helloimustbegoing said:You're right, although I think you're both way off. The average viewer saw this movie once, thought it was good or bad, and probably didn't think about it again until it came on HBO last week. It's only we nerds that get so obsessive about *****TCTTS said:
Ulrich must have the same machine, so you might as well call him out too.
Speaking purely to the Star Wars side of it -- I've always found that the average viewer enjoyed ALL the Star Wars movies. None of them are straight up bad, per se.Ulrich said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
People who bash on the Star Wars prequels clearly don't understand and appreciate the intricate storylines and themes that George Lucas carefully interweaved throughout the main saga.
(I'm only half joking.)
We've gotten way off topic but this stuff is interesting to me.
Who is the audience? In this thread we have people who range from not even paying that much attention, to watched it once with normal attention, to a professional who watched it multiple times. If the really intense viewer thinks it makes sense, but the middle-of-the-road viewer who watches it once is confused, did the filmmaker do his or her job? Thinking of the Star Wars example which is a little less controversial. I don't think filmmakers need to craft their movies to the viewer who really just wants to make fun of the movie, but what about the average viewer?
YouBet said:Woah, woah.....WOAH.Ulrich said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
People who bash on the Star Wars prequels clearly don't understand and appreciate the intricate storylines and themes that George Lucas carefully interweaved throughout the main saga.
(I'm only half joking.)
We've gotten way off topic but this stuff is interesting to me.
Who is the audience? In this thread we have people who range from not even paying that much attention, to watched it once with normal attention, to a professional who watched it multiple times. If the really intense viewer thinks it makes sense, but the middle-of-the-road viewer who watches it once is confused, did the filmmaker do his or her job? Thinking of the Star Wars example which is a little less controversial. I don't think filmmakers need to craft their movies to the viewer who really just wants to make fun of the movie, but what about the average viewer?
Have you not been on our Star Wars threads? Would you like to have a discussion on the merits of The Last Jedi and it's alignment or lack thereof to an overarching story arc, or would you like to have a nature vs nurture argument on Rey's force powers?
Because, buddy, you are playing with force lightening if you think Star Wars isn't controversial.
Ulrich said:
I'm trying really hard not to reciprocate some of the attitude in here but it's pretty difficult.
I was thinking about this earlier today. I think that Batman actually lost here, and did nothing to really help the City of Gotham in this movie. Outside of himself, was there a single victim of the Riddler that he saved? The only reason the mayor isn't dead is because one of The Riddler's goons is a terrible shot. Even though Batman did stop the shooters in the Garden, it's likely far more died from the flood once the water broke through. Plus, tens of thousands more would have drowned across the city. Possibly hundreds of thousands. Batman didn't even catch The Riddler. He basically gave himself up.rhutton125 said:
It's also interesting that while Batman solves all the riddles, he's constantly catching up to Riddler as people get killed. Not a great showing by the World's Greatest Detective.
I suppose everything went according to Riddler's plan except for Batman joining him
helloimustbegoing said:Ulrich said:
I'm trying really hard not to reciprocate some of the attitude in here but it's pretty difficult.
Please report to President Internet's office to receive your Medal of Message Board Comment Restraint.
AustinAg2K said:I was thinking about this earlier today. I think that Batman actually lost here, and did nothing to really help the City of Gotham in this movie. Outside of himself, was there a single victim of the Riddler that he saved? The only reason the mayor isn't dead is because one of The Riddler's goons is a terrible shot. Even though Batman did stop the shooters in the Garden, it's likely far more died from the flood once the water broke through. Plus, tens of thousands more would have drowned across the city. Possibly hundreds of thousands. Batman didn't even catch The Riddler. He basically gave himself up.rhutton125 said:
It's also interesting that while Batman solves all the riddles, he's constantly catching up to Riddler as people get killed. Not a great showing by the World's Greatest Detective.
I suppose everything went according to Riddler's plan except for Batman joining him
Also, now all of GPD knows Batman's real identity, right? I find it unlikely they don't record inmate visitations. That's pretty much standard process now days. Someone will review that tape and find out Batman's identity.
I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe it was already discussed, but The Riddler won, right?
Sea Speed said:helloimustbegoing said:Ulrich said:
I'm trying really hard not to reciprocate some of the attitude in here but it's pretty difficult.
Please report to President Internet's office to receive your Medal of Message Board Comment Restraint.
