ZombieKitten said:

I couldn't sit through he second because of the cringeworthy batman voice But I loved first one and enjoyed third one

That voice sucked and was so unnecessary. But you know he used it in the first one as well,not just in the second or third one.

TheBatman said:

After carefully analyzing all three movies, I must say... this is a very difficult question to answer.

I admit, I was a Nolan basher, when the first two movies were released. I didn't understand his overall vision and what he was trying to accomplish with the Batman character and these movies. I didn't like the 2 Bat suits, I didn't like the liberties he had taken with the origin story, I didn't understand the Rachel Dawes character and where she had come from...the movies intitially left me with more questions than answers.

Once the 'Dark Knight Rises' had been released, it was only then, that I came to understand what Nolan was trying to accomplish, and I gained a newfound respect for him as an incredible story teller and director. Taking elements from over 70 years of comic books, Nolan constructed a storyline using characters from these comics, and molded them to fit into reality. A huge undertaking for anyone, yet Nolan actually pulled it off. He took a cartoon drawing of Batman, and gave each element of his costume a reason and purpose, that could actually work in the real world. We've all seen the drawings of Batman leaping around with his cape flared out like batwings, but could only use our imaginations as to how that would work in reality. The idea of 'memory cloth' was very well conceived. Same with the bat gaunlets. Taking an artists bat-like costume and giving them real world usage, was also very ingenious. He really knocked it out of the park, not just making Batman believeable in real world situations, but highly functional as well.

Batman Begins: Excellent set up, taking cartoon/comic book characters and establishing them in the modern world. Taking elements from Batman: Year One and Batman: The Animated Series, it stands up very well as a single movie all on its own.

The Dark Knight: Another film good enough to stand up on it's own, Heath Ledger's take on the Clown Prince of Crime, blew ALL previous incarnations on TV or Film, completely out of the water! The new costume was a major improvement, even though I like the original costume as well.

The Dark Knight Rises: A very good, third act! It really delves into how far Bruce Wayne was willing to go, to protect Gotham City. It completes the storyline that 'Begins' had started, with trying to finish Ras Al Ghul's destiny. I for one, was so enthralled in the story, and probably one of the few to be surprised that Miranda Tate, was actually Talia Al Ghul. Touching back to the first movie, with making us think Ducard was not Ras. Anne Hathaway (like Heath), made ALL previous incarnations of Selina Kyle on TV or Film, completely obsolete. It really was like watching the Animated Series version of Selina Kyle, come to life.

Again, tough decision. If I had to choose, I think I would go with The Dark Knight.

In the end, I love all 3 movies as a whole. Like he made his own "Elseworld's" Graphic Novel across 3 films. That covered Batman's real story from childhood, to sacrificing his life to save the city, only to find out he survived and lived happily ever after. A great trilogy, that I never get tired of watching. I have been converted from a Nolan hater, to having to give him a standing ovation for this great accomplishment on film. And Christian Bale made an excellent Bruce Wayne/Batman.

So much so, that it inspired this drawing by yours truly:

(The watermark serves, only to protect the original, as I am selling prints, without my name over the whole image.)

That´s a great drawing ( I think you have TWO accounts here on the org, right? ).

As a longtime Batman fan, I really enjoyed reading your wellwritten post, and I have to check out that "Elseworlds" graphic novel now, and the animated series. I never really cared much about the animated series because I assumed it to be too childish, or rather, that it was made for a very young audience but reading your post got me curious about it.

What part of "Dark Knight Rises" made you doubt that Ducard was Ras? I think it was pretty clear that he was Ras and that his daughter wanted to take revenge. Like I said above, I didn´t really like that Talia intended to kill him, unlike in the graphic novels where she was one of the few long time love interests of Bruce Wayne.

Totally agree with you about Anne Hathaway´s performance as Selina Kyle. I wish they would´ve gone into more details regarding her story though.

KoolEaze said:

That´s a great drawing ( I think you have TWO accounts here on the org, right? ).

Thank you and yes, I have more than one account. Don't we all?

KoolEaze said:

What part of "Dark Knight Rises" made you doubt that Ducard was Ras? .

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, or I didn't type it correctly. I was referring to the nod to first movie in 'Dark Knight Rises,' by the Miranda really being Talia deception, similar to the "cheap parlor tricks" of Ducard being Ras. Of course I knew Ducard was Ras...once he revealed himself at the party in 'Begins.'

KoolEaze said:

and I have to check out that "Elseworlds" graphic novel now

There actually isn't one. For me to fully appreciate the Nolan films as a whole, I had to view it like an "Elseworlds" graphic novel, only on film. I have several Elseworld's comics, where the stories didn't fit any Batman comicbook, timeline continuity. Looking at the movies with that perspective helped me to appreciate this trilogy even more than I originally did.

KoolEaze said:

I never really cared much about the animated series because I assumed it to be too childish, or rather, that it was made for a very young audience but reading your post got me curious about it.

As a "longtime Batman fan," you need to do yourself a favor. I understand it being a Saturday morning cartoon, where you would think it was childish, but they really focused on making it as dark as they could, even though it was aimed at kids. Some of this darkness may have went over younger viewers head's, but as an adult, I enjoyed this series more than most of the comics I was reading. I own the DVD set of all 109 episodes, as well as the animated movies during it's run (Mask of the Phantasm, Sub Zero, Superman/Batman, Mystery of the Batwoman ). My favorite season being: The New Batman Adventures or the last 24 episodes of the whole series. Great stories and artwork throughout!!!

I've only read a certain amount of Batman comics in my life and even though I know the "League of Shadows" came from the comics, the animated series did a great job of exploring Bruce Wayne's years studying with the league. This is where I noticed similarities that Nolan uses in 'Begins.'

