batman they have to be Arrow, Amazon, Man of Steel and The Dark Knight.
I recognize that the latter two are synonyms for the same characters but the point remains the same. On a granular level all to way down to the naming conventions Warner Brothers seems to be afraid of making comic book movies.

Like I said, I love the Dark Knight series. And it works well because Batman is one of the most malleable costumed heroes in the entire genre. As long as you keep Bruce Wayne, dead parents, and a single minded focus of bat themed vigilante justice then you can change the variables around as much as you want. That's why Batman The Brave and the Bold is every bit as recognizable as a proper Batman story as is The Dark Knight.

However, my argument here is going to be the same argument I have against the movie Aliens. I may like it, but I also place the blame for the decline of the series squarely on it's shoulders. Specifically the fact that a dark and "realistic" approach to Batman works very well for Batman but is totally inappropriate for Superman. Which is where we start to see some of the problems with Man of Steel.

Rather than starting fresh with a new series of films more appropriate in tone to the rest of the DC universe they tried too hard to emulate the Batman Begins formula leaving us with a disjointed narrative that relied entirely too much on flashbacks and plodding exposition.

To be clear, I'm not against adding a bit of pathos to Superman, I need to be emotionally invested in the success of the hero and to do that I need to be able to relate to them on some level. That doesn't mean I need to witness every terrible moment from Superman's childhood to explain why he's having trouble coming to terms with his powers in the present. I got the point after the scene on the bus.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

With MoS, it was because it was this first really not-great superhero movie in a while.

I've never noticed any hate towards Nolan's Batman. Really I only see potshots towards Rises due to it not being nearly as good as The Dark Knight.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I don't think there's anyone outside of /tv/ that really thinks The Dark Knight is bad.

In terms of TDKR and MoS, I fully agree.

TDKR was such a different film, I think it caught a lot of people off guard. I'm not saying it was perfect, it had a large share of issues, I just think it's a bit misunderstood.

As for MoS, I liked it a lot, but then again, I fully admit to not caring about Superman as a character in the slightest. Ultra-good characters with an unshakeable moral code bug me and Superman is the worst offender. Yeah, the movie tried way too hard to be dark, but between a competent plot/actors and some of the best super hero fight scenes ever, I'd watch it again.

What you have to realize is that Bob LOVES taking potshots at things. I got sick and tired of him insulting Halo a long, long time ago, but that's just what he does.

 

[DRTJR]

Not a murder, or a destroyer of cities.

I've seen this argument come up a lot....and then I remember all the times that both good guys and bad guys go smashing through buildings in the various comics and cartoons.

Also comic book Superman did kill people. He killed quite a few people. Doomsday, Darkseide the Joker along with killing other Kryptonians.

Just because he's done it three or four times( and not all of them are perfectly in continuity) in his 75 years as a character does not mean it's part of his character, where as "The Rule" got one of the best story lines and one of DC's best animated movies adapted from that story line, "What's so funny about truth justice and the American way?" with the movie being "Superman Vs. the Elite."

 

[NBSRDan]

Batman Begins is great.

The Dark Knight is great.

The Dark Knight Rises is riddled with plotholes, nonsense logic, and no motivation to characters' actions.

Man of Steel is simply boring, comprised 60% of buckets clanging together. It's also not really related to the Batman movies, other than in the fact that they're both DC Comics properties.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I have an opinion as to why killing General Zod worked very well thematically: it wasn't shown as a snap decision (pun intended) but something he's probably been thinking he might have to do since their dust up started and when crunch time came, he did and it hurt like hell. Despite what is commonly believed, deliberately killing a man with your bare hands is incredibly difficult to do, even for the right reasons.

Also it is worth noting; Superman did not kill General Zod; Kal El/Clark Kent did.