Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

SlyTF1 wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:
Final gripe: This movie IS NOT a Batman movie. Take out batman and put ANY action hero that do the exact same things and the movie would have remained inchanged. This "Batman" is a very awesome action movie. It just dont feel AT ALL like a Batman movie.

TDK was the same way...

Not entirely. For me, it felt like a true Batman. The movie was dark and gritty. Two Face and Joker helped a lot thus making the second movie the BEST of the trilogy. My only complain about this one is that Gotham look nothing at all like Gotham and magically morphed into New York. Minor complain.
The best Gotham being the one in the two Tim Burton movies.

No really, in Batman Rise, take out Batman/Bruce Wane and put in place Johnn McClane from Die Hard or even James Bond. The movie would remain totally unchanged. Why? Batman is not Batman in this. He's just a vet doing a training montage before going all action-hero-vigilante on the vilain's asses. Beside, Batman leave the hero work to Gordon, that female burglar (I REFUSE to call her
"Catwoman"), the Rookie, and the whole blasted police force of Gotham.

-Kanrabat- wrote:First, I hated that Batman got all "Spiderman 2" here. I just hate it when the superhero just give up and quit. ****, I want the hero to be heroic, not being human and depressed.

You clearly do not know Batman as well as you think. Maybe the Adam West variation, but not The Dark Knight. Being dark and brooding is half the character.

-Kanrabat- wrote:Next gripe. Catwoman IS NOT Catwoman. She's just a random catburglar but she's nothing like the iconic character.

Hot badass chick in a skin-tight suit, special skill with sarcasm, and a reluctant tendency to sometimes do the right thing. What exactly did they miss?

-Kanrabat- wrote:Final gripe: This movie IS NOT a Batman movie. Take out batman and put ANY action hero that do the exact same things and the movie would have remained inchanged. This "Batman" is a very awesome action movie. It just dont feel AT ALL like a Batman movie.

You can do that with just about any piece of Batman fiction. It's having Batman there that makes it good.

-Kanrabat- wrote:Bonus gripe. Bane dont have his chemical that transform him into a big-ass mutant. Still that would not have worked in this world and Bane is awesome enough as he is.

It's called Venom and no, it would not have made sense. They replaced it with an anesthetic that dramatically increases his tolerance to pain, thus allowing himself to push himself even harder, at least, and Batman disables him just like he would disable Bane in the comics.

-Kanrabat- wrote:One surprise. Everybody figure out that Batman is Bruce Wane. At last, some logic.

I felt it was the opposite of logic, Blake figuring it out came right out of left field and they never fully explain it. Bane had the intel from the League of Shadows, Catwoman learned from Bane most likely, and Gordon was basically told by Batman up-front, so that at least made sense. But Blake knowing because he could tell Bruce was faking a smile is just silly.

-Kanrabat- wrote:BTW, the first two Batman of this series were TRUE Batman movies. It was ABOUT Batman being Batman doing Batman things.
Sigh... Do you know about Garfield Minus Garfield? This is what this movie felt for me. Batman Rise is Batman Minus Batman...

While I understand your gripe about Batman being absent from a large portion of the movie, the rest of it was vintage Batman, much moreso than The Dark Knight which could very well have been Joker The Movie. Outside of the portion where Bruce was stuck in the Pit, they focused way more on Batman in this, and the idea of needing Batman, and Batman as a symbol rather than a vigilante is discussed here much more than it is in the last movies.

I'll be brutally honest.

I was bored and couldn't wait for it to end.

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Next gripe. Catwoman IS NOT Catwoman. She's just a random catburglar but she's nothing like the iconic character.

Hot badass chick in a skin-tight suit, special skill with sarcasm, and a reluctant tendency to sometimes do the right thing. What exactly did they miss?

The stupid cat-ears? I hate the stupid cat-ears and this movie was better for not actually having them.

RhA wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Next gripe. Catwoman IS NOT Catwoman. She's just a random catburglar but she's nothing like the iconic character.

Hot badass chick in a skin-tight suit, special skill with sarcasm, and a reluctant tendency to sometimes do the right thing. What exactly did they miss?

The stupid cat-ears? I hate the stupid cat-ears and this movie was better for not actually having them.

They sort of did, though, when she flipped up her goggles they formed cat ears.

That said, the cat ears are part of the cat motif, which is like half of her character design.

TIME TO ARGUE IN A SUPER QUOTING FRENZY!