KoolEaze said:

ZombieKitten said:

I couldn't sit through he second because of the cringeworthy batman voice But I loved first one and enjoyed third one

That voice sucked and was so unnecessary. But you know he used it in the first one as well,not just in the second or third one.

but for some reason it didn't bother me so much in the other 2. Maybe he talked more?

zombie - i agree with you - the second one drove me nutso - so bad i couldnt understand him ... i was frustrated and then about a week later i remember reading about it ... from a critic who was flabbergasted by the voice ...

i think it was heightened in the second one . never heard anything about it in the first one or the third one ...

Begins. I really think this is the best movie, the story works best, the look - it just works. I like the other two as well but I think he went much to Hollywood on those, especially the last one. I didn't mind the big action scenes but the for example the kissing scene with Batman and Catwoman was just ridiculous.

i am totally with ya Phish ...

no charactor development of bane or catwoman ...

silly realy ... and i thought it was very predictable - about Raj's daughter or whatever ...

The Dark Knight (AKA The one with Heath Ledger, the best Joker ever).

ahh but there is an argument to be made .

Any body can play the joker . Psychotic . Crazay .

When Jack Nicholson did it , I remember everyone saying "nobody can do it better" etc ...

ColAngus said:

When Jack Nicholson did it , I remember everyone saying "nobody can do it better" etc ...

Argument?

I don't think so. There is no argument. Jack Nicholson was the worse actor to ever portray the Joker! He was already old and out of shape, when he took on the role, and his performance is unwatchable at times. He couldn't even hold a candle to Cesar Romero!!!

Nope, can't watch him as Joker. Heath took the role to a whole new level, that Nicholson couldn't reach on his best day!

TheBatman said:

ColAngus said:

When Jack Nicholson did it , I remember everyone saying "nobody can do it better" etc ...

Argument?

I don't think so. There is no argument. Jack Nicholson was the worse actor to ever portray the Joker! He was already old and out of shape, when he took on the role, and his performance is unwatchable at times. He couldn't even hold a candle to Cesar Romero!!!

Nope, can't watch him as Joker. Heath took the role to a whole new level, that Nicholson couldn't reach on his best day!

Well, glad I´m not the only one who wasn´t really impressed with Nicholson´s performance (though I don´t dislike his interpretation of the Joker as much as you do).

What exactly did you dislike? For me, it was the lack of craziness, the way he moved and I think he wasn´t "evil" enough...and you´re so on point regarding the physical aspects.

Heath did a great job and I totally forgot about Cesar Romero. I loved the camp Batman of the 1960 when I was a kid but later I started to hate it because that image somehow stuck and turned Batman into some sort of cartoonish parody (sure, he WAS cartoonish to begin with....but still....I love the darker versions of Batman).

Anyway, Cesar Romero did a great job and was in my opinion the most memorable thing about that 1960s series.

And I loved all the colors and the gadgets of that version of Batman.

KoolEaze said:

What exactly did you dislike?

To me, he came off as very corny. He couldn't convey any reasoning for what the Joker was doing. Now, that could have been more of a director's mistake or the writer's mistake, but it made him come off campier than the 60's TV show.

I think Nicholson is a great actor (when he wants to be: "As Good As It Gets"), but when he plays "crazy," i.e. Cuckoo's Nest and Shining, he's the same character. No depth.

Just my humble opinion.

___________________

I know I am in the minority here, but I did not like the Burton films. As hard as I try to like them, I cringe every time I see them on TV anymore. Decent films at the time (cause it's all we had), but they do not stand up well today. Just about every Tim Burton movie I've seen is the same thing. Instead of making Batman look like the World's Greatest Detective, Burton made him look like Edward Scissorhands in a Bat suit. A very STIFF Bat suit at that!

KoolEaze said:

TheBatman said:

Argument?

I don't think so. There is no argument. Jack Nicholson was the worse actor to ever portray the Joker! He was already old and out of shape, when he took on the role, and his performance is unwatchable at times. He couldn't even hold a candle to Cesar Romero!!!

Nope, can't watch him as Joker. Heath took the role to a whole new level, that Nicholson couldn't reach on his best day!

Well, glad I´m not the only one who wasn´t really impressed with Nicholson´s performance (though I don´t dislike his interpretation of the Joker as much as you do).

What exactly did you dislike? For me, it was the lack of craziness, the way he moved and I think he wasn´t "evil" enough...and you´re so on point regarding the physical aspects.

Heath did a great job and I totally forgot about Cesar Romero. I loved the camp Batman of the 1960 when I was a kid but later I started to hate it because that image somehow stuck and turned Batman into some sort of cartoonish parody (sure, he WAS cartoonish to begin with....but still....I love the darker versions of Batman).

Anyway, Cesar Romero did a great job and was in my opinion the most memorable thing about that 1960s series.

And I loved all the colors and the gadgets of that version of Batman.

In my opinion Nicholson's Joker was a more dangerous/disturbing version of Romero's Joker (basically a crazy (but cheerful) gangster dressed up as a clown)

Ledger (and Nolan) truly reinvented the character for the 21st century

the best Joker is still, in my opinion, the early-40s version of the original Bob Kane comics

well - i differ slightly ... in that many did like Nicholson's portrayal .

First review i pulled up :

Actually, there's not much character development where The Joker is concerned, either, but Jack Nicholson's over-the-top performance is so enjoyable that it hardly matters. This isn't great acting on Nicholson's part, but it is a lot of fun to watch.

Reelthoughts -

A movie review by James Berardinelli

I think your problem with Nicholsons portrayal though is more with the writing ... for Nolans film - the Joker was more like the crazay terrorist .. .