Considering the people on the opposing side of his argument are saying that he and others are one step away from doxxing the f13 regulars, id say he should be commended and not mocked or derided, such as you are doing, considering the other sides opinion of the other.
This is basically the entire point of the third act. Being a force of Vengeance does nothing to help protect the people of Gotham. At best he is meting out a form of justice for those victims who might not get any in a city like Gotham with as much low level street crime and high level corruption in the justice system.AustinAg2K said:I was thinking about this earlier today. I think that Batman actually lost here, and did nothing to really help the City of Gotham in this movie. Outside of himself, was there a single victim of the Riddler that he saved? The only reason the mayor isn't dead is because one of The Riddler's goons is a terrible shot. Even though Batman did stop the shooters in the Garden, it's likely far more died from the flood once the water broke through. Plus, tens of thousands more would have drowned across the city. Possibly hundreds of thousands. Batman didn't even catch The Riddler. He basically gave himself up.rhutton125 said:
It's also interesting that while Batman solves all the riddles, he's constantly catching up to Riddler as people get killed. Not a great showing by the World's Greatest Detective.
I suppose everything went according to Riddler's plan except for Batman joining him
Sea Speed said:
Someone said they were one step away from doxxing you and your reply was "100%" and when challenged, you said people have done worse for less on here. There was nothing thst stood out is it clearly being a joke.
Its ****ing batman, dude.
TCTTS said:AustinAg2K said:I was thinking about this earlier today. I think that Batman actually lost here, and did nothing to really help the City of Gotham in this movie. Outside of himself, was there a single victim of the Riddler that he saved? The only reason the mayor isn't dead is because one of The Riddler's goons is a terrible shot. Even though Batman did stop the shooters in the Garden, it's likely far more died from the flood once the water broke through. Plus, tens of thousands more would have drowned across the city. Possibly hundreds of thousands. Batman didn't even catch The Riddler. He basically gave himself up.rhutton125 said:
It's also interesting that while Batman solves all the riddles, he's constantly catching up to Riddler as people get killed. Not a great showing by the World's Greatest Detective.
I suppose everything went according to Riddler's plan except for Batman joining him
Also, now all of GPD knows Batman's real identity, right? I find it unlikely they don't record inmate visitations. That's pretty much standard process now days. Someone will review that tape and find out Batman's identity.
I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe it was already discussed, but The Riddler won, right?
That's basically the point, though. Bruce was going about his goal all wrong. He wasn't really helping anyone, only serving himself and trying to ease his own pain via "vengeance." It wasn't until one of the Riddler's goons spat his own vengeance line back at him that he realized what he needed to be - hope, not vengeance. Then, literally seconds after he has that epiphany, he saves a sh*t ton of people from being electrocuted, leads them all to safety, etc.
It really is baffling to me how many people don't understand that this is a YEAR TWO movie. Batman isn't fully formed yet, and Bruce especially isn't either. He's going to make mistakes. He's going to get it wrong. That's WHY this movie exists - to see him finally take that first step toward doing this whole superhero thing the right way.
Also, no, no one in the GDP has any idea of his real identity. We've had pages of discussion about this, but essentially, the Riddler wasn't outright naming Batman as Bruce Wayne during their interrogation. He was basically saying "We almost got him," referring to Bruce as a third party, not Batman's true identity.
When did I say it was a negative? I was only pointing out The Riddler won. I thought this thread was meant for discussion of the movie. You might want to take a break from this thread, as you seem to be taking any comment that isn't a glowing review as a personal attack.TCTTS said:
And?
I don't understand why any of this is a negative, story-wise?
That's his character arc. Selfish, ineffective vigilante to selfless, effective hero. Again, that's literally the point of the entire movie.
And it's not like he didn't do a bunch of cool sh*t along the way. He beat up a ton of bad guys, caught the Penguin via an incredible car chase, dove off a building, showed his chops as a detective, etc.
Regardless, I don't understand why we need Batman to be a super effective hero from the jump? Instead, it's FAR more interesting to me to see him essentially f/ck up for an entire movie, only to finally realize/understand what it is to be a hero by the end. We have at least two more movies to see him be the super-effective Batman we know and love.
Similarly, Gotham is in a much more interesting place going into the sequel as well. Like Catwoman said, in the wake of the flood/corruption exposure, there's going to a power a grab. And I'd MUCH rather see Batman have to deal with that, than have him save the day in tidy fashion in this movie, only for the filmmakers to have to reset everything at the beginning of the next movie. As-is, Gotham post-flood is now ripe for much more interesting drama.
Here is my original post:TCTTS said:
You were pointing all that out in contrarian fashion. As if a rebuttal/complaint, hence your use of "but." I don't know how anyone could interpret your posts any other way.
Also, you're being just as consistent in trying to make your points as I am, and no where did I imply any of your post was any kind of a personal attack. You're projection quite a bit there.
What?! Did you even watch the movie? If Batman doesn't exist, then the Riddler doesn't exist. The Riddler was inspired by Batman. His plan doesn't come to fruition without Batman, because he doesn't get Falcone. He literally tells Batman that they did it together, and that he could never have gotten to Falcone because he is not as physical as the Batman.AustinAg2K said:
I get that it's a year two Batman, but still, he did nothing right. It wasn't that he made mistakes along the way, but in the end got the bad guy. The bad guy gave himself up.
Best case scenario, Batman had zero impact on this story. If Batman doesn't exist, then The Riddler still kills everyone he intends to, and blows up the sea walls, and tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people die. All the shooters Batman stopped in the Garden was actually pretty pointless, because everyone was going to drown anyways.
Worst case scenario, Batman directly caused the deaths of all of those people because either The Riddler doesn't exist without him, or GCP can't figure out the riddles and The Riddler doesn't blow anything up, because he's waiting for someone at GCP who is good enough to play with.
Regardless of it being Batman's second year on the job, he did a really terrible job at saving people/the city. Look at it this way. If you hire someone to run your nuclear reactor, and they cause a nuclear meltdown and kill thousands of people, are you just going to say, "Well, he's new, so it's no big deal."
Where did I say it made it a bad story? I was just pointing out, that as a super hero, Batman did a really bad job, and arguably killed hundreds of thousands of people. Why can't this be discussed?DallasTeleAg said:What?! Did you even watch the movie? If Batman doesn't exist, then the Riddler doesn't exist. The Riddler was inspired by Batman. His plan doesn't come to fruition without Batman, because he doesn't get Falcone. He literally tells Batman that they did it together, and that he could never have gotten to Falcone because he is not as physical as the Batman.AustinAg2K said:
I get that it's a year two Batman, but still, he did nothing right. It wasn't that he made mistakes along the way, but in the end got the bad guy. The bad guy gave himself up.
Best case scenario, Batman had zero impact on this story. If Batman doesn't exist, then The Riddler still kills everyone he intends to, and blows up the sea walls, and tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people die. All the shooters Batman stopped in the Garden was actually pretty pointless, because everyone was going to drown anyways.
Worst case scenario, Batman directly caused the deaths of all of those people because either The Riddler doesn't exist without him, or GCP can't figure out the riddles and The Riddler doesn't blow anything up, because he's waiting for someone at GCP who is good enough to play with.
Regardless of it being Batman's second year on the job, he did a really terrible job at saving people/the city. Look at it this way. If you hire someone to run your nuclear reactor, and they cause a nuclear meltdown and kill thousands of people, are you just going to say, "Well, he's new, so it's no big deal."
And yes, the Batman failed to figure out the Riddler's plan. That's literally part of the story and one of the things that leads him to his epiphany, at the end. I don't understand how that makes the story bad. He figured out the riddles along the way, and fell right into the Riddler's plan... exactly? That's the freaking story.
I feel like so many posters on this thread just have a certain idea of what the Batman is supposed to be or do, and if he doesn't conform to that exact idea, you have to call it out as a flaw in the movie.
AustinAg2K said:Where did I say it made it a bad story? I was just pointing out, that as a super hero, Batman did a really bad job, and arguably killed hundreds of thousands of people. Why can't this be discussed?DallasTeleAg said:What?! Did you even watch the movie? If Batman doesn't exist, then the Riddler doesn't exist. The Riddler was inspired by Batman. His plan doesn't come to fruition without Batman, because he doesn't get Falcone. He literally tells Batman that they did it together, and that he could never have gotten to Falcone because he is not as physical as the Batman.AustinAg2K said:
I get that it's a year two Batman, but still, he did nothing right. It wasn't that he made mistakes along the way, but in the end got the bad guy. The bad guy gave himself up.
Best case scenario, Batman had zero impact on this story. If Batman doesn't exist, then The Riddler still kills everyone he intends to, and blows up the sea walls, and tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people die. All the shooters Batman stopped in the Garden was actually pretty pointless, because everyone was going to drown anyways.
Worst case scenario, Batman directly caused the deaths of all of those people because either The Riddler doesn't exist without him, or GCP can't figure out the riddles and The Riddler doesn't blow anything up, because he's waiting for someone at GCP who is good enough to play with.
Regardless of it being Batman's second year on the job, he did a really terrible job at saving people/the city. Look at it this way. If you hire someone to run your nuclear reactor, and they cause a nuclear meltdown and kill thousands of people, are you just going to say, "Well, he's new, so it's no big deal."
And yes, the Batman failed to figure out the Riddler's plan. That's literally part of the story and one of the things that leads him to his epiphany, at the end. I don't understand how that makes the story bad. He figured out the riddles along the way, and fell right into the Riddler's plan... exactly? That's the freaking story.
I feel like so many posters on this thread just have a certain idea of what the Batman is supposed to be or do, and if he doesn't conform to that exact idea, you have to call it out as a flaw in the movie.
I guess I'll find another place to discuss the movie, because it seems like there is some baggage within this thread.
FL_Ag1998 said:
Personally I loved seeing this Batman "work-in-progress" film. This was like a film staged in between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. He's out fighting crime sure, but for the most part all he really knows how to do yet is just kick a**. He's using his smarts but hasn't reached "World's Greatest Detective" level yet. He can use clues to hunt down a serial killer but he hasn't learned how to get inside the mind of a serial killer yet. That's why I loved the cut scene with him interviewing the Joker. He still needs the Joker's insight into a psychopath. And last but not least, unlike the criminals he'll hunt down, he hasn't learned how to use both sides of his split personality - Batman and Bruce Wayne. Batman has always been just a hair's breadth from being like the villians he hunts. This movie was the start of him realizing not just how he's different from them but how he needs to be different from them.
These "beginning" hero stories are always more interesting to me than the fully formed hero story.... Superman coming to the realization why he needs to put on the Cape and can't hide his superpowers anymore....Thor coming to love humans and become more than just an arrogant God...Spiderman realizing that with great power comes great responsibility.
Pointed out earlier. He's not a superhero yet. He's a street level vigilante in year 2 of his revenge experiment. We should expect him to fail.AustinAg2K said:Where did I say it made it a bad story? I was just pointing out, that as a super hero, Batman did a really bad job, and arguably killed hundreds of thousands of people. Why can't this be discussed?DallasTeleAg said:What?! Did you even watch the movie? If Batman doesn't exist, then the Riddler doesn't exist. The Riddler was inspired by Batman. His plan doesn't come to fruition without Batman, because he doesn't get Falcone. He literally tells Batman that they did it together, and that he could never have gotten to Falcone because he is not as physical as the Batman.AustinAg2K said:
I get that it's a year two Batman, but still, he did nothing right. It wasn't that he made mistakes along the way, but in the end got the bad guy. The bad guy gave himself up.
Best case scenario, Batman had zero impact on this story. If Batman doesn't exist, then The Riddler still kills everyone he intends to, and blows up the sea walls, and tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people die. All the shooters Batman stopped in the Garden was actually pretty pointless, because everyone was going to drown anyways.
Worst case scenario, Batman directly caused the deaths of all of those people because either The Riddler doesn't exist without him, or GCP can't figure out the riddles and The Riddler doesn't blow anything up, because he's waiting for someone at GCP who is good enough to play with.
Regardless of it being Batman's second year on the job, he did a really terrible job at saving people/the city. Look at it this way. If you hire someone to run your nuclear reactor, and they cause a nuclear meltdown and kill thousands of people, are you just going to say, "Well, he's new, so it's no big deal."
And yes, the Batman failed to figure out the Riddler's plan. That's literally part of the story and one of the things that leads him to his epiphany, at the end. I don't understand how that makes the story bad. He figured out the riddles along the way, and fell right into the Riddler's plan... exactly? That's the freaking story.
I feel like so many posters on this thread just have a certain idea of what the Batman is supposed to be or do, and if he doesn't conform to that exact idea, you have to call it out as a flaw in the movie.
I guess I'll find another place to discuss the movie, because it seems like there is some baggage within this thread.