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:First, I hated that Batman got all "Spiderman 2" here. I just hate it when the superhero just give up and quit. ****, I want the hero to be heroic, not being human and depressed.

You clearly do not know Batman as well as you think. Maybe the Adam West variation, but not The Dark Knight. Being dark and brooding is half the character.

Aw, come on, dont bring out the Adam West Batman. Even if he's awesome, he's in a world of his own. No, I have nothing against "Dark" and "Brooding". I saw the Tim Burton movies, the whole original Animated Series and even The Batman Animated series. (I'm not a comic reader) Oh yeah, I also saw the excellent Anime Batman Year One (based on that infamous comic). NEVER IN ALL THESE HOURS AND HOURS OF FOOTAGE, BATMAN NEVER JUST GAVE UP AND QUIT. Batman NEVER quit. Then, we get a Bruce Wane, all emo with a random crippling injury who just gave up. Sigh... Then, it got better when he moved his ass to get some work done, only to get own by Bane and be crippled again. Sigh... I know Bane crippling Batman is a vital part of the mythos. That's why the "Cane walking Wane" should have been left out. Batman, miserable and in the Pit after his defeat by the hands of Bane was very clever and awesome. Just why Batman was a retired loser before? That's one time too many miserable chapter in the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Batman should have been still active and kicking butts. THEN Bane own him and one and only ONE depressing chapter happen. It would have been more interesting because it would not have been an out-of-shape Batman that Bane would have defeated, but an all powerful Batman.
Anyway...

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Next gripe. Catwoman IS NOT Catwoman. She's just a random catburglar but she's nothing like the iconic character.

Hot badass chick in a skin-tight suit, special skill with sarcasm, and a reluctant tendency to sometimes do the right thing. What exactly did they miss?

What did they miss? The "cat" part in "Catwoman". She should have been more, you know, "feline" and more sexy. Like that unnatainable femme fatale. Not over the top like in Batman Returns but more like in the Animated Serie. She was not TOO bad, but she felt more like an extra than a main character.

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Final gripe: This movie IS NOT a Batman movie. Take out batman and put ANY action hero that do the exact same things and the movie would have remained inchanged. This "Batman" is a very awesome action movie. It just dont feel AT ALL like a Batman movie.

You can do that with just about any piece of Batman fiction. It's having Batman there that makes it good.

"Come and see, Batman in YOU GOT MAIL. Batman try to seduce a woman in the early times of the internet while promoting AOL and Starbuck's Coffe". Will THIS make a Batman movie?
... Actually, I'd pay money to see that.
Seriously, what I meant is where's Batman, lurking in the shadow, ready to strike? Where is Batman, solving great mysteries with his detective skills? There's also almost no interections between Batman and the main villain. Granted, the two sole encounters HURT and where explosive, but still... It's just that almost 3/4 of the movie is spent elsewhere while Bruce Waine is hurt and is hidden in a hole.
Man, I cant let go of that "miserable" Batman.

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Bonus gripe. Bane dont have his chemical that transform him into a big-ass mutant. Still that would not have worked in this world and Bane is awesome enough as he is.

It's called Venom and no, it would not have made sense. They replaced it with an anesthetic that dramatically increases his tolerance to pain, thus allowing himself to push himself even harder, at least, and Batman disables him just like he would disable Bane in the comics.

That why that gripe is only minor. It's like Bane was under the influence of the Venom 24/7 sans being bloat-up like the Hulk. I really, REALLY liked that bane. Smart, calm, merciless, and unstoppable.

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:One surprise. Everybody figure out that Batman is Bruce Wane. At last, some logic.

I felt it was the opposite of logic, Blake figuring it out came right out of left field and they never fully explain it. Bane had the intel from the League of Shadows, Catwoman learned from Bane most likely, and Gordon was basically told by Batman up-front, so that at least made sense. But Blake knowing because he could tell Bruce was faking a smile is just silly.

The joke going around is that it's incredible that no one in Gotham put 2&2 together and figure out that the mysterious masked vigilante that have an infinite bujet with his hyper pricey gatjets is that billionaire that may have a grudge against criminals. At least, someone could have figured out that Bruce Wayne was at least Batman's sponsor.
100% agreed about the way Blake figured Bruce's secret. That made me raise my eyebrow so high, the theatre staff had to scrape it off the ceiling.

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:BTW, the first two Batman of this series were TRUE Batman movies. It was ABOUT Batman being Batman doing Batman things.
Sigh... Do you know about Garfield Minus Garfield? This is what this movie felt for me. Batman Rise is Batman Minus Batman...

While I understand your gripe about Batman being absent from a large portion of the movie, the rest of it was vintage Batman, much moreso than The Dark Knight which could very well have been Joker The Movie. Outside of the portion where Bruce was stuck in the Pit, they focused way more on Batman in this, and the idea of needing Batman, and Batman as a symbol rather than a vigilante is discussed here much more than it is in the last movies.

I don't have much to say against that, appart "WHERE IS BATMAN IN MY BATMAN MOVIE?!" :crying:

I think you were expecting something different from what you got. The whole premise of these three movies was to be less cartoonish, less comicy, less campy and more realistic.
(Dressing a dude up in body armour, a useless cape and a helmet with pointy ears however defeats that)

Catwoman as a character IS more feline. In fact, a lot, if not most, comic characters personality is associated with their character/power set.

But that doesn't apply in these movies, so Catwoman was stripped back to the basics, a cat burgular.

Burn wrote:(...)
so Catwoman was stripped back to the basics, a cat burgular.

It's like removing the sauce from my steak, or removing the strawberries from my shortcake. It's still food and it's still feed you, but it taste bland and have no style.

In the other movies, Scarecrow, Joker, and Two Face survived the more realistic transition. They WERE Scarecrow, Joker and Two Face. They were memorable because it was a powerful twist on the original characters.
As for Bane, he got a massive (literally) change from the original, but he's a very unique and awesome character in this new form.

Unfortunately, that Catwoman was so bland, she even lost her name...
Catwoman? You mean female criminal #3-a.

-Kanrabat- wrote:The joke going around is that it's incredible that no one in Gotham put 2&2 together and figure out that the mysterious masked vigilante that have an infinite bujet with his hyper pricey gatjets is that billionaire that may have a grudge against criminals. At least, someone could have figured out that Bruce Wayne was at least Batman's sponsor.

Never heard that one before. I've heard it about Superman countless times, but never once about Batman.

And Bruce takes great care is making both personalities seem so vastly different that no one could tell they're the same. Batman is angry, vicious, and brooding, while Bruce Wayne is an aloof, eccentric billionaire who spends more time spending his trust fund on cars and awesome penthouses and supermodels then he does on taking care of his parents company. In the comics, at least one villain (Either Joker or the Riddler, I can't remember which) found out Bruce Wayne was Batman...only to immediately disregard it because of how outlandish it seems.

-Kanrabat- wrote:I don't have much to say against that, appart "WHERE IS BATMAN IN MY BATMAN MOVIE?!" :crying:

I saw him all over the place. You're complaining about segment of the movie as if it were the entire thing. Did you just take a very long bathroom break up until Bane pulled his signature back-breaker or something?

Shadowman wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:The joke going around is that it's incredible that no one in Gotham put 2&2 together and figure out that the mysterious masked vigilante that have an infinite bujet with his hyper pricey gatjets is that billionaire that may have a grudge against criminals. At least, someone could have figured out that Bruce Wayne was at least Batman's sponsor.

Never heard that one before. I've heard it about Superman countless times, but never once about Batman.

And Bruce takes great care is making both personalities seem so vastly different that no one could tell they're the same. Batman is angry, vicious, and brooding, while Bruce Wayne is an aloof, eccentric billionaire who spends more time spending his trust fund on cars and awesome penthouses and supermodels then he does on taking care of his parents company. In the comics, at least one villain (Either Joker or the Riddler, I can't remember which) found out Bruce Wayne was Batman...only to immediately disregard it because of how outlandish it seems.

The one that DID find out was that computer program Doctor Strange created. It went rogue, found a body, and proceed to hunt down Batman. By simple deductions, the robot foud Batman at Bruce's manor. The robot eventually self-destructed or something after Batman made some mind-games with it. The other is the Riddler, who came really close by playing "Akinator" with a captured Batman. Both are episodes from "The Batman".

By the way, dont take all of this too seriously, lighten up and watch this video.

-Kanrabat- wrote:The one that DID find out was that computer program Doctor Strange created. It went rogue, found a body, and proceed to hunt down Batman. By simple deductions, the robot foud Batman at Bruce's manor. The robot eventually self-destructed or something after Batman made some mind-games with it. The other is the Riddler, who came really close by playing "Akinator" with a captured Batman. Both are episodes from "The Batman".

I am not talking about The Batman. I am never talking about The Batman. By the way, I don't know of a continuity where Strange didn't learn Batman's identity. And Riddler learned Batman's identity in the comics, too. Batman convinced him to keep quiet because it would lead Ra's al Ghul to learn Riddler had been using his Lazarus Pits without permission.

But I'm talking about an instance where a villain learned it and specifically ignored it because they didn't believe it.

-Kanrabat- wrote:In the other movies, Scarecrow, Joker, and Two Face survived the more realistic transition.

Remind me again of The Joker's origins in DKR compared to his comic book origins ...

Burn wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:In the other movies, Scarecrow, Joker, and Two Face survived the more realistic transition.

Remind me again of The Joker's origins in DKR compared to his comic book origins ...

If I remember correctly, in the comic, Jocker DID NOT have an origin. The only origin I think was explained was only influenced by the 1989 Tim Burton movie. But heh, I'm not a reader of Batman comics. Trying to catch up with almost 80 years of comics is just insane.

From Wikipedia:
Though many have been related, a definitive back-story has never been established for the Joker in the comics, and his real name has never been confirmed. He himself is confused as to what actually happened; as he says in The Killing Joke, "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! Ha ha ha!"

In The Dark Knight, Joker was perfect as a realistic Joker and as expected, his origins remain a total mystery. I like it that way.

Yeah, see, I actually checked Wikipedia BEFORE asking, and rather than quoting a small section, you need to take into account the WHOLE article.

You know ... the article which states that while his origin is not definitive, and he's had a couple, the prevailing origin story is falling into a vat of chemicals.

Now obviously that's not what happened in DKRreturns. DKRreturns, he was just a plain psychotic human. Just like Catwoman is a plain human, who's got some wicked safe cracking skills. THAT is the basis of her character, the cat obsession thing is a side story, so DKRises is a very accurate on-character portrayal for the tone of the movies they were going for.

I see what you mean.

Still, the DK Joker was instantly recognisable. You just look at him and it SCREAM "Joker".
I look at that Catwoman and... I just see a random girl.

Joker had that charisma and that foreboding aura around him that made him memorable. I personally find that Catwoman just "meh". I already forgot her face. Maybe if they had cast another actress to portray her.... at least it was not Kristen Stewart.

-Kanrabat- wrote:I look at that Catwoman and... I just see a random girl.

Because that's what she is. She's an ordinary human who's skillset is being able to break into things. She's no meta-human, but at the same time she's one of the most interesting of DC's characters.

If anything, DKRises is actually a very good representation of her modern character. A burglar that treads the line between moral and immoral.

Burn wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:I look at that Catwoman and... I just see a random girl.

Because that's what she is. She's an ordinary human who's skillset is being able to break into things. She's no meta-human, but at the same time she's one of the most interesting of DC's characters.

If anything, DKRises is actually a very good representation of her modern character. A burglar that treads the line between moral and immoral.

She was also not showing off as much skin as her suit can allow, while making gratuitous cat puns, so I'd say this is a better incarnation of the character.

I see your point. Kinda logical for a pro cat-burglar to look and sound ordinary. This help sneaking around and rob around unsuspected.

Now, for the next trilogy, I want a mix of the Nolan and Burton's movie style. I want a nice equelibrium between the gothic and kinda cartoony of Burton mixed with the realism of Nolan.
So that the next trilogy will be "comic" enough without being over the top. Kinda like the recent two Batman games actually.

I want to see Clayface, Solomon Grundy, Scarface, the Riddler, the Penguin, even Killer Croc. Oh yeah, and bring me some Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn.

EDIT:

Check out the Bum's review!

I just noticed something about this movie. I hope this doesn't really spoil anything, but here it is; how the hell does Bruce Wayne get from a freaking desert in India to Gotham ON FOOT no transportation, get new clothes, while the bridges are blown up, all within a couple of hours!? How? How is this possible? STUPID STUPID MOVIE!!! I didn't even notice this before! How could we have missed this!?

But I have devised a theory to explain this: CLAYFACE. That is all.

SlyTF1 wrote:I just noticed something about this movie. I hope this doesn't really spoil anything, but here it is; how the hell does Bruce Wayne get from a freaking desert in India to Gotham ON FOOT no transportation, get new clothes, while the bridges are blown up, all within a couple of hours!? How? How is this possible? STUPID STUPID MOVIE!!! I didn't even notice this before! How could we have missed this!?

But I have devised a theory to explain this: CLAYFACE. That is all.

Who said it was a couple hours? It's six months between the destruction of the stadium and the finale. he could have hitched a ride on, I dunno, a smuggler plane, like he did in the last movie. Also, who said it was India? They never really say, do they? Looks like it could be Spain, or Africa, or South America, or the Middle East. (Deshi Basara, the chant used in the Pit as well as the chant from Bane's theme, is Arabic Moroccan, in fact) Even getting past the bridges isn't that big of a deal; he's Batman, he has total mastery of stealth and infiltration, he can get past a simple military roadblock.

Basically, there is no plot hole there, just you making up details or forgetting you're talking about Batman.

And Clayface doesn't make any sense as a theory. What, did Bruce pay money he doesn't have to a villain who doesn't exist in this continuity (And who hates him in every other continuity) to impersonate and fight his battles for him, while he chills out in another country knowing that he's completely failed at saving Gotham to the point that he has to bribe a supervillain to do it for him?

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:I just noticed something about this movie. I hope this doesn't really spoil anything, but here it is; how the hell does Bruce Wayne get from a freaking desert in India to Gotham ON FOOT no transportation, get new clothes, while the bridges are blown up, all within a couple of hours!? How? How is this possible? STUPID STUPID MOVIE!!! I didn't even notice this before! How could we have missed this!?

But I have devised a theory to explain this: CLAYFACE. That is all.

Who said it was a couple hours? It's six months between the destruction of the stadium and the finale. he could have hitched a ride on, I dunno, a smuggler plane, like he did in the last movie. Also, who said it was India? They never really say, do they? Looks like it could be Spain, or Africa, or South America, or the Middle East. (Deshi Basara, the chant used in the Pit as well as the chant from Bane's theme, is Arabic Moroccan, in fact) Even getting past the bridges isn't that big of a deal; he's Batman, he has total mastery of stealth and infiltration, he can get past a simple military roadblock.

Basically, there is no plot hole there, just you making up details or forgetting you're talking about Batman.

And Clayface doesn't make any sense as a theory. What, did Bruce pay money he doesn't have to a villain who doesn't exist in this continuity (And who hates him in every other continuity) to impersonate and fight his battles for him, while he chills out in another country knowing that he's completely failed at saving Gotham to the point that he has to bribe a supervillain to do it for him?

They clearly say that the bomb will be activated in (I forget how many) hours, Before he makes it out of the prison.

I was just thinking Clayface just...did it to do it...

SlyTF1 wrote:They clearly say that the bomb will be activated in (I forget how many) hours, Before he makes it out of the prison.

When Bruce rescues Lucius and goes to get his suit, it's daytime. When he rescues Gordon, it's nighttime, and when the big battle begins, it's daytime again. I think you're forgetting more than how many hours they say the bomb has until it goes off.

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking Clayface just...did it to do it...

He doesn't even exist in this continuity.

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:They clearly say that the bomb will be activated in (I forget how many) hours, Before he makes it out of the prison.

When Bruce rescues Lucius and goes to get his suit, it's daytime. When he rescues Gordon, it's nighttime, and when the big battle begins, it's daytime again. I think you're forgetting more than how many hours they say the bomb has until it goes off.

SlyTF1 wrote:I was just thinking Clayface just...did it to do it...

He doesn't even exist in this continuity.

I just think they should have explained it a bit more, that's all.

And how do we know he doesn't exist? Twoface didn't exist in this continuity either until he was introduced. Neither did the Joker, or Bane, or Talia. You could argue that last one. Besides, I didn't even say that and expect it to be taken as an actual plausible theory anyway. It was just some crazy, off the wall, explanation I came up with in my head.

SlyTF1 wrote:I just think they should have explained it a bit more, that's all.

They already explained it: He's the goddamn Batman.

SlyTF1 wrote:And how do we know he doesn't exist? Twoface didn't exist in this continuity either until he was introduced. Neither did the Joker, or Bane, or Talia. You could argue that last one. Besides, I didn't even say that and expect it to be taken as an actual plausible theory anyway. It was just some crazy, off the wall, explanation I came up with in my head.

And you know what else? Clayface still doesn't exist in this continuity, and he never would have worked in it anyway